It looks like we have lost another battle.
The Ad Hoc Charter Advisory Committee seems to be ready to recommend pay raises for city representatives and the mayor. That is simply a smoke screen.
What they are not recommending is that we consider returning to two year terms for city council members or that we consider returning to the strong mayor form of government.
We should have known that the cards were stacked when the former city manager was appointed to the committee.
City council does not have to follow the committee’s recommendations. Council decides what proposed changes to the city charter are put to the public vote. I’m not holding my breath on this one.
We deserve better
Brutus
elpasospeak 
I’m beginning to think that city council and the mayor truly believe that no one can see through some of their decisions and charades. They really do think their manipulative actions and their motivations for decisions are not obvious. Many of their actions are designed to guarantee their desired outcomes, while doing certain things under the false pretense of caring about what taxpayers want.
The mayor made one promise while running for office. That promise was to let the taxpayers vote on whether to continue on with the city manager form of government.
So, what does he do? He names one of his predecessors to the charter advisory committee. This was not just any former mayor. This was the former mayor who championed the city manager form of government.
Niland names her gal pal former city manager Joyce Wilson. Does anyone really expect a a career city manager to be open to the idea that maybe the city manager position is not needed? Niland didn’t even camouflage her bias by selecting a seasoned business executive.
The city council as whole went along with these two selections.
So, two of the people on the charter advisory committee helped to create the messes we are now living with and were automatic votes for continuing on with a city manager. Not only do Wardy and Wilson lack objectivity about the city manager position, they have made raises for city council members their top priority.
Their other top issue has been whether to change the timing of city elections back to May in order to increase voter turnout.
About that, Wardy said, “I would love to see more people vote, but fundamentally it really messes things up for local candidates ….”
So Wardy is more concerned about the candidates that having higher voter participation.
Since council members and the mayor knew the salary levels when they ran for office, they should live with the current salaries until the end of their terms. Any raises should not go into effect until the end of the current terms.
Leeser complained about working over 80 hours a week and said that most of that is for the city. A lot of people work long hours. Maybe he should quit and go back to selling cars fulltime. Most, if not all, of the members of council also need to go.
LikeLike
It seems to me, that moving the elections to November to get a higher voter turn out, is counter productive. The voters who don’t care enough to vote for city council and mayor in May won’t suddenly decide to become informed in November. Voters turn out in November because they want to vote in the presidential election or the senate elections, etc. Faced with the choice of also voting for city council candidates, they will be totally uninformed. An uniformed voter is not a positive for democracy. Getting more people to the polls is not a solution. The correct solution is getting the local citizens informed and involved enough that they chose to vote.
I am a strong proponent of keeping city elections totally separate.
LikeLike
Correct, political office was never designed to become rich, it’s about service.
They need to work smarter not harder to cut back on the hours required. All those hours and look what we get.
Do they merit a raise, if they were in the private sector, they would be fired for poor management.
LikeLike