elpasospeak

Proposition 2

At least this proposition allows action.  “Shall … the City Charter be amended…”

Proposition 2 is like many of the others presented to us in this election.  It asks for permission to change portions of the charter, but does not tell us what the specific changes are.  Taking the giant leap of faith that city council would end up wording the changes to the charter in a competent manner and in a way that respected the wishes of the voters is not something that I am ready to do.

Quite simply the wording of the proposition can be used by council to justify all sorts of mischief.  “No”, you say, “they wouln’t do that”.  Let me remind you about the vote we recently had authorizing the increase in the hotel occupancy tax.  Before the election the city people told us that the ball park was going to be built regardless of how we voted.  We were only voting to have visitors pay part of the bill, or to pay the bill ourselves.  Now that the voters passed the tax increase the city is arguing in court that our vote was to approve the building of the ball park!

Another problem with the propositions is that they do not tell us what we are giving up.  Proposition 2 would allow city council to lease city property by simple resolution.  Right now they must pass an ordinance.  Ordinances require public notification, multiple readings, and the opportunity for citizens to provide input and ask questions.  Some times this gives the citizens time to mobilize against an action.  We did this recently when council tried to pass an ordinance that would have restricted our access to public information.  The process worked.

Greased skids

Proposition 2 would allow council to lease out any city property with no notification to the public.  They could simply post an emergency agenda item with no notice to the public after having declared it an urgent public necessity — don’t believe me?  see this (item 5).  Council can pass a resolution on a single reading.  So up to two hours before a council meeting the city manager or a city representative could add an item to “Lease the Sports Arena” to someone for a pittance.  Sound familiar?

Other portions of the proposition would act to further weaken the mayor.  Right now for example the mayor nominates the city attorney.  If the proposition passes city council could offer it’s own nominee.

Here is the ballot language directly from the city website:

SHALL SECTIONS 3.5 A AND D, 3.7, 3.9 B AND C, 3.14, 3.18 AND 4.1 B OF THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED, RELATING TO CITY COUNCIL PROCESSES, PROCEDURES, AND APPOINTMENTS: TO ALLOW FOR THE CANCELATION OF NOT MORE THAN SEVEN REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS ANNUALLY AND NOT MORE THAN TWO IN A ROW; TO ALLOW THE COUNCIL TO AUTHORIZE LEASES OF PUBLIC PROPERTY AND TEMPORARY USES OF STREETS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY BY RESOLUTION; TO PROVIDE THAT ORDINANCES AND THE CITY CODE BE MADE AVAILABLE BY CONTEMPORARY MEANS SUCH AS THE INTERNET; TO PROVIDE THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY IS APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF LEGAL EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS; AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE MAYOR AND REPRESENTATIVES EACH UNIFORMLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO SUBMIT NOMINATIONS FOR THE APPOINTMENTS TO THE CITY’S BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS?

This proposition also has the problem that it covers multiple subjects.  See Proposed charter amendments.

I think you know how I might vote on this.

Study it and then vote in May.

We deserve better

Brutus

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 11th, 2013 at 6:30 AM and is filed under City government, Open Government. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.