| Author |
 Topic  |
|
waterboy
Senior Member
101 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2011 : 10:45:02 AM
|
| Mike Marchese did a great job on his feelings toward the charter, I am not voting for it according to Mike Mangan they should be on everybodys mail box in a few days I say two weeks before the election, and who is going to sit and read the whole thing anyways, not me I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF A FOUR TERM MAYOR, NOR PEOPLE RUNNING FROM ALL OF THE CITY TO GET ELECTED I LIKE IT THE WAY IT IS, IT'S GOING TO COST MORE MONEY FOR PEOPLE TO RUN NOW, THAT IS NOT FAIR |
 |
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2011 : 10:59:10 AM
|
It's a no in this household too. I do not want the four year term and I also don't like all the candidates having to run city wide. It doesn't make sense that someone representing ward 2 be voted on in ward 6. Where is the logic? Also, it will be more expensive to run these campaigns. Less people will be running for election because they can't afford it. The candidate with the most money isn't necessarily the most qualified.
I hope people really take the time to think about this and read through the literature and make an informed vote. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2011 : 11:54:08 AM
|
| We've established that a formal committee was formed for the "Vote Yes on Charter" movement. Does anyone know if the same has been done "Vote No on Charter" side? They seem to be some type of organized movement and I believe that there is limitation on how much money they could spend without being formally organized. Need to do some research on that though. |
Edited by - tetris on 10/12/2011 11:55:02 AM |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2011 : 11:58:42 AM
|
I haven't heard anything about a "Vote No on Charter" movement, but if there is I wouldn't mind helping out.
Anyone have any info on this? |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2011 : 12:34:53 PM
|
| Plenty of signs around Massdee; I see more every day. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2011 : 12:41:45 PM
|
| I wonder who I can contact to get one of those signs? I haven't seen any. I guess I will have to take a ride around the city. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2011 : 12:48:33 PM
|
| A few on Broadway, a couple on Second Ave. and reportedly, though I haven't seen it myself, one at Rosa DiFlorio's to name a few. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2011 : 12:58:29 PM
|
| Rosa's? I guess she is on the opposite side of the mayor on this issue. That doesn't happen very often. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2011 : 1:17:22 PM
|
| Although the Mayor seemed supportive of the Charter when he spoke about it at one of the Charter Commission's public hearings and one would assume that he would be in favor of the four term for Mayor, I don't believe we really have heard from him on it since the final report was made avaailable. I know that at one time, he spoke of some concerns about the ability to break into politics on a smaller scale, as he himself did. I'd also believe that many of his frequent supporters on the Common Council probably have concerns about the new charter since it would likely put many of them out of a job in two years if it is passsed. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2011 : 1:20:17 PM
|
The mayor just threw a monkey wrench into the charter process getting involved the way he did, and pushing for the four year term. I dont think he's going to be too upset either way it goes.
If it passes the four year term gets implemented... but whose to say he will be reelected this year, or in '13? It's kinda a cocky attitude to me.
If it fails, he keeps his pets that are all unopposed. He was the one that really screwed up something that had the potential of doing good. |
|
|
|
Cam
Member
82 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2011 : 3:14:19 PM
|
No way am I voting for the charter reform. I'd rather keep that kiss butt group on the common council than give the mayor, any mayor, a four year term. The people voted this down a few years back. It should never have been part of the reform. That group on the charter committee was just another bunch of hacks.
|
|
|
|
snoopy1
Member
64 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2011 : 4:06:47 PM
|
The Charter Commission did not listen to the people. They did what THEY wanted, and that was it. I had a concern right from the beginning when they would not listen to the people. And...... when people spoke and some members did not like what people said, they received nasty comments back OR all you heard was "We received communications from whoever, place it on file." My filing system is the trash, and I'm sure that's exactly where our correspondence went.
The four year term for mayor should be on the ballot. They took that right away from every citizen in this city and for that alone, I will not vote for charter.
It's also not right that you can essentially have all the eleven councilors from a single ward. For example, ward one is larger than other wards, so ward one can dominate an election process. Sayonara to the democratic process!
And...who is going to run? It's going to be people that can come up with 20 grand to run, and I'm sorry, if Mayor DeMaria is still in office, he will get and support his own people to run. We have already seen him publicly support Dominic Puleo and Mike Mangan, paid for by the committee to elect HIM for mayor. Not right at all! He will stack that board and there wont be anything the little people can do. He will have the money and the power to do so.
What is taking so long to have a copy mailed to us? People like to take their time to read and go over it.
Why have such a lack of public hearings? It does not matter to me what is required by law, this is concerning major changes in Everett that other cities and towns are not going through. We should have had more.
We all know the first public hearing is useless, because the charter commission has not done anything, so there's nothing to discuss.
The last meeting is kinda useless because the Commission is not going to change anything, as we saw.
So instead what we do is rush through the whole Charter, only have one more public hearing and the commission focuses solely on dismantling the common council. At these public hearings people were given 5 MINUTES to go over the entire charter. It will be the end of true representation. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2011 : 11:40:33 AM
|
| Is there anywhere in this Charter reform that limits hiring and gives the City Council more of a say in hiring? |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
 Posted - 10/13/2011 : 11:42:31 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by massdee
Is there anywhere in this Charter reform that limits hiring and gives the City Council more of a say in hiring?
I believe it's the exact opposite. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2011 : 12:15:49 PM
|
First off let me say, I want people to vote their own conscious on the new charter; I really do. But I also want them to base their decision on facts, not the words that come out of mouths of people with their own agendas or are ill-informed about the new charter. That goes for postings too.
I’m sorry but Alderman Michael Marchese is not a good source for the facts of the new charter. I get it. He’s against the four-term for mayor; so am I. He’s against all city councilors being elected city wide; I can see both side of the argument and I’m not really 100% certain which option is the better choice. So, ideologically, we’re not all that far apart. Where we differ is the lengths that we are willing to go to get people to accept our point of view.
So again this week, Alderman Marchese started off wanting to know when the final report of the Charter Commission would be mailed out to the voters. As I posted a couple of weeks ago, this process is the responsibility of the City Council! This time, I’ll provide the appropriate reference:
CHAPTER 43B HOME RULE PROCEDURES
Section 11 Proposed charter or charter revision; submission to voters; ballot; copies of final report or proposed amendment; adoption of alternative or conflicting provisions
The city council or board of selectmen shall cause the final report of a charter commission, or a charter amendment proposed in an order which has become effective under section ten, to be printed and a copy to be distributed to each residence of one or more registered voters. Such distribution shall occur not later than two weeks before the election at which the question of adopting, revising or amending the charter is to be submitted to the voters. Additional copies of such final report or proposed amendment shall be filed with the city or town clerk for distribution to registered voters requesting the same and one such copy shall be posted in his office.
What I’m not sure of is that if this really what is taking place. As I posted earlier on the subject, what I’m hearing is that the Charter Commission chairman is staying more involved in this process than required by law and the City Council pretty much has not gotten involved other than to approve the printer and the expenditure. So if the City Council doesn’t know what’s going on, whose fault is that?
Is the fact that final report has not been published yet really all that big of a deal? For those of us that have online access, not really. The final report of the Charter Commission has been posted on the city web site since May. The final report of the Charter Commission is not all that different from their preliminary report, which was circulated in local newspapers months ago. While the final report is certainly worth a read or two, I doubt that anyone who bothered to read preliminary report will find any major surprises in the final version.
Alderman Marchese seems to be genuinely passionate about his issues. The question is did he ever try to participate in the process? Did he ever attend a Charter Commission meeting or a public hearing to express his views? Did he ever put anything in writing for the Charter Commission to consider? As far as I’m aware, he did not. Democracy is a participatory process; if you don’t participate, how do you expect your voice to be heard? As a long-serving member of the City Council, Alderman Marchese’s voice could have been helpful, especially on issues like how the City Council members should be elected.
And before anyone asks, I did participate in the process, multiple times. Do I feel that the Charter Commission always heard what I had to say? No; at times, it was very frustrating. Did I get everything I wanted into the new charter? Obviously not. But there were times when my voice was heard and I’m glad to have participated in the process.
As far as why the Charter Commission hasn’t appeared at the BOA meetings lately, I’m not exactly sure. I do know that when they were requested to appear before the BOA earlier this year, it required a vote of the entire commission before the chairman was allowed to appear. The commission appears to be on hold at the moment. I don’t believe that they’ve had a meeting since May but they haven’t been disbanded as they legally have some duties after the election whether the charter passes or not. A number of them are now participating in a ballot question committee, as is their right under law. Since that is a political body, I’m not sure that it would be appropriate to bring a representative of such a body before the City Council.
Speaking of which, I did some further research on the Vote NO on Charter committee. They are a legitimate ballot question committee, filed with the City Clerk’s office. What I’ve been told is that the officers of this committee are either current city office holders or candidates for election. Their chairman per their filing? Alderman Michael Marchese. Although it is certainly the alderman’s right to belong to or even head up this type of organization, it certainly seems wrong, at least in my opinion, for him or anybody else on their committee to be using the City Council chambers as a bully pulpit on this issue.
The following is to correct some misleading information that was been spoken by Alderman Marchese and also expanded and posted on this board. Under the new charter, the legislative branch would consist of 11 city councilors, all elected city wide. There would be one ward councilor for each ward and they would be required to be domiciled in the ward in which they are elected, something that is not required in the current charter. (BTW, the current charter doesn’t even require them to live in the city!) The other five councilors would be at-large councilors. So, theoretically, it would be possible to have up to six councilors living in any one ward. However, even though the size of each ward might not be geographically equivalent, the number of voters in each ward is meant to be about the same. That is done through periodic redistricting of the wards. So while the number of voters in each ward may not be the same at any one given point in time, there is a mechanism in place to correct any inequities.
It has been suggested the current charter process should be voted down and started all over again. Just be aware that this would mean starting all over again from scratch. This means beginning by collecting the signatures needed to get the issue put back on the ballot again. If that effort could actually be completed, the process would then be the same as what we have just gone through. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see something like that being done again for a while. Re-doing the whole process has no guarantee of a different result and re-incurring at least some of the same costs that the taxpayers have already recently funded with no guarantee of a ‘better” result doesn’t seem to be a winning argument.
The best advice that I can give? Read the new charter yourself and make up your own mind. If you are confused about certain parts of it, talk to someone you trust about it; get multiple people’s input if you can. The one thing that I’d advise you to avoid is to stay away from the normal petty, self-serving politics that grip this city far too often.
But, as always, what do I know? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Charter Review
