| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
 Posted - 01/23/2009 : 10:39:31 AM
|
I cant say for certain about elected officials, but from the sounds of it, and also Peter saying nine "citizens"
I would think it would be some type of conflict to have elected officials on the commission. I'd like to see intelligent average citizens, that are not looking for a political foot in the door, that truly have the best interest at heart for the city and main purpose will be just the Charter Commission. That's the only way that it will work.
"blatantly, gone are the days" |
 |
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2009 : 12:24:09 PM
|
I'd like to know where our current group stand on this issue. Most of them have been silent on the subject.
Several years ago a few of our elected officials thought we should stay with the bicameral form of government because we're the only city in the country to still have it. They told me it sets us apart from the rest and didn't want to hear that every other city and town was smart enough to get rid of it!
I hope logic rules............... |
|
|
|
Wildfire132
Member
31 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2009 : 2:14:08 PM
|
| Frankly, I agree with Tails. I'd like to see the "average" everett citizens serve on the Commission. The elected officials, with few exceptions, wouldn't want to change a thing. Think about it a second, Out of the 25 (18 Councilmen & 7 Aldermen), How many of them would make it if the CIty Council was 11 members (1 from each Ward & 5 at-large). Who would be gone? Hicks? King? Corniellio? Can you imagine if our elected officials actually addressed issues instead of give one of your votes or worse, a bullett? No one gets in just under the radar. Forget the unique B*S*. There's nothing unique about having the bicameral system except for being oh so slow to change. Looking at the possiblilty of a City Manager isn't a bad idea either. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2009 : 2:38:06 PM
|
If anyone is interested in reading the laws on it, they are here: You must be logged in to see this link.
It would be nice if the sponsors of the piece hold a public meeting to interested parties and explain the process. Perhaps the city clerk can be there too. This is defiantly a positive that will be going on.
"blatantly, gone are the days" |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2009 : 6:26:40 PM
|
At first, I was pretty certain that the charter change that prevents someone's name from appearing more than once on the ballot would prevent any of the elected officials running for re-election or another seat from also running for a seat on the the charter review commission. But, after doing some research though, I'm not quite as sure about it.
Since the copy of the city charter that appears on the website has not been updated with the change yet, it was necessary to track down the change on the state web site. It reads as follows:
"Section 6 of chapter 355 of the acts of 1892 is hereby amended by adding the following sentence:- An individual running for elective office shall have his name on the ballot only for 1 office that is 1 seat at any 1 election."
The Section 6 that the law refers to is the section of the Everett city charter entitled: Section 6. Election of mayor, city council and school committee.
If you read that section of the charter, that sentence would fit perfectly at the end of the section. Now that we have the probable construction of the revised charter, let's try to dissect how it could be interpreted. Since that sentence appears in a section of that charter talks about the election of the mayor, city council and school committee and the charter contains no mention of any other elected offices, you could argue that the rule only pertains to those seats. On the other hand, you could argue that it doesn't matter where this statement appears in the charter and should be followed exactly as it is written. I have no clue how a judge might rule on a situation like this.
Personally, I would hope that someone who is elected to another city position would not also be allowed to serve on the charter review commission. If an elected official wants to be involved in the process, they should attend the public hearings and offer their input just like a private citizen has the right to. |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2009 : 8:35:36 PM
|
I realize logic doesn't always go hand in hand with how things work but in this instance, wouldn't having an elected official on the Commission be a blatant conflict of interest? We've all seen members of the council leave chambers when there's a vote on things that would directly affect them or their family members. Why would this be any different?
Let's face it, there aren't many people who will voluntarily give up part of their income, benefits, and possibly a pension. Some are able to be completely objective and work for the best interest of the majority but I would prefer not to put them to the test......... |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2009 : 2:36:37 PM
|
I found the resource library informative. I hope the right people decide to run for this. The time is now for people's voices to be heard and let the voters decide the changes they would like (if any)
You must be logged in to see this link. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2009 : 11:21:32 AM
|
| I would like to see term limits added to our charter for elected officials in Everett. That way they will spend less time worrying about the next election and more time taking care of the city and the residents. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2009 : 10:51:55 AM
|
| Do we still need signatures, even after the Governor signed this bill? Or, will the signatures be only for the people running for the commission? I remember something about 1500 signatures that went missing, so I hope that part of it is over. That is a tedious task. |
|
|
|
Wildfire132
Member
31 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2009 : 3:02:26 PM
|
| No more petition signatures are needed to place the question on the ballot. The Governors signature made that official. The only signatures necessary are for the nomination papers for the nine commissioners. You need 50 certified signatures so fugure on collecting about 75. I spoke with the City Clerks office and the nomination papers will be available the same time as the election nomination papers this spring. Hope this is helpful. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2009 : 5:39:14 PM
|
| Thank you. It was helpful. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2009 : 08:15:47 AM
|
I got behind in my posting last week. I had a few things that I wanted to comment about that I read in the local papers. So that I don't "bury" the posts and threads one after the other because most of them are in the same forum, I've decided to post them in the appropriate subject matter threads rather than the newspaper threads.
I was very surprised at how strongly the Leader-Herald came out in opposition to charter review in its editorial last week. My view of charter review is greatly shaped by the nightmare of the budget fiasco from a couple of summers ago. I was hoping that maybe it would be possible to address the holes in the charter first and worry about the actual form of the government later. To be honest, I wasn't sure how that could work but I just feel that it is important to fix the city charter without necessarily getting into the controversy over the city's form of government, which may derail the effort. I don't feel that city can come away from charter review without improvements to the charter. However, I was further disabused of this approach by Councilor Peter Napolitano's comments at last week's Council Council meeting where he pointed out that there are base charters associated with the various forms of state approved government structures. So it would seem that it would be difficult to address the charter issues and the form of government separately. Even so, it's not going to hurt to work through the process, make recommendations and let the voting public decide if the changes are needed. Yes, there are other ways that the charter can be changed but, as we have seen seen, those seem to take forever.
So why did the Leader-Herald come out so hard against charter review? It's hard to say but if I had to guess I'd say that it do with the usual reason, money. With the fear of a reduction in the number of local politicians, there would be less ad dollars to be collected in election years and in those fairly frequent "celebration" ad sections that are dominated with well wishes from local politicians. Just a guess but, when in doubt, I always try to follow the money trail. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2009 : 7:27:44 PM
|
The next thing that I would like to see would be some type of event to start charter review. Not an event to have all the politicians there, but the ones that have been working on the Charter Review and maybe the City Clerk and of course, average citizens that may have an interest.
Something informal…… to invite the public, and maybe spark interest. It could be at the Connolly Center, to give people information or pamphlets, or just have questions they would like to ask, before considering this.
Especially for those who do not have computers, it could be just a couple of hours (maybe on a Saturday) Just a little kickoff event. I’m sure the papers would put an announcement in and see if people are really interested.
I just think it’s a good idea if the people who worked on this would be willing, rather than just waiting until the spring, and see who shows up at the Clerk’s Office.
|
Edited by - Tails on 02/11/2009 7:29:40 PM |
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2009 : 7:40:16 PM
|
| Would there be any benefit to having both boards vote on an agreement to not run for the commission unless they have decided against seeking reelection? |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2009 : 7:46:18 PM
|
I believe there would be. I also realize it would only be a gentleman's agreement and not binding in any way.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Charter Review
