In addition to voting overwhelmingly for Senator John Kerry in last week’s presidential election, Oberlin voters passed four amendments to the Oberlin charter, according to Oberlin politics professor and Oberlin City Councilor Eve Sandberg, that are designed to sustain the city’s basic operations, modernize its basic operating rules and provide for “greater openness.”

For many Oberlin voters, affirming the amendments was equal in importance to voting in the hotly contested presidential race and the often-divisive Issue 1 referendum. Issues 27 to 30, the four Oberlin amendments, covered a broad range of issues of vital importance to the function of local government.

Issue 27, which passed with 63 percent of the vote, will likely boast the most immediate effects of the four. By affirming Issue 27, Oberlin residents consented to a two-tenths of one percent payroll levy. This exceedingly small tax increase, according to Sandberg, is vitally necessary.

“Former councils had to dip into the city’s reserves,” she noted, adding that such a budgetary squeeze occurred both because of the loss of 750 local jobs and because of low levels of state and federal funding. Sandberg believes that “we will be successful in bringing new jobs to Oberlin,” especially “niche companies that would find Oberlin convenient.”

The hope is that modest job growth, augmented by possible future increases in government funding, would eliminate the need for reserve spending.

Until that happens, however, the new levy will “fill the gap” by covering basic expenditures such as emergency services and basic maintenance costs.

Sandberg also noted that by dint of the passage of Issue 28, “we now have a gender-neutral charter.” The second issue offered to Oberlin voters changed the language of the city’s constitutional underpinning to remove gender-based bias. It also performed the housecleaning task of altering official titles to reflect trends in city government.

For instance, archaic positions such as “city auditor” were replaced by more relevant titles like “financial planner.”

The final two propositions that emerged from the polls victorious last week both endeavor to create greater transparency within the confines of city politics. Issue 29 proposed that all city council meeting agendas be released 72 hours prior to each meeting.

Sandberg highlighted the importance of student and community involvement in the generally open meetings as participation by “intelligent and informed people” who “deserve the opportunity” to influence local government.

The highly contentious Issue 30 deals with appointments to city boards and commissions. In the past, members of the Oberlin city council (who are elected every two years) have had the latitude to appoint board and commission members for unlimited five-year terms.

Sandberg noted that council support for the Issue 30 term limits, which have changed term length to three years and set a maximum limit of three terms, was motivated by a desire to “make sure that everyone had the opportunity to serve.” Pointing out that “the people who have served [on the boards and commissions prior to Issue 30] have given wonderful and informed guidance to this city,” she made it clear that the imposition of term limits has nothing to do with a desire to remove commission and board members from office.

Rather, Sandberg joined a narrow majority of councilors to back the amendment because “it’s important for new residents and citizens from all parts of the city to participate.”

Because the limits are not retroactive, current appointees can still serve for a maximum of nine more years.

As a final note, the City Council holds open meetings at 7:30 p.m. on the first and third Monday of every month. Students are encouraged to attend in order to become involved in community politics.