I’VE BEEN SOMEWHAT SILENT ON THE ISSUE of whether we should appoint or elect the city treasurer for Benicia, which will be decided by city voters on Tuesday. As some of you may know, I currently hold this prestigious office based on being appointed, rather than being elected, which is not the way I wanted life to play out. I would be much happier eating a breakfast of great thick bacon and burnt toast on Friday mornings with my friend, former Treasurer Bob Langston, than holding the office of city treasurer.

The last three city treasurers passed on while in office, which I guess was the way it was meant to be, but not how I ever imagined it going. I did not have the pleasure of meeting Mrs. Margaret “Teddie” Bidou, and I barely knew Mr. H.R. Autz, but I knew Bob Langston very well — he was probably the shortest-term best friend I’ve ever had.

If Bob were alive today, he would be having a fit over this issue of appointing versus electing the treasurer. I can’t even imaging the storm he would cause, as he strongly felt this position was needed for a system of “checks and balances” for city finances and expenditures, and as an independent avenue for “whistleblowers.”

Bob was a drill-down type of guy. He told me many times, “Ken, anyone can look at a balance sheet and or a charge of accounts, ask questions and look smart.” But he went on to state, “This position is one of integrity and accountability and our city needs this even more today than ever, as no one is steering the ship.” Some of you reading this can relate to his thoughts, not necessary agreeing, but at least hearing his words.

A few months ago, on July 29 to be exact, I checked the treasurer’s mail slot (notice I didn’t say my mail slot, as I’m just a caretaker) and there was an impartial statement regarding the appointment of the city treasurer. I sent an email asking if I needed to offer a response, but I was told there was “no need for a response, it was just ‘FYI.’ It will go in the voters pamphlet.”

I understood this, but at that time I didn’t know there would be a written opinion, supporting appointment, going to voters without a rebuttal. Maybe a rebuttal was addressed and asked for by mail, pamphlet or news article, so if I missed it, I apologize. But I don’t think there was, as I’ve been approached by citizens wondering why there was no opportunity to address. What I would have liked to see is a proposition that asked voters to choose to “Elect or Appoint the City Treasurer,” rather than “Appoint, Yes or No,” which is sort of leading, in my book.

Many of you know me and I’m a fairly simple guy in life. I chose Benicia because of the quality of life here, especially based on our police, fire and city services, which are second to no other community.

When asked if I feel the position should be elected or appointed, I have a simple response. Election is the only way to go and appointment, only in the case of death or resignation in office, which I hope never happens again.

The city treasurer is a position of checks and balances and its role should be expanded, not decreased. The treasurer’s job is to question until satisfied and be an outlet for findings of irregularity.

Regarding elected versus appointed, throw in “Hired at Will.” I feel all city employees are and should be hired at will, with only the mayor, City Council, treasurer, city clerk and perhaps the city attorney being elected.

Ken Paulk is the Benicia city treasurer.

Sharing is caring!