By JOHN C. HOPKINS and SUSAN O’LEARY

We urge you to vote for the proposed changes to the Los Alamos Charter.    

We are writing as private citizens though one of us (Hopkins) was chair of the original Charter Review Committee (CRC1) and the other (O’Leary) was chair of the Utilities Charter Review Committee (CRC2).

We will focus primarily on the second of the two ballot questions. This is an important question since it involves changes to Article V, the utilities section of the Los Alamos County Charter. The most comprehensive change recommended in ballot #2 is a rewrite of the section to modernize language and reorganize information into more cogent and related parts. Additionally, several other changes are recommended to address accountability issues.

The County Utility Department provides essential services to everyone in Los Alamos and has assets worth hundreds of millions of dollars in replacement value. Although the Utility Department is wholly owned by the County and its citizens, surprisingly it does not report into the County Administrator’s Office or even the County’s elected body, the County Council. Its policy and management is directed by the Board of Public Utilities (BPU), a group of community volunteers appointed by the Council. 

While the BPU exercises authority over the department by making policy and operating decisions, it does not have ultimate responsibility for the performance of the department. Instead, like every other County operation, the County Council and tax payers have ultimate responsibility for the actions of the Utility Department.  However, due to the current structure defined in Article V, the County Council lacks the authority to direct the BPU and the Utility Department should that become necessary.

While the current structure has benefits that are retained and even strengthened by the proposed changes, it is a complicated organizational structure that requires strong communication between BPU and the Council in order to be effective. To date, citizens and utility customers have depended on the good will of the people involved to resolve hard issues in ways that benefit the entire community. There is no mechanism today in Article V for resolving a management or policy impasse between the BPU and the Council. 

This is particularly troubling because of the importance of utility services to residents and businesses, including LANL; and due to the asset value of the utilities operations. Should the personalities involved decide one day not to cooperate on an issue of importance, it is the citizens and businesses of this community that will suffer.  It is the role of the Charter, through its ratification by citizen vote, to clarify things of this nature so that citizens can be assured that its government will operate effectively. 

Clearly, authority and responsibility must be joined to answer the question: Who is ultimately in charge? Who is accountable? It should be the Council, which is the highest elected body and is answerable to the voters. 

Two Charter Review Committees examined several alternatives to join responsibility and authority. CRC1, which initially identified the issue, felt that the simplest solution was to give Council ultimate authority over the membership of the BPU.

CRC2 was established specifically to address accountability, and two other issues of Article V. CRC2 recognized the need for accountability and the rationale for joining responsibility and authority. CRC1 and CRC2 both proposed that Council have the ultimate authority to remove BPU members by a supermajority vote.

In addition, CRC2 concluded that improved communication and conflict resolution procedures should be incorporated into the charter and would do much to reduce the chance that Council would ever have to invoke their proposed prerogative to remove members of the BPU. 

By clearly articulating the powers of Council with regard to Article V, both CRC1 and CRC2 have recommended an answer to the question: Who is ultimately in charge?

The Article V accountability recommendations of CRC2 and the rewrite of Article V of CRC1 are combined in the single ballot question pertaining to utilities. If passed, Article V would then be a logical, coherent, integrated whole that connects citizens, through its elected officials, to its utilities operation.

The other ballot question pertains to the structure of government and mainly addresses confusing language, ambiguities and inconsistencies with State law. Only minor changes to our Charter are recommended. 

We strongly urge the voters to approve both ballot charter questions.