Who wants to make book that the first order of business will be credentials on eligibility to accept appointment to serve?
There have been TONS of precedent in which that was the first order of business of a meeting body. I am curious about violations and/or arising conflict of interests for the committee of common citizens chosen for this panel.
I don't generally like lawyers on committees, because they insist on writing things, then they are so convoluted that it takes a bevy of attorneys later to figure out what was said, adding their own convolutions to the interpretation so the effective outcome has little resemblance to the intent of the drafters.
No outcome that helps the 'little kings for life' movement should even be considered. Limiting the scope of powers is always to be sought in a democracy.
GET RID OF DISTRICTING! The touted effort for representation by single district commissioners has proved divisive over the years and in an overall election, not one of the present herd of turkeys would stand a chance, as would be normal in a sane and ordered universe.
NO MORE STANDING COMMITTEES! There is nothing that the present band of honking geese would like more than the ability to appoint more people to more committees. It is the only issue they are likely to come to a unanimous consensus on. Maybe a few could be disbanded by charter and the ability to create new ones curtailed.
.....Well, it could happen!
PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE: Put some teeth in some of the provisions, like: "Position will be declared vacant upon....", or the like. Maybe fines for contempt during meetings by a super-majority vote.
No synopsis of charter revisions on the ballot. The full text revisions only. There has been an unfortunate tendency in recent years to color the language of the synopsis on the ballot so that the full ramifications and scope of the changes are hidden in soft language that seems reasonable, or in some cases leaves out important changes that would be in effect altogether.
CHANGE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR RECALL TO A PERCENTAGE OF VOTERS IN THE LAST CITY ELECTION: No other changes AT ALL will fly with me unless this one is on the ballot.
Well that is all I have for now. I'll wait for the first round of self-serving suggestions from people inside and slightly outside of city government before I cut loose with one of my more unreasonable broadsides on contemplated revisions to the City Charter.
"Of course I know. It is my business to know." -The Merovingian
Monday, July 21, 2008
Charter Review
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Yes to no synopsis! Why is Ben Medina in charge of the review instead of the City Secretary Department?
Wes Blackmum
Deja Vu!
I was discussing this very issue this evening. I'll bet we are the only city where Planning and Zoning is overseeing Charter Review. That makes as much sense as the Health Dept. taking the minutes at the City Council meetings.
Did the City Secretary pass? Unlike Health, Medina has Planning and Community. Surely this is the reasoning for his involvement. Reviewers are of the community.
Wes Blackmum
Good to see you pontificating on this.
I hear, due to Dolly, the first committee meeting was re-scheduled to next Tuesday, July 29th.
That is what they want us to think. You know it will turn into a hurricane party. Will either be videotaped for our amusement?
Juan Pedro
I get what you're saying about districting, but is important that improvement and growth be managed as equally throughout the city as possible. I think district representation helps in that endeavor by having at least one person on the commission whose reelection closely depends on the improvement of a certain part of the city. Obviously district representation works best when district consituents are engaged. Voter apathy and at-large-only elections might produce better candidates than voter apathy and district elections, but I think in principle, district elections are better; voter apathy is the problem. I also don't think districting precludes commissioners from offering citywide initiatives, just as senators and representatives that represent a district or state work on national initiatives and not just ones that affect only their region.
Also, I agree with Chris that is good to have you chime in. Please do so more often. I was getting tired of looking at Bozo.
Patricia A.
"Will either be videotaped for our amusement?"
Working on one, if not the other.
"Voter apathy and at-large-only elections might produce better candidates than voter apathy and district elections, but I think in principle, district elections are better; voter apathy is the problem."
So, too, is candidate apathy. Few want to run in what they see as a thankless position.
Thankless? Some don't deserve thanks for a job they should be doing out of the kindness of their hearts. Thanks not part of equation.
Wes Blackmum
Who came up with four district commissioners anyway? Are there four distinct parts of Brownsville? Decrease to three and increase at-large to three. Three guarantees two at-large positions, including mayor, each city election. This plan may decrease tendency of district commissioners to hand over public works for streets projects eleven months before an election.
At 4, the CNN reporter currently on the Island reported that Brownsville with a 170,000 plus population is a "town." Same segment, the National Weather Center Director is worried about Valley "villages" and its flooding.
Wes Blackmum
Troiani and Ahumada were elected at large - does this not raise the question that at large elections produce ineffective and incompetent elected officials.
Bobby WC
Garza is the worst schmuck elected at large - does this not raise the question that leaving him out produces ineffective and incompetent blog commentary.
Wes Blackmum
Post a Comment