The only way they can get control of the office is to eliminate it as an elected position. The only way they can eliminate it as an elected position is a charter change referendum. Council voted on first reading Monday, to place the question on the August ballot. They are set to hold a public hearing and a second and final vote on the question May 26th. 

There are those in city government who feel that an elected Treasurer/Recorder is a problem in that, as an elected official the council nor the city administrator or mayor have no control over the office. They feel that as an appointed position they could better manage or manipulate the office. Those in favor of changing the position to appointed are claiming that if the council were in charge of appointing the person who would be in charge of all the city's money, they would be able to pick a more competent person for the job than the voters.

Eliminating the democratic process and taking away the voters right to choose is just down right un-American. The same argument for eliminating the elected Treasurer/Recorder position could also be made for eliminating the elected mayor's position. Maybe council could do a better job of picking a mayor than the voters. 

After all, who would you rather have choosing the person handling millions of dollars for the city? Three thousand voters or three city councilmen? The decision will be yours.