JOE SAINO RECOMMENDATIONS ON CHARTER AMENDMENTS
As usual the Commercial Appeal is mostly wrong. Many friends have asked me about these charter proposals and here are my thoughts and what I am voting for and against and the reasons. Also there is a huge question which is going unanswered. Charter Commission Referendum No. 4 calls for the suspension with pay for an elected or appointed official. Charter Commission No. 6 talks about filling a vacancy in the Mayor’s office. Suppose the Mayor is indicted. The City Council Chairman takes over and becomes the Mayor Pro-Tem and can serve for up to 180 days or until the next general election at which time a new Mayor could be elected even if the indictment has not been resolved. Interesting possibility.
County Commission Ordinance No. 364. YES as this is the best we can get and I do not want the Mayor appointing any of these positions as the voters should decide, not politicians.
County Commission Ordinance No. 365. YES as the County Commission wanted more than two terms for themselves even though the voters years ago voted for two four year term limits. Because they are mad that their attempt to get more than two terms failed, they are proposing only two terms for these five formerly constitutional officers. Vote yes because term limits for everyone is a good thing in this new American era of corrupt politicians.
City Council Ordinance No. 5232 Vote Yes.
City Council Ordinance No. 5265 Vote NO as it is ridiculous to require city officials to live within the city. They should be able to live where they want in order to get the best people to take these jobs.
Charter Commission Referendum No. 1 Vote YES as this is term limits. The Commercial Appeal brings out the old argument that the voters can vote out incompetent politicians. Everyone knows better as it is very difficult to vote out an incumbent. It takes them 8 years to learn how to steal and then we need to turn them out. The prime example for term limits resides at City Hall.
Charter Commission Referendum No. 2 Vote NO as the argument is that we need experienced politicians in these positions. Thirteen new City Council members at one time would be better than six incumbents and seven new people. Also this would allow the first group of politicians to get 11 years in office rather than 8 years as the first three years would not count towards term limits if term limits passes which I hope and pray it will.
Charter Commission Referendum No. 3 Vote YES on no sale of MLGW without voter approval.
Charter Commission Referendum No. 4 Vote YES on suspension, with pay, for appointed or elected officials who are indicted.
Charter Commission Referendum No. 5 Vote YES on instant runoffs. It is not complicated and it saves money and it corrects the situation where you get a big vote at the first election and a small vote at the runoff.
Charter Commission Referendum No. 6 Vote YES and hope that the Mayor’s office becomes vacant.
As usual the Commercial Appeal is mostly wrong. Many friends have asked me about these charter proposals and here are my thoughts and what I am voting for and against and the reasons. Also there is a huge question which is going unanswered. Charter Commission Referendum No. 4 calls for the suspension with pay for an elected or appointed official. Charter Commission No. 6 talks about filling a vacancy in the Mayor’s office. Suppose the Mayor is indicted. The City Council Chairman takes over and becomes the Mayor Pro-Tem and can serve for up to 180 days or until the next general election at which time a new Mayor could be elected even if the indictment has not been resolved. Interesting possibility.
County Commission Ordinance No. 364. YES as this is the best we can get and I do not want the Mayor appointing any of these positions as the voters should decide, not politicians.
County Commission Ordinance No. 365. YES as the County Commission wanted more than two terms for themselves even though the voters years ago voted for two four year term limits. Because they are mad that their attempt to get more than two terms failed, they are proposing only two terms for these five formerly constitutional officers. Vote yes because term limits for everyone is a good thing in this new American era of corrupt politicians.
City Council Ordinance No. 5232 Vote Yes.
City Council Ordinance No. 5265 Vote NO as it is ridiculous to require city officials to live within the city. They should be able to live where they want in order to get the best people to take these jobs.
Charter Commission Referendum No. 1 Vote YES as this is term limits. The Commercial Appeal brings out the old argument that the voters can vote out incompetent politicians. Everyone knows better as it is very difficult to vote out an incumbent. It takes them 8 years to learn how to steal and then we need to turn them out. The prime example for term limits resides at City Hall.
Charter Commission Referendum No. 2 Vote NO as the argument is that we need experienced politicians in these positions. Thirteen new City Council members at one time would be better than six incumbents and seven new people. Also this would allow the first group of politicians to get 11 years in office rather than 8 years as the first three years would not count towards term limits if term limits passes which I hope and pray it will.
Charter Commission Referendum No. 3 Vote YES on no sale of MLGW without voter approval.
Charter Commission Referendum No. 4 Vote YES on suspension, with pay, for appointed or elected officials who are indicted.
Charter Commission Referendum No. 5 Vote YES on instant runoffs. It is not complicated and it saves money and it corrects the situation where you get a big vote at the first election and a small vote at the runoff.
Charter Commission Referendum No. 6 Vote YES and hope that the Mayor’s office becomes vacant.
posted by watchdog at
10:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home