Government change petition drive suspended, at least for now
Saturday, July 31 2004 @ 01:14 PM MDT
Contributed by: admin Citizens for Responsible Government has decided to suspend its petition drive – at least for the moment. This action should NOT however, be construed as an inability to get the required number of signatures necessary for placement on the November ballot. In fact, considering the progress we’d made since the launching of our campaign a month ago, it is clear we would have gotten more than the required number of signatures. So why a change in plans?
Simply put, unlike most of the city council members to this date, we are actually listening to the people of this community. When we first brought forward our proposed charter ordinance change, it was based on what many people in the community told us they wanted in their city government.
However, over the course of a few weeks and one or two city council meetings where other citizens spoke, it appeared that one rather contentious part of the proposal was a provision where an elected mayor and/or city council member could recommend the termination of a department head. We still believe that this is an important provision in order to make everyone – department heads and the city manager alike – more accountable. However, with so much contention seemingly surrounding this particular provision, it seemed possible that even with the necessary number of signatures to get our direct legislation on the November ballot, the measure might still fail. We would rather stop the petition gathering process, get input from a larger cross-section of people and then move for a change that has a better chance of passage, than put an otherwise good piece of legislation on the ballot and run the risk of having the whole thing fail because of one main sticking point. So, in keeping true to our group’s name, we did the responsible thing and decided to go back to the drawing board.
In addition to that, the city council members kept saying how they wanted more public input and a workshop. Since citizens cannot speak at a workshop, Councilman Paul Esslinger decided to host a town hall meeting where the entire public has an opportunity to speak on the issue. Also, in a spirit of compromise, he set up a workshop for the city council, too. So the city council members are now going to be given every single thing they said they wanted. If after all of this, they still refuse to put something of significance on the ballot, they will show everyone that they simply do not want to give the public what it wants. Bottom line they will have run out of excuses, and time. We will then analyze the situation, consider the options and plan our next moves.
A couple other points need to be made about comments made by current mayor Mark Harris and city councilman Bill Castle. Though Mr. Castle is the only council member who refused to support a workshop on city government, he said it was a good idea. Huh?? If it’s a good idea, why did he not support it? This makes no sense whatsoever. Then he made a ridiculous comment about how the fact that such a workshop was approved is proof that the current form of government works and there is no need to change it. In an effort to bolster his comment he said that if we had an elected mayor, such a workshop would never have been approved. Mr. Castle’s statement tilts the B.S.-o-meter. He is either blind to what an elected mayor is or he is hell-bent on misleading the public. But for the record, and depending on what kind of an elected mayor a city has, the mayor either still takes many marching orders from a city council, even though he or she is an elected official in their own right, or the mayor has no ability to stonewall something the city council wants to do. Even in a situation where a mayor can veto a city council decision, the council can still override that veto. But why would a mayor not want to give the people something they want, Mr. Castle, especially when he or she could be elected out of office just as easily as they were elected in? Again, this argument of Councilman Castle's was completely illogical, but it was entertaining to hear his spin, anyway.
As for Mr. Harris’ comment in the Oshkosh Northwestern the day after the council meeting, in which he said Councilman Esslinger is asking the council for an awful lot, exactly what is he asking for, and why is it too much? Let’s examine this a little more closely, shall we?
• Council members said they wanted a workshop. Councilman Esslinger has given them that opportunity.
• Council members said they wanted more public input. Councilman Esslinger has given them that opportunity.
• Mr. Harris himself – along with others on the council – said that more than one change of government referendum question on the ballot might confuse people and not give any of them a fair chance. Therefore, they believed only one referendum question should be placed on the ballot. Councilman Esslinger said that he will bring forward a proposal based on the public’s comments at the town hall meeting and he asked that no other councilor bring forward anything else; rather, that any revisions up or down be made to his proposal, not creating a second or third one. Again, Councilman Esslinger is giving the other council members and Mr. Harris himself exactly what they wanted in this regard.
This comparison would again show that Mark Harris speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He and the other council members have been given everything they said they wanted, but suddenly it’s too much, according to Mark Harris. Well, maybe he should not have been one of the councilors asking for all these things then. You know the old saying: “Be careful what you wish for.” And he sure as hell should not have voted in favor of them if he thought they were out of line or too excessive.
It sounds to me more like Mr. Harris is upset because once again, Mr. Esslinger has stepped up to the plate on behalf of the people, rather than any of the "Fab 5" coming forward to act on our behalf.
Everything aside, it seems more likely than ever that a government change in one form or another is coming. And city council members can either work with we, the people, or against us. But if they work against us, it will likely be political suicide. Let’s see if they have the political courage and fortitude to, for once, do the will of the people.
- Cheryl Hentz
Contributed by: admin Citizens for Responsible Government has decided to suspend its petition drive – at least for the moment. This action should NOT however, be construed as an inability to get the required number of signatures necessary for placement on the November ballot. In fact, considering the progress we’d made since the launching of our campaign a month ago, it is clear we would have gotten more than the required number of signatures. So why a change in plans?
Simply put, unlike most of the city council members to this date, we are actually listening to the people of this community. When we first brought forward our proposed charter ordinance change, it was based on what many people in the community told us they wanted in their city government.
However, over the course of a few weeks and one or two city council meetings where other citizens spoke, it appeared that one rather contentious part of the proposal was a provision where an elected mayor and/or city council member could recommend the termination of a department head. We still believe that this is an important provision in order to make everyone – department heads and the city manager alike – more accountable. However, with so much contention seemingly surrounding this particular provision, it seemed possible that even with the necessary number of signatures to get our direct legislation on the November ballot, the measure might still fail. We would rather stop the petition gathering process, get input from a larger cross-section of people and then move for a change that has a better chance of passage, than put an otherwise good piece of legislation on the ballot and run the risk of having the whole thing fail because of one main sticking point. So, in keeping true to our group’s name, we did the responsible thing and decided to go back to the drawing board.
In addition to that, the city council members kept saying how they wanted more public input and a workshop. Since citizens cannot speak at a workshop, Councilman Paul Esslinger decided to host a town hall meeting where the entire public has an opportunity to speak on the issue. Also, in a spirit of compromise, he set up a workshop for the city council, too. So the city council members are now going to be given every single thing they said they wanted. If after all of this, they still refuse to put something of significance on the ballot, they will show everyone that they simply do not want to give the public what it wants. Bottom line they will have run out of excuses, and time. We will then analyze the situation, consider the options and plan our next moves.
A couple other points need to be made about comments made by current mayor Mark Harris and city councilman Bill Castle. Though Mr. Castle is the only council member who refused to support a workshop on city government, he said it was a good idea. Huh?? If it’s a good idea, why did he not support it? This makes no sense whatsoever. Then he made a ridiculous comment about how the fact that such a workshop was approved is proof that the current form of government works and there is no need to change it. In an effort to bolster his comment he said that if we had an elected mayor, such a workshop would never have been approved. Mr. Castle’s statement tilts the B.S.-o-meter. He is either blind to what an elected mayor is or he is hell-bent on misleading the public. But for the record, and depending on what kind of an elected mayor a city has, the mayor either still takes many marching orders from a city council, even though he or she is an elected official in their own right, or the mayor has no ability to stonewall something the city council wants to do. Even in a situation where a mayor can veto a city council decision, the council can still override that veto. But why would a mayor not want to give the people something they want, Mr. Castle, especially when he or she could be elected out of office just as easily as they were elected in? Again, this argument of Councilman Castle's was completely illogical, but it was entertaining to hear his spin, anyway.
As for Mr. Harris’ comment in the Oshkosh Northwestern the day after the council meeting, in which he said Councilman Esslinger is asking the council for an awful lot, exactly what is he asking for, and why is it too much? Let’s examine this a little more closely, shall we?
• Council members said they wanted a workshop. Councilman Esslinger has given them that opportunity.
• Council members said they wanted more public input. Councilman Esslinger has given them that opportunity.
• Mr. Harris himself – along with others on the council – said that more than one change of government referendum question on the ballot might confuse people and not give any of them a fair chance. Therefore, they believed only one referendum question should be placed on the ballot. Councilman Esslinger said that he will bring forward a proposal based on the public’s comments at the town hall meeting and he asked that no other councilor bring forward anything else; rather, that any revisions up or down be made to his proposal, not creating a second or third one. Again, Councilman Esslinger is giving the other council members and Mr. Harris himself exactly what they wanted in this regard.
This comparison would again show that Mark Harris speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He and the other council members have been given everything they said they wanted, but suddenly it’s too much, according to Mark Harris. Well, maybe he should not have been one of the councilors asking for all these things then. You know the old saying: “Be careful what you wish for.” And he sure as hell should not have voted in favor of them if he thought they were out of line or too excessive.
It sounds to me more like Mr. Harris is upset because once again, Mr. Esslinger has stepped up to the plate on behalf of the people, rather than any of the "Fab 5" coming forward to act on our behalf.
Everything aside, it seems more likely than ever that a government change in one form or another is coming. And city council members can either work with we, the people, or against us. But if they work against us, it will likely be political suicide. Let’s see if they have the political courage and fortitude to, for once, do the will of the people.
- Cheryl Hentz
posted by Cheryl Hentz at 2:14 PM
<< Home