Changing the Charter

The Gulch Gestapo are picking apart the charter changes inside the Sanctum Sanctorum (otherwise known as the bisbeeforum). Yeah they are showing their usual expertise and again trying to second guess those who were actually there and working on it. It is amazing how stupid even their "friends" become when it suits their purpose. How can Sandy Upson suddenly become so stupid? Proof I guess that not even friendship gets in the way of criticizing the city. Watch out Betty, if you should get elected, just image how these "friends" will treat you.

Proposition 400 : YES vote - will allow the mayor pro tem to act as mayor if something occurs to prevent the elected mayor from serving on the City Council.
NO vote - the mayor pro tem acts as mayor only until the council fills the vacancy from the remaining members.

Proposition 401 : YES vote - the mayor will appoint a replacement to the city council in the event of a tie.
NO vote - the district representative on the county board of supervisors appoints a replacement to city council in the event of a tie.


Proposition 403 : YES vote - Any citizen may present a written petition to the City Council and such petitions shall be considered and action taken by the council within three regular meetings.
A motion to table shall not be considered an action....(is added)
NO Vote- leaves out *A motion to table shall not be considered an action*

Proposition 405 : YES vote - drops The Police and Fire Advisory Committee from the list of appointed advisory committees.
NO vote - keeps The Police and Fire Advisory Committee as one of the appointed advisory committees.
NOTE - Currently there are five committees; finance, planning and zoning commission, design review board, board of adjustments, AND the police and fire advisory
committee.

Proposition 406 : YES vote - does not allow the transfer of invested funds from one working cash fund to another fund. It currently requires the city to work within its existing budget limits
In the event the city is forced to invade its invested funds or borrow from other financial sources, it must do so with six-sevenths of the council voting in favor of any
such borrowing or invasion of invested funds.
NO vote - would strike section 6.06 and allow invested funds to be moved from one working fund to another fund and not require council approval.

Proposition 409 : YES vote - changes the annual levy and assessment for primary and secondary taxes to be done by resolution and would not need to be changed year
to year.
NO vote - keeps the annual levy and assessment for primary and secondary taxes to be done by an ordinance which requires a change year to year.

Hopefully if I have this incorrect somebody will correct me.

Not to worry.

Jack Porter who knows al sees all will perform his charter routine
this saturday at 10 am at the Democratic club meeting at the Senior Center.

Yassuh yassuh step right up folks! The Charter Amendments.

Porter, the private citizen, is in the center ring.
Giving his private citizen viewpoint on what's good, what's not about each and every new improved amendment to the charter. He tried it at Donna Pulling's meeting at the library but no one was there to hear him. A smaller crowd is likely at the Senior Center but a podium is a podium for old jack. Never say die.

He might be sidelined tho, because local democrats might have something other than the charter to crow about this saturday.

Dear Stu Pid

There are several inaccuracies in your choices, but the most glaring is this.
Under the current charter the county supervisor BREAKS THE TIE VOTE, casting a vote for one of the candidates being considered for appointment. If Prop 401 is passed, the mayor gets to CHOOSE THE REPLACEMENT. The mayor may choose one of the candidates being considered, but this amendment gives him the power to CHOOSE THE REPLACEMENT and that can be anyone, even someone who has not applied for the vacancy.
Prop 401 doesn't fix the problem, it creates a worse one.

I see even more problems with Stu Pid's interpretation of the propositions. That's MISinterpretations.

Maybe we should go to the meeting and ask Jack. He seems to know what's going on, personalities aside.

Here's the thing, the subject line for the post lists the content as a nutshell or abbreviated version; it is meant only to be a simple one liner to facilitate discussion by us. The pamphlet provided by the city offers the full content, Jeff's version can be obtained wherever jackasses prefer to post.

What we need on this topic is professional input from someone who knows the charter inside and out.

lotsa luck !!!!!

correcti wrote:

Dear Stu Pid

There are several inaccuracies in your choices, but the most glaring is this.
Under the current charter the county supervisor BREAKS THE TIE VOTE, casting a vote for one of the candidates being considered for appointment. If Prop 401 is passed, the mayor gets to CHOOSE THE REPLACEMENT. The mayor may choose one of the candidates being considered, but this amendment gives him the power to CHOOSE THE REPLACEMENT and that can be anyone, even someone who has not applied for the vacancy.
Prop 401 doesn't fix the problem, it creates a worse one.

Of course you fail to mention that there is a 30 day time period after a tie vote that the council can select a council replacement, before the mayor can appoint. The reasoning is that most councils will do that selection process in the 30 day time period after a tie vote, because they would not want a mayor to have that choice. The Charter Review Committee was a good cross section of the people in this town. Former Mayor Laverne Williams, who helped put the original charter together was also a member of the recent Charter Review Committee.

Right.

In case of a tie vote, the mayor would make the choice,
AND the choice can wait as long as 30 DAYS.

As it stands now, the choice is made during one selection session.

In case of a 3-3 choice for a new councilman the delay of 30 days would cause chaos and mayhem and all sorts of pressure on the mayor UNLESS the mayor already had his/her choice in mind, regardless of the applicants. Better to have ONE NONCOUNCIL PERSON, whoever that is, cast a vote that breaks the tie. As a public servant Paul Newman should be able to handle that but if not another person can be named. Have your ideas ready for the next charter review committee.

Remember the Ted White appointment? It dragged on into the night. The tie was broken not by a non-council appointment but by the two tied CANDIDATES who dropped out in embarrassment.
This proposition could cause the same situation with one or both of the candidates dropping out on say Day 25 with no representation during that time in council business.

NOT GOOD, Prop 401

This Proposition gives the mayor TOO MUCH POWER.

VOTE NO on PROPOSITION 401

Murtha wrote:

Right.

In case of a tie vote, the mayor would make the choice,
AND the choice can wait as long as 30 DAYS.

As it stands now, the choice is made during one selection session.

In case of a 3-3 choice for a new councilman the delay of 30 days would cause chaos and mayhem and all sorts of pressure on the mayor UNLESS the mayor already had his/her choice in mind, regardless of the applicants. Better to have ONE NONCOUNCIL PERSON, whoever that is, cast a vote that breaks the tie. As a public servant Paul Newman should be able to handle that but if not another person can be named. Have your ideas ready for the next charter review committee.

Remember the Ted White appointment? It dragged on into the night. The tie was broken not by a non-council appointment but by the two tied CANDIDATES who dropped out in embarrassment.
This proposition could cause the same situation with one or both of the candidates dropping out on say Day 25 with no representation during that time in council business.

NOT GOOD, Prop 401

This Proposition gives the mayor TOO MUCH POWER.

VOTE NO on PROPOSITION 401

Well, the voters can decide which way they want to go with this.

By the way, you have to give a lot of thanks to the Charter Review Committee for months of work on these potential revisions.

murtha wrote:

Right.

In case of a tie vote, the mayor would make the choice,
AND the choice can wait as long as 30 DAYS.

As it stands now, the choice is made during one selection session.

In case of a 3-3 choice for a new councilman the delay of 30 days would cause chaos and mayhem and all sorts of pressure on the mayor UNLESS the mayor already had his/her choice in mind, regardless of the applicants. Better to have ONE NONCOUNCIL PERSON, whoever that is, cast a vote that breaks the tie. As a public servant Paul Newman should be able to handle that but if not another person can be named. Have your ideas ready for the next charter review committee.

Remember the Ted White appointment? It dragged on into the night. The tie was broken not by a non-council appointment but by the two tied CANDIDATES who dropped out in embarrassment.
This proposition could cause the same situation with one or both of the candidates dropping out on say Day 25 with no representation during that time in council business.

NOT GOOD, Prop 401

This Proposition gives the mayor TOO MUCH POWER.

VOTE NO on PROPOSITION 401

Why not assume the council would appoint someone in 5 days? OR That NO title is a safeguard against a poor decision? OR, that it is prudent, not an inconvenience, to take a bit longer?

There isn't a process in existence that can't be slanted negatively.

Look at it this way, how many times has TOM WHEELER said he was an original freeholder (quite a few), could his view of the recommended changes or criticism of the current committee be influenced by HIS "ego" ? HMMM?

Prop 401 causes more problems than it solves.

Moving right along to Prop 403 wherein the lawyers on the Committee presented their warm fuzzy reasons for gaining RESPECT for yahoos who present petitions to the council..,......

If 403 is accepted, people who present petitions will have LESS respect from the council under the new wording.

How? you ask. The Amendment says the council has to give the petition ACTION within three meetings (instead of CONSIDER it) and one action it cannot give is TABLE.
So, if it is a good petition on something a lot of people care about, the council cannot TABLE it to take more time to have staff gather information. The council has to ACT and that could be to just talk about the petition and decide not to do whatever it is, to reject it, send it into the black hole the do gooders say they want to avoid.

The last two petitions considered by council under the existing Charter were handled quite well if the petitioners' reactions are to be believed. (Ms Pulling, The Baron)

So it looks like PROP 403 is another one of those changes that CAUSES MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES.

yup wrote:

Prop 401 causes more problems than it solves.

Moving right along to Prop 403 wherein the lawyers on the Committee presented their warm fuzzy reasons for gaining RESPECT for yahoos who present petitions to the council..,......

If 403 is accepted, people who present petitions will have LESS respect from the council under the new wording.

How? you ask. The Amendment says the council has to give the petition ACTION within three meetings (instead of CONSIDER it) and one action it cannot give is TABLE.
So, if it is a good petition on something a lot of people care about, the council cannot TABLE it to take more time to have staff gather information. The council has to ACT and that could be to just talk about the petition and decide not to do whatever it is, to reject it, send it into the black hole the do gooders say they want to avoid.

The last two petitions considered by council under the existing Charter were handled quite well if the petitioners' reactions are to be believed. (Ms Pulling, The Baron)

So it looks like PROP 403 is another one of those changes that CAUSES MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES.

There isn't a process in existence that can't be slanted negatively especially from the negatively inclined.

yup wrote:

Prop 401 causes more problems than it solves.

Moving right along to Prop 403 wherein the lawyers on the Committee presented their warm fuzzy reasons for gaining RESPECT for yahoos who present petitions to the council..,......

If 403 is accepted, people who present petitions will have LESS respect from the council under the new wording.

How? you ask. The Amendment says the council has to give the petition ACTION within three meetings (instead of CONSIDER it) and one action it cannot give is TABLE.
So, if it is a good petition on something a lot of people care about, the council cannot TABLE it to take more time to have staff gather information. The council has to ACT and that could be to just talk about the petition and decide not to do whatever it is, to reject it, send it into the black hole the do gooders say they want to avoid.

The last two petitions considered by council under the existing Charter were handled quite well if the petitioners' reactions are to be believed. (Ms Pulling, The Baron)

So it looks like PROP 403 is another one of those changes that CAUSES MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES.

How do you take something meant to protect topics from arbitrary tabling and turn THAT into a negative. It would be like complaining about Christmas because someone could send you a bomb disguised as a present.

Perhaps I am naive but is it possible to discuss the issue free from personal opinion? Can't we ask questions and not attack each other?

I would like Yup to tell me why he thinks that adding the language that prevents a petition from being tabled makes petitions more vulnerable for rejection? Don't petitions get rejected for a variety of reason now?

Isn't it then possible that the amendment is what it appears to be...a true effort to acknowledge and address complaints from the public as directly and quickly as possible?

Elysian, you are sometimes such a pain in the ass. It isn't fun if we don't hang each other.

Without catering to all of Elysian's needs/wants, I stand my my stance

PROP 401 CREATES MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES.

While Yup is running the ALL JEFF ALL THE TIME thread on the other channel, here he won't discuss his reasons for recommending NO votes. I don't wonder at that. Here he would be taxed, he might have to intelligently support his thinking. On the other channel he just posts.

So are Jeff and Tom trying to say that Sandy Upson and Bill Elliot were idiots? Being part of a committee can mean that people must make compromises but it doesn't mean that they don't understand why or the motives in back of why, even if they do disagree. So why are Jeff and Tom so critical of it? Because they weren't included and it rubs their butt.