| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2010 : 9:27:12 PM
|
I’m in favor of a unicameral government however, I could never vote on it until I know for sure how the unicameral form would work. Is charter suggesting to keep seven alderman and do away with the common council all together, or are they suggesting 11 alderman and still do away with the CC?
If they keep seven aldermen……..and we don’t have a common council……. I couldn’t vote for that. I’m in favor of two aldermen per ward OR reduce the common council to 1 common councilor per ward.
|
 |
|
|
Heisenberg
Member
64 Posts |
 Posted - 01/29/2010 : 11:19:40 PM
|
I like having a dissenting decision (aka minority report) because we are changing how we fundamentally govern ourselves. In my opinion, no one knows what is going to work and what isn’t going to work. For an example, the unicameral form may be the best decision the city has ever made or the worst or somewhere in between those two extremes...no one knows.
With dissenting decisions if/when a new charter commission were to be established (a very, very, very, very, long time down the road not 3 years from now) they could go back and see why the person or group of people had dissented on the unicameral form (actually they could see what was said by both the majority and minority). Maybe some of their concerns came to fruition.
My point is that I think the voters should hear all sides (both majority and minority decisions) in some way, shape, or form before the charter is voted on by the community as a whole. I don’t see dissenting decisions as combative or saying the other side is wrong in a mean way. I think it just gives another viewpoint, I think it would help the voters to view both sides on paper, and/or it could possibly help another commission down the road.
|
Edited by - Heisenberg on 01/29/2010 11:22:04 PM |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2010 : 11:22:45 AM
|
I'm with you on this. I want to hear the pros and cons on the issue of a unicameral government. It's the only way to make an informed vote when the charter makes it onto the ballot.
"Just Clowning Around" |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2010 : 3:11:22 PM
|
From what I've heard, there has actually been very little actual debate on the issue. No one has gone to a board or an easel and listed the pro and cons of each type of government, had actual discussions about the merits or drawbacks of each, given actual examples of how the present system does or doesn't work, etc. They've pretty much just gone around the table and said how they feel about it.
I heard that the first time that Hanlon was asked about it, all he really wanted to say about it was that he was for retaining the bicameral system. It wasn't until Schlosberg questioned him that he was willing to open up a little about it. And he didn't really bring anything new to the table. His arguments were the same old tired ones (i.e. it's worked for 116 years, it makes Everett unique, etc.). The better speakers on retaining the current system have been the ones that submitted testimony at the public hearing from what I've been told. And there really hasn't been much effort on part of the commission to attempt to refute those arguments. Most of that was done for them in a letter submitted to the commission by Peter Napolitano I'm told.
What I'm also being told is that most of the members of the commission are hanging their hat on is that it is the will of the voters to change to the unicameral system. They are basing this on the fact that the question of creating a charter commission passed by an almost 4-1 margin of the people that actually voted on it. Well, I can only speak for myself, but I voted for a charter commission because I wanted the entire charter reviewed. I haven't a clue what the will of the people is on the form of government issue. But with less than 4,000 voters actually weighing in on the question, I just don't know how they can assume a mandate.
So when it gets to the point where they are going to have to explain their decision making process to the voters of the city, they're not going to have much ammunition to back themselves up. I'm told that a couple of the consultants that have come in to speak with them have been asked the question "Why do charter inititatives fail?" I told that the answer they were given both times is because charter commission don't do enough to get out in front of their proposal and sell it to the people. If it is truly the will of the majority of the people to go to a unicameral system, no questions asked, they'll be fine. Otherwise, they're going to have their hands full.
One other thing to remember. This new charter, if passed, will not go into effective until after the election following the one on which it is on the ballot. If it passes, the November 2013 ballot would be first time that new body would be elected. So, on the same ballot as the vote for the new charter will appear on, there will be candidates running for Common Council, the same people that the new charter may be putting out of a job. How do you think a lot of them will be asking their supporters to vote on the charter question if their position may be eliminated? |
|
|
|
Paul
Senior Member
158 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2010 : 4:49:08 PM
|
If the Commission can show that the Unicameral system is cheaper I think that is all they will have to do to get it passed IF the economy at the time of the vote is like it is now.
People will vote with their wallets |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2010 : 5:38:28 PM
|
Do you think they would vote for cheaper over quality? I'm not saying what we have is quality.
"Just Clowning Around" |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2010 : 5:43:26 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg
I like having a dissenting decision (aka minority report) because we are changing how we fundamentally govern ourselves. In my opinion, no one knows what is going to work and what isn’t going to work. For an example, the unicameral form may be the best decision the city has ever made or the worst or somewhere in between those two extremes...no one knows.
With dissenting decisions if/when a new charter commission were to be established (a very, very, very, very, long time down the road not 3 years from now) they could go back and see why the person or group of people had dissented on the unicameral form (actually they could see what was said by both the majority and minority). Maybe some of their concerns came to fruition.
My point is that I think the voters should hear all sides (both majority and minority decisions) in some way, shape, or form before the charter is voted on by the community as a whole. I don’t see dissenting decisions as combative or saying the other side is wrong in a mean way. I think it just gives another viewpoint, I think it would help the voters to view both sides on paper, and/or it could possibly help another commission down the road.
I agree with you too. It is unfortunate that the way the bicameral government has been handled the past few years. It's terrible and filled with backroom deals and personal favors and has become far too political for personal agendas.
I'd like to see that no one running for office can have an immediate family member work for the city, it's just wrong. To be fair, how can Rosa DiFlorio (Current CC President) possibly vote on the budget? She would be voting for her husband. That does not sound legal to me, but it's happening anyway.
I also want to see that's it's easier to remove a politician, including any mayor, for wrong doings. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2010 : 6:38:20 PM
|
I hope they can find a way for more accountability, not just on election day. I really would like to see Recall as part of the new Charter.
"Just Clowning Around" |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2010 : 6:44:50 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paul
If the Commission can show that the Unicameral system is cheaper I think that is all they will have to do to get it passed IF the economy at the time of the vote is like it is now.
People will vote with their wallets
Currently, salaries are set by ordinance. In cities and towns that have "modern" charters, they continue to be set by ordinance. The Charter Review Commission will only be able to make suggestions for ordinances changes. Therefore, they will have very little control over the salary portion of that equation.
In cities and towns with smaller unicameral governments, the legislative members are usual paid more than we pay ours in Everett. Currently, the total salaries paid for city council members and the clerk of the common council is slightly less than $155,000 a year. Assuming that the city goes with a standard 9 or 11 member unicameral legislature, we could still be paying just as much in salaries if we paid a each member of 9 member board a salary $17K or each member of an 11 member board a salary of $14K. From what I understand, those numbers are in line, if not somewhat less, with what they are in other cities and towns. I don't have hard facts to back that up however.
I've been told that the number of City Councilors taking health insurance before the latest batch was seated was 7. I don't know if that number has changed now. While there is the potential to be paying less for health insurance with a reduced number of available seats, there is certainly no guarantee. It more depends on the number of people taking the coverage.
Pensions? I don't have enough information about how those are calculated to make an arguement either way. But I think that if you assume that it is somewhat based on the amount of salary paid, it's likely not to change that much either.
I also agree with where I think Massdee was headed. A reduced sized body should be taking on more responsibility per member. A single body system is going to require them to get more things right the first time. To attract quality people to run you are going to have to pay them something reasonable. Right now at least, I don't see any great cost savings by making this change. If the health insurance numbers were different, possibly, but not the way it is now.
And if the issue is really only health care, maybe they could look at just taking just that away as a freebie for city council members. School committe members supposedly aren't eligible for it. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2010 : 08:00:01 AM
|
What's your opinion on term limits?
"Peek-a-Boo, I see you" |
|
|
|
Heisenberg
Member
64 Posts |
|
|
Paul
Senior Member
158 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2010 : 08:36:16 AM
|
David Flood seems to have put a great amount of time and effort into the charter and also attends all the meetings.
It surprises me he didn't run for a spot on the commission. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2010 : 10:28:48 AM
|
I agree he appears to be much more informed than many that are on the commission.
"Peek-a-Boo, I see you" |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2010 : 10:35:53 AM
|
| While what Mr. Flood presently has posted on that site appeared to turn out to be much ado about nothing, it's good to know that someone is willing to put in the time and the effort to keep the Charter Review Commission on its toes. Maybe we finally have some one who will provide at least some first-hand knowledge about what's going on at these Charter Review Commission meetings. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2010 : 10:52:14 AM
|
| We all should be proactive like that. Charter Review was voted for unanimously, so everyone that voted “yes” should have their say. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Charter Review
