| Author |
 Topic  |
|
JoeBlow
Member
80 Posts |
 Posted - 05/05/2007 : 1:40:57 PM
|
I have no issue with Joe, if he feels he can do better fine its his right to run for the Mayors office as it is mine or yours. However I might also add that I dont lean toward Hanlon either. But I will say this anybody who has been involved/around/affiliated with politics here in Everett knows 2 years is hardly enough to get the job done. The time frame is waaay to short. I say I think John give this man a try will ya, Every wants his head and he's only been on the job for a little more than a year. Give him a chance, I would say the same if Joe where Mayor or anyone else who just started out his or her term.
The time frame for Mayors in this city is ridiculous its just to short, we also need to do away with city council as well, we are in the dark ages here with this system we have, it works but not well and it can be run better and more efficient.
2 serious issue facing Everett and they need to change, is we need to get with the times, forget history we dont need to be the last city standing with an antiquated system, city council needs to go no if's ands buts about it, it has to GO.
and # 2 we need to extend the time frame inwhich ours mayors and officials hold office.Until we change this is will remain business as usual here in Everett, and the usual business here STINKS.
Joe Blow from Idaho
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2007 : 9:54:08 PM
|
| I also agree that 2 years is too short a time frame to be effective. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the voters had an oportunity a few years back to change the election cycle for mayor to 4 years and declined to do so. Eliminating the Common Council would be a great thing only they will never move a measure forward on their own to accomplish that end. Putting it on the ballot via petition drive seems to be the only chance of it happening. That being said, I don't believe any more time will help turn this administrations ship aroung. It's already taken on too much water to be saved. |
 |
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 01:05:16 AM
|
| I agree with most of your post, but could you only imagine Hanlon in there for four years. There would be no recovery. I think we need to keep the two year term, unless this city can get recall put into the charter. Without recall, we can not take the chance of a longer term. |
|
|
|
JoeBlow
Member
80 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 01:49:52 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by massdee
I agree with most of your post, but could you only imagine Hanlon in there for four years. There would be no recovery. I think we need to keep the two year term, unless this city can get recall put into the charter. Without recall, we can not take the chance of a longer term.
See I disagree I still think even the next guy coming in behind Hanlon or whomever needs more time at the job than 2 years to implement things and see where they go. 2 years is just to short, I understand the ideology of playing it safe with the 2 year term but just dont think it serve us well,nor any admin that wins the Mayoral election. Even if they bumped it up to 3 years to get a feel of how it would work, I think they would find it would make everyone feel better and put some ease on the elected Mayor that he has time to implment things.
Joe Blow from Idaho |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 06:26:52 AM
|
I also agree there should be a longer term limit for the mayor. Two years doesn't give them enough time to really accomplish much and halfway through their term, they have to take valuable time to run for re-election.
That said, I don't think there's any way most people would want to see that change right now. The current mayor has made such a mess of things that even thinking about him in office for another two years scares the hell out of me! If things go well with our next mayor (or two), changing the term will be possible, but it's not something to be considering right now. After all, we're currently experiencing the perfect example of why we have two year terms.............. |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 08:36:29 AM
|
| Given recent events - a four-year term would be the last thing I would want for this city. A two-year term gives us the flexibility we need to "review" whether we voted appropriately. A four-year term would be appropriate for a city with a more mature political environment. Right now, we're in a sea of volatility and a four-year term means we don't have options for a fairly significant chunk of time. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 10:10:41 AM
|
Several years ago the School Committee had a four year term. I can remember that going on the ballot to reduce them to a two year term, and it passed overwhelmingly.
I could possibly see a three year term, but we really would need "Recall" added to our charter. We need some type of tool to hold our Elected Officials accountable. |
Edited by - massdee on 05/06/2007 10:27:19 AM |
|
|
|
JoeBlow
Member
80 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 11:11:13 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Court4Fred
A four-year term would be appropriate for a city with a more mature political environment.
We could have a more mature political enviroment if we could get rid of an antiquated political system (ie.common council) and move on into a more modern time istead of being behind the times. I also think like the current Mayor or the future Mayor, NO matter what they NEED more time to implement there own programs and ideas. And as Just me stated which is a huge factor is only one year after being elected they have start to mount a re-election campaign which takes away from there daily duty's and add's more stress. Not to mention how would you feel if you only got into office a little less than a year ago and had to deal with your those critiziing you and talking about getting rid of you, Hey ya thats great inspiration to want to implement your ideas only to know you wont be in office to make any kind of adjustments to your programs.
It hardly seems fair or good business.
Joe Blow from Idaho |
|
|
|
Lyinda
Member
8 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 8:07:23 PM
|
| Joe Blow. Did you refill those meds of yours? Talk about split personality. |
|
|
|
Citizen Kane
Advanced Member
1082 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 8:19:59 PM
|
| Lyinda, Joe is making a good faith effort within the last 24 hours to have a reasonable conversation out here. I think it would be nice to meet him at least half way. |
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 8:22:09 PM
|
| I agree with you Court4Fred. Hanlon disregarded many points in his campaign platform in an all out attempt to unseat former Mayor Ragucci. It is unfortunate not enough people saw through him in the voting booth to prevent that from happening. If we could set aside the fact you dislike the performance of the current mayor would you then think that four years would be a fair term for an executive to prove his worth managing a municipal government? I believe the current mayor will not be granted another term by the voters of Everett. Why not make a change and be fair to the next occupant of the corner office? One year of work and crank up the fundraisers and sign holders again is just too soon. Maybe three years would be a reasonable compromise to let someone prove they are competant without being stuck with them too long if they crash and burn as many feel this administration has done. A new mayor takes a bit more time to get up to speed than a re-election candidate who already knows the ropes. |
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 8:46:39 PM
|
| Citizen, I'm glad you also noticed the change in Joe's posts. If I were the only one the rest of the members might think I was a fool for trying to get some good exchange going. And nobody likes to be thought a fool. :-) |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 8:51:27 PM
|
| Middle-man1, I think it would be difficult to set aside my current opinion of the current occupant of the mayor's office. This is, after all, a man who has been in city government in one form or another for decades. It's troubling to see the downward slide of the city...and then consider that the current occupant of the corner office may have had another two years to do us in completely. There's something to be said for two years and out. |
Edited by - Court4Fred on 05/06/2007 9:20:45 PM |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 8:52:04 PM
|
| I also hope to see Joe continue along his present course. There's such a significant change it's hard to believe it's the same person. |
|
|
|
EverettsPride
Advanced Member
1140 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 9:22:54 PM
|
Because it is probably not.
Sally |
|
|
|
Citizen Kane
Advanced Member
1082 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 9:23:14 PM
|
Oh, you're no fool, Middle Man1; you were the one who was willing to give Joe the benefit of the doubt, and I think it's only fair that we follow suit, especially seeing that he has been willing to follow your advice and tone down the rhetoric a bit.
Joe, I want to thank you for making the effort. I still don't agree with some of what you say, but you have valid points in your arguments. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
HANLON Vs. McGonalge
