Proposed charter amendments

The city has decided to place 9 proposed city charter amendments on the ballot in the November 3, 2015 election.  We’ll spend some time this week highlighting some of them.

We have previously written about two of them.  When resolving is dissolving was about allowing council to use resolutions instead of ordinances to do what they want to do if some other law does not specifically require than an ordinance be used.  The most obvious potential use of this change would be to use a resolution to sell or lease property.  Resolutions only take one council meeting and if properly cloaked like we have seen other agenda items the public will not even know what is about to happen.

Sold out again pointed out that we were not going to get to vote on our form of government (strong mayor vs. city manager) nor will we be allowed to set the terms of office for city representatives back to two years instead of the four year terms that we have been suffering with for the last decade.

Stay tuned for more about the proposed changes.

We deserve better

Brutus

7 Responses to Proposed charter amendments

  1. Anonymous says:

    vote against this….it means favors..instead of a 2 part process (public hearing and a chance to voice concern and ask questions) only a resolution to lease city property…no transparency. if item is less than$500,000 item will be hiding agenda and approved with other items on consent

    Like

  2. Judy Maddox says:

    I have had Joyce Wilson and will vote not only no but HELL NO on anything she is involved with

    Sent from my iPhone

    >

    Like

    • good government advocate says:

      Joyce was one committee member. She did not control the meetings. The chairman was Joe Wardy. I attended three of the meetings and Joyce was pretty much a bystander. All but two of the charter changes were suggested by the city manager, city council or the mayor. They were not instituted by Joyce. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater! Most of the changes make good sense.

      Like

  3. Rodney Fender says:

    As Ms. Niland has stated in the past – the general voter population is not educated enough to grasp this…..REALLY?

    Like

    • good government advocate says:

      Niland may be well educated but her statements are frequently ignorant. Education should not be confused with intelligence. There are many well educated ignorant people in this city. The truth is that most voters (and non-voters) are uniformed. What is scary are not those that don’t vote but those that vote without a clue.

      Like

  4. Well, of course they are going to move more and more towards giving themselves free rein to continue to screw the taxpayers. The ballpark fiasco worked so well, they can see lots of opportunity to make money for their buddies, while cheating the taxpayers out of the few things we used to own and control.

    Like

    • good government advocate says:

      The resolution rather than ordinance refers to the leasing and sale of city property only. It is very narrow. There were many citizens attending the meetings who wanted this change as sitting through multiple meetings to conduct a simple lease is onerous. These were not the “buddies” to whom you refer but rather small business people. It is step forward in making city government easier to deal with and less bureaucratic. This is a change that is constituent friendly. I see no big, bad wolf hiding there. Please stop with seeing only the negative.

      Like

Leave a Reply -- you do not have to enter your email address

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: