Charter government has been adopted by many municipalities across the United States, but an equal number have chosen not to adopt a charter.

Adoption of charter government is not without its disadvantages, and this is particularly true in the case here in Warren. Let me outline some of the most significant disadvantages of charter government.

A huge disadvantage of charter government is that it potentially creates a city where the voters will have less representation. Right now, there is one city council person representing approximately 4,000 Warren citizens. The group driving charter government has said at its meetings the ideal council size is 5 members. That would result in one council person for every 8,000 Warren citizens. Council members would be less able to respond to citizens’ concerns.

Charter government could take your right to vote for mayor away, and that decision would be made by city council.

Charter government could take your right to vote for city auditor away, and that decision would be made by city council.

Charter government could take your right to vote for city treasurer away, and that decision would be made by city council.

Charter government could take your right to vote for city law director away, and that decision would be made by city council.

With a charter government you will have less voice in city staffing. Under a charter, city council-hired mayor, auditor, treasurer and law director cannot be voted out of office. They don’t even have to be citizens of Warren. Under a charter, city council could gain significant additional powers. Often charters increase the term of council members from 2 years to 4 years, making it more difficult to get rid of unfavorable council members.

Another significant disadvantage of charter government for Warren is the potential for increased costs. Eliminating the city treasurer, as has been proposed by the group pushing this, could technically save that salary. But eliminating the mayor’s position and hiring a city manager could easily add $100,000 to the budget.

Municipal League experts have said that a charter could be written that will look exactly like the government we have today. My question, if that’s the case, why change? The cost alone (the entire process to bring a charter to a vote could cost between $200,000 and $400,000) is enough reason to vote no. And that assumes the charter passes on the first try. Some communities have voted two and three times on a charter. Would each election cost $200,000? That money must come from somewhere. Which department should have layoffs to pay for this charter process?

A related disadvantage of charter government is the potential for a lack of transparency and accountability. Under a charter government system, the local government often is granted a great deal of discretion in terms of how it operates and makes decisions. This can make it more difficult for residents to hold appointed officials accountable for their actions. In Warren, this could lead to a situation where residents feel they are not being heard or that their concerns are being ignored by their appointed officials. Right now, if you don’t like an elected official, you can vote him or her out of office. If these officials are appointed by council, voters would lose that right.

Another disadvantage of charter government for Warren is the potential for nonpartisan council elections. The commission could decide that no council candidate would run as a Republican or Democrat. Like all of you, I always want to know the party with which a candidate is affiliated.

A final disadvantage of charter government for Warren is potential for legal challenges and conflicts. Charter governments often have more leeway in terms of the laws and regulations that they must follow than traditional forms of government. This can make it more difficult for residents to challenge decisions made by the local government, which could ultimately lead to costly legal battles and conflicts. Other Trumbull County charter governments are always in the news with costly lawsuits and disagreements over decisions made by city council. In Warren, this could lead to a situation where residents feel that their voices are not being heard or that they are being shut out of the decision-making process.

In conclusion, it is important to consider potential disadvantages when deciding whether to adopt this form of government. In Warren, disadvantages of charter government outweigh benefits, particularly in terms of high cost of the process, decreased access to public officials, loss of voting rights and concentration of power in city council. We would lose important checks and balances within the branches of city government.

Vote “no” — no charter, no commission.

Greg Greathouse is Warren’s 3rd Ward councilman.