The Ad-Hoc Committee reviewing city policies with Rolla Municipal Utilities seems to be moving along well, addressing budgets, land purchases, addressing the City Council and e-mails.
The group met again Thursday to discuss the perceived pay and benefits differences between RMU employees and their city brethren.
I didn’t make the most recent meeting, but City Administrator John Butz tells me the group will meet again in two weeks to further discuss the compensation issues.
City Council members made it clear they don’t want to be a “Big Brother” to RMU.
Ward 4 Councilman Don Morris in his most-direct way said, “We don’t want RMU having to ask: Mother May I?”
Councilman Morris is right. So are panel members Ward 1 Councilman Monty Jordan, Ward 3 Councilwoman Sue Eudaly, and Ward 4 Committee Chairman Lou Magdits. They don’t want to meddle. Their contention is RMU officials know best how to run RMU.
However, during a previous session, I made the comment to Chairman Magdits that there needs to be checks and balances. Currently, the City Council approves RMU’s annual budget.
The new guidelines would require RMU to get City Council approval for needed purchases that are made outside of the City Council approved city budget.
Terrific! Councilman Magdits and his group are right on track.
We applaud this. It’s fiscally responsible.
However, any rate increase does NOT need City Council approval.
As it was said to me, the City Council should not be a Public Service Commission.
Perhaps, it shouldn’t, but everyone must answer to someone.
I believe ANY rate increase, whether it be for electricity or water or a hike in the Service Availability Fee, SHOULD be approved by City Council.
Councilman Magdits knows my stance, and allowed me to voice that opinion before the Ad-Hoc Committee.
“Any rate increase should have City Council approval,” I said. “I think the public looks toward the City Council for leadership in this regard.”
In a democracy, all forms of leadership have a system of checks and balances. And RMU is no different.
If the Water Department needs a rate increase, and we know it does, because we’ve been hearing about deficits for months, let it make its case to the City Council.
Covering RMU, I’ve seen the red ink in the Water Department. I’m sure facts and figures will bear out the need for a fee increase. Regardless, an increase should be council approved and a new city ordinance can change that.

*   *   *
On a final note concerning RMU, we are saddened this week to learn of the passing of Board of Public Works Vice President Maurice Alfermann. I only knew Alfermann from the board meetings. However, interviewing people who knew him makes me wish I had taken the time to get to know him.
Underneath his seemingly hard fiscal stance beat the heart of a benevolent man.
My condolences to the Alfermann family.

*   *   *
This week, I was reminded about news guidelines dealing with arrests and police reporting.
I was questioned by a reader about the wisdom of identifying a man who had a run-in with the law and identifying him as the owner of a certain business.
My response to the reader is this:
The name of the business was included to further identify the man charged, who while not a “Smith,” his name is not unique.
Certainly, it could be said identifying him by his address was enough. However, believe it or not, sometimes that is NOT enough.
For example, we had a young man arrested for a DUI. The young man is troubled, having been in and out of rehabilitation centers for his addictions.
His father, who shares the same name, saw that his son was running out of options, so he took him in. Now two men with the same name live under the same roof.
The younger man starts to get his life back in order but then stumbles and gets arrested once again for DUI.
The police report says John Doe of the 123 Main St. is arrested for DUI.... Problem is, there are TWO John Does at 123 Main St.
It is that thinking to identify people by at least TWO recognizeable traits.
Years ago, I had an editor who stressed this time and time again. Certainly, we had the man’s age, address and his business, which is located at the home. Our job is to inform.
While the man in the news this week may be the only person in Rolla with that name (and we don't know that for sure as the phone book lists another person with the same first initial and same last name), we can have a real problem with the public – and the courts – if we do not do EVERYTHING we can to identify those charged by all possible means.
Imagine being the John Doe in this case to be arrested. However, you are a bank teller and your name also is John Doe. What then?
We owe it to our readers to be as accurate as we can and at the same time we need to do what we can to not to cast any suspicion on innocent parties.
In a final note, the wife of this man called me asking the Rolla Daily News not to print the story.
I told her it was unfortunate, but if tear-gas cannisters were shot through the windows of her home and a SWAT team was called to her home and in the process for 10 hours traffic was diverted away from her home, there was a good possibility the report would appear more than a Police Blotter item.
We must be fair to all.
Every week we hear from an unfortunate party seeking to keep something out of your newspaper. That answer to all parties in my 30 years has never been to withhold a report. Without apologies, it goes in print.
We must be FAIR, across the board. No exceptions.
It’s like I told some people the week before, “sometimes I like my job. Last week, it was a little tougher than most.”
(Alan Lewis Gerstenecker is editor of the Rolla Daily News.)