Sawyer's Charter Bill Introduced In Legislature

SAWYER'S CHARTER BILL INTRODUCED IN LEGISLATURE

Is It Ripper Legislation By which 14 Sections Are to be Amended

Previous Experiences Naturally Make People Suspicious of Bills on Which They Are Not Consulted

The citizens of Ann Arbor will be obliged to keep close tabs on City Attorney Sawyer if the charter of the city of Ann Arbor is not amended whether the citizens want it or not. He has insisted on bonding the city without permitting the taxpayers to vote on the question, while acknowledging that if they were allowed to do so they would vote the bonds down.

The latest attempt in this line is the introduction in the house at Lansing of a bill bearing the following title:

House bill No. 590, entitled

A bill to amend Sections 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 43, 46, 61, 52, 171, 172, 177, 181 and 186 of an act, entitled "An Act to reincorporate the City of Ann Arbor, revise the charter of said city and repeal all conflicting acts relating thereto," being Act No. 331 of the Local Acts of Michigan of 1889, approved March 15, 1889, as amended by Act No. 262 of the Local Acts of 1891, approved March 28, 1891, as amended by Act 282 of the Local Acts of 1891, approved April 10, 1891, as amended by Act No. 368 of the Local Acts of 1893, approved April 27, 1893, as amended by Act No. 336 of the Local Acts of 1895, approved March 15, 1895, as amended by Act No. 467 of the Local Acts of 1897, approved June 2, 1897.

The bill was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the Committee on City Corporations.

It will be remembered that the council some time ago took up the question of charter changes and Mr. Sawyer presented a long list of them, as drafted by his facile pen. A general discussion ensued, many changes were suggested and the whole matter was finally referred back to a committee to report. No further action has been taken by the council. The citizens of the city have not been consulted by here bobs up a bill at Lansing which will well bear watching.

No changes should be made in a charter without the will of the people being ascertained. The constitution of the state ought really to be changed so that any charter changes must first be voted by the people. No change can be made in a state constitution without a vote of the people. Why should they be in a city charter?

As to the bill introduced at Lansing, we have no particulars as to its details. The changes desired in the first draft of the bill were many of them very undesirable in their nature and entirely out of harmony with the theory on which the charter was constructed. But certainly the people know nothing of what it is now proposed to do. There has been so much of an effort to force them to do what one or two individuals think they ought to do without consulting them that the people are quite naturally suspicious of any proposed changes on which they are not fully informed.

If the legislators wish to please the people of Ann Arbor, they will see to it that their will be first ascertained before any bills affecting the city are passed.

This bill amends vital sections of the charter. It amends most of the checks on extravagant expenses, for instance. But what the scope of the amendments are cannot of course be told by the title.

If the common council should be asked to endorse this bill, which has been introduced without their endorsement, they should insist on a meeting of citizens that the matters in which the citizens are as much interested as the city officials may be discussed and their views ascertained.

There should be no ripper legislation for Ann Arbor.