Norfolk retreats on petition change

That Norfolk's government considered making it more difficult to overturn City Council decisions or recall elected officials raises questions about the judgment in City Hall. That such substantial changes appeared on the City Council's docket without sufficient public notice or discussion inspires doubts about intentions and oversight.

Early this week, word started circulating that the council was eyeing edits to the City Charter that would double the minimum number of signatures needed on a petition initiative.

The changes - which would have required General Assembly blessing - also would have changed the process for recalling an elected official. Current rules allow for a recall election if a petition attracts enough signatures. Under the proposed changes, a petition would prompt a judicial review. Only a judge could order a member of the City Council removed, and only for malfeasance.

These changes to city code might seem minor were it not for the fact that citizens used petition drives in two major efforts to overturn decisions on development in Bay Oaks Park and Highland Park.

Under the proposed rules, both efforts, which caused considerable embarrassment and frustration in City Hall, would have failed. Neither gathered more than 6,000 signatures; under the charter change, citizens would have to get at least 8,000, double the current requirement.

Veterans of those campaigns rightfully saw the proposed changes as an end run around their rights to veto bad decisions and went to Tuesday's council meeting to complain.

"A politician who would vote to limit the power of the people is a politician who has lost his way," Norfolk resident Darren Willis said.

The council rejected the changes, and officials apologized.

The genesis of the proposal seems to be Councilman Randy Wright's contention, a month ago, that the threshold for signatures is too low. How that got from Wright's mouth to the City Council docket is something city officials should be working to find out.

"It came to us more quickly than it should have, and we regret that," Mayor Paul Fraim said. "I understand why the community is upset."

Fraim and his colleagues should be upset, as well. And embarrassed that they came even this close to making it harder for citizens to make their frustrated voices heard.