Letter: Why I’m voting for an appointed DeKalb city clerk

To the Editor:

I am going to vote for making the city clerk an appointed staff position rather than an elected one. I have three reasons for doing so.

First, the position of clerk is a technical, clerical one, taking minutes of meetings, maintaining records, managing petitions for candidates and responding to requests for documents. While policy-making positions should be elected, the clerk’s position does not entail policy-making. The elected officials, the mayor and Council, are responsible for policy making as well as supervising staff, not the clerk.

Second, in recent years, the performance of the elected clerks has been disappointing, to say the least. Some failed to do the job or left it suddenly, with work undone. Some interpreted their responsibilities beyond those assigned to a city clerk, causing discomfort among city staff.

If the position is changed to that of an appointed staff person, the City Council can set minimum standards for experience and competence and can dismiss the person for failure to do the job in a satisfactory way. It is near impossible to enforce such standards on elected officials.

Third, having a clerk who is an appointed staff person provides continuity as well as an historical memory, an important advantage for a person responsible for records.

An elected official, by contrast, can change with every election.

Herb Rubin

DeKalb