This text was obtained via automated optical character recognition.
It has not been edited and may therefore contain several errors.

---

REMARKS, WPUP Radio Forum,
This effort to change pay St. Louis' form of government began last December when a ^roup of local citizens sat down to discuss what could be done to improve the city. iVe saw the city in a steady state of decline, and didn't think this city's present government was in any shaoe to change this. v/e felt that if the city is to improve, the government has to ret better.
Bay St. Louis presently has a commission form of government made up of two commissioners and a mayor; all are full time positions, and all are elected at large. This form is becoming more and more unpopular across the country. One of the reasons for its unpopularity is sinmly that it is not a good form of government.
In the first place, it is disorganized. There is no single city administration. Instead, there are three. If you''re lucky, the three men in office have a good working relationship, and the functions of the city are well coordinated. If they don't ret along well, you have CHAOS.
The commission form of government has no checks and balances.
All power in the city: legislative, executive and judicial - is vested in the council. There is no other authority in city rovernment that they have to answer to.
The commission form of government has no built in financial control. The same people who spend the money also appropriated the money. If they spend too much, and want to soend more, they can raise taxes without having to explain their actions to any other board or commission. There is a clear danger of ooor financial management.
Put there in an even greater danger. The majority of the council-only two people - have absolute, total, even dictatorial power over the cit There are no checks and balances on their oower.