| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Cruller DaVille
Senior Member
148 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2009 : 06:49:08 AM
|
I share that same sentiment as it concerns a change in governmental model. Perhaps we should look into "upping the ante". Compensating indivdiuals may just be the incentive need to assure the participation of more qualifed, forward thinking, individuals. Its only logical that some individuals would not consider such a thankless job for little or no pay. It's just NOT worth their time!!! Additionally, I'm totally in favor of compensation according to education and experience!!!! That goes for ALL elected and appointed positions as well.
Accordingly...... with the acceptance of a unicameral system should come a tweeking up the manner in which these individuals are renumerated. I FIRMLY believe you DO get what you pay for......
Lets be honest..... Have we really given well qualified, dedicated individuals ANY reason to want to put their asses on the line?
"Cruller DaHville"
 |
Edited by - Cruller DaVille on 05/28/2009 09:25:45 AM |
 |
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2009 : 12:43:41 PM
|
I would like to see the Charter Commission change the process of removing elected officials from office and appointing another. I will use Bernie D’Onfrio from ward 4, as an example. That was absolutely unacceptable. Once you get to a certain number of unexcused absences, you should be removed from the council.
I think there are lots of other reasons, and should be brought up to the commission.
|
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2009 : 1:06:08 PM
|
I would like to see Recall added to the City Charter. It would give the people the choice to remove an elected official during mid-term.
I, too, would like to know if the Charter Review will have any input on the School Department. I hope so. There are many in power in this city who need to be held accountable for their actions.
Just my opinion.
"Deb" |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2009 : 09:34:04 AM
|
Now Clare Laidlaw is running for this? I thought it was going to be average citizens, not people with connections? What they are doing is making the average citizen re-think running because of how political it’s getting. It's getting sickening.
|
|
|
|
Marie
Senior Member
114 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2009 : 09:54:55 AM
|
| Isn't Claire Laidlaw Jason Marcus's girlfriend and the mother of Matt Laidlaw? Way too connected for my liking. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2009 : 10:23:56 AM
|
Here is the latest list I have for Charter Review:
James Murphy
Dorothy Martin
Joseph Nolette
Joseph Hickey
Teke Ndi
Ray Grace
Stephen Bruce
Patricia Foley
Dorothy Martin Long
Ronald Keohan
Joseph McCarthy
Doloris or Alfred Lattanzi?
Thomas Messina
Dominic Puleo
Jason Marcus
Craig Hardy
Larry Cardinale
Michael Bono
David Pretti
Brian Schurko
Claire Laidlaw
"Deb" |
Edited by - massdee on 05/29/2009 4:01:16 PM |
|
|
|
Cruller DaVille
Senior Member
148 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2009 : 12:19:51 PM
|
Presently, there exists / procedures to formally remove elected officials.
"Cruller DaHville"
|
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2009 : 4:01:31 PM
|
How?
"Deb" |
|
|
|
Cruller DaVille
Senior Member
148 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2009 : 10:08:59 PM
|
One way is to collect signature asking for "a vote of no confidence". Another way is to petiton the city government to censure a member. Historically, when an electorate goes to such lengths, the politician usually has the class, where with all, common sense..... to step down.
Before you even say it..... I know, I know.... we're talking Jason here.lol God knows, what he would do.
Cant you just see him yelling off the City Hall roof...."Why don't you like me?" Man is nothing more than an unsightly blemish on the asscheek of life
"Cruller DaHville"
|
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2009 : 07:22:42 AM
|
I could be wrong but a vote of no confidence or a censure does not remove anyone from office. Is my understanding correct?
That is why I think a tool such as "recall" would be useful.
"Deb" |
|
|
|
Cruller DaVille
Senior Member
148 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2009 : 07:48:55 AM
|
Honestly, I thought all of those parliamentary actions were just about the same. Impeach, recall,removed.... I truly thought that they were different avenues meeting at the same place. I'll take a look at Roberts and also take a gander on West Law to see what I can find.
"Cruller DaHville"
|
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2009 : 10:46:56 AM
|
I am pretty sure Everett's charter does not include any of those avenues. I will try to read through it and see if I can find anything.
Tetris, Do you happen to know?
"Deb" |
Edited by - massdee on 05/30/2009 12:38:07 PM |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2009 : 3:26:41 PM
|
Without some enabling law, I don't believe that you can remove an elected official from office. I know that there is nothing in the Everett city charter that provides for that. I've looked at MGL a little bit and have found nothing there as well. I have also looked at the charters (or tried to) for a number of other local cities (Somerville, Lynn, Chelsea, Medford, Revere, Melrose and Woburn). Of all of those, only Chelsea and Lynn contained the language necessary for a recall of any elected officials. It actually makes some sense that it is not contained in most of these documents. Why would the politicians include this type of language in the charters if they are the ones that are in control of the document? Just one good example of why elected officials shouldn't be allowed to run for the commission.
I stated earlier that I tried to look at the charters for all of the cities that I listed above. In some cases (Revere and Woburn), I couldn't find one on their web site. In Medford, all I can find is a very short charter that states that they have adopted a Plan A type of government under MGL and a handful other things that they have decided to incorporate into their charter above and beyond MGL. Something tells me Revere and Woburn may be in a similar position where they chose a form of government and they let MGL be their guide on charter issues. Not 100% certain of that but it's what the lack of charter on their web site leads me to believe.
I bring this up because I want to discuss what I'd like to see in a revised Charter. First off, I'd like to see an actual charter that spells out what all of the elements of it are and not rely on MGL to be the city's guide. I think that relying on MGL alone is a mistake. I don't believe that it even handles things like someone running for more than one seat at a time; that would be a step backwards. I'd much rather see Everett follows the likes of the charters of Lynn, Chelsea, Melrose and Somerville rather than the other cities I listed. But, I'd also like to see the bare minimum that should be included in our charter incorporated into that document. Some of what is in the charters for those cities is in our ordinances rather our charter. If it should be included in our charter, so be it; if it doesn't need to be in our charter, leave it where it is. Ordinances are much easier to change than the charter.
One thing that I happened to come across in some of these other charters is a provision to automatically review the charter on a regular basis. With a clause like that, it is not necessary to get approval from the state to review your charter. I believe the two cases that I found (Somerville and Melrose), it's done every ten years. The voters would still get to decide if they want the proposed changes, so why not? I think the Melrose charter also had a provision to look at the city's ordinances on a regular basis as well. I like that idea too. And the Lynn charter had a provision that a former elected official couldn't take a job with the city until they had been out of office for two years. So, something like that is doable as well; I'd support something along those lines, even it only forced the city to comply the current ethics law with no possibility of a waiver.
Probably most importantly, I think that charter review needs to produce a result this time. Although I'm probably for a change in our form of government, I'm sure that some will fight one (look at the list of candidates running as evidence) and others may not like the type of change that the committee may choose. I'd like to see the committee maybe consider putting more than one proposal on the table, if it is possible. I know that in our city charter, there is a provision that allows for competing referendums to be put on the ballot and the one that garners the most votes prevails. I'm not sure if that is possible in this situation but it is something that needs to be explored. In this case, one version of the new charter would address all of the nut and bolts issues with the present charter, closing loopholes and addressing issues like recall and the like. The second would be built on top of the first but with the commission's proposed change in the form of government layered on to it. If think that if they could give us two choices, they could give us more. But, every choice would mean more work for them and too many choices would probably defeat the purpose of a getting a majority vote because two choices already means three, the third choice being no change at all. If a scenario like this were to happen, I'd suggest that the "nuts and bolts" version contain one extra provision, to look at the charter again in the earliest possible time frame, where a focus can be put just on the city's form of government before getting on some type of regular charter review schedule.
Just some of the things I'd like to see, if they are even possible. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2009 : 8:25:31 PM
|
When I have looked at charters in the past, I've tended to stay away from towns because they are a different form of government by nature. I did look for a couple today though (Arlington and Winchester) and had a hard time locating an actual charter document for them. So the Saugus link helped.
I don't think that the commission should ignore town charters though. Once they are comforatable with a city form of government and can distinguish what's what, they might find things in a town charter that could be beneficial. When I just looked at the Saugus charter (Thanks Massdee; recall is definitely in there), I saw a couple more things I'd like to see included in a revised charter. The Saugus revised charter sets up a committee to look at the town's ordinances after the new charter has been adopted and that committee must have some representation from the charter review commission. Makes a lot of sense. The other thing that I liked about it was that charter review commission members are barred from running for office for a period after their charter review service. That would keep people from trying to use the charter review commission for being nothing more than a launching pad for their political aspirations. There may have been more; I got that just from a quick look and a couple of searches. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Charter Review
