Second form of government referendum proposal to come before Oshkosh Common Council
Last week we read in the Oshkosh Northwestern that Oshkosh Common councilors Dennis McHugh and Paul Esslinger are proposing an advisory referendum that could help guide next year’s Common Council as to the form of government Oshkosh voters want. We also heard some very limited discussion about their proposal at last night’s Common Council meeting – with a council vote on the matter scheduled for Oct. 9.
In essence, as originally proposed the proposal would place four options on a ballot as a referendum question.
There was some suggestion at last night’s meeting that the order be changed to list the current form of government first. I totally agree that that is an appropriate suggestion. There has been some talk in the community, however, that there are too many options for a referendum question; I tend to agree. It’s one thing I suppose in an informal, unscientific survey like several of us have done to list multiple options, but people with more experience than I in drafting actual referenda questions have suggested to me that for official ballot purposes, more than two options is too many.
Given that, and since this would be an advisory referendum only, and specific details could be worked out before any official action would be taken, perhaps a better approach would be to offer just two options, those being something like as follows:
By offering just two distinct options it makes the people’s intent more clear as to the form of government they want, but doesn’t put too many options out there which may only serve to confuse voters.
Should, however, the council decide to stick with what is currently being proposed, I would recommend tweaking it to prohibit a full-time elected mayor from being a voting member of the council, or a council member at all for that matter. Most cities which have a mayor/council have the two separated and it seems to be a very effective way to operate. But under no circumstances am I in favor of a full-time elected mayor having multiple kicks at the cat, as is currently proposed.
Whatever is done with regard to the proposal, I think having an advisory referendum should be more palatable to those who are opposed to a government form change. After all, it doesn’t set anything in stone and it would give next year’s council plenty of time to craft or develop a more precise form of government that the people would like, as well as give citizens ample opportunity for discussion and input. And by putting it on the spring ballot the need for a special election is done away with. Finally, as I’ve already said before, it would put the form of government issue to rest, at least for now, so we don’t have it hanging over our heads as we try selecting a new city manager.
One word of concern, however: Since a change of government can be petitioned for every two years, once this issue is settled this time – if the current form of government is chosen to remain in place - I would hope we would not see this issue keep coming up every two years, because that threat could also cut into our ability to get the best qualified candidates for the city manager position.
In essence, as originally proposed the proposal would place four options on a ballot as a referendum question.
- A full-time mayor with seven alderpersons elected from districts
- A full-time mayor with seven alderpersons elected at-large
- A full-time mayor that votes with the council and four council members elected from districts and two at-large
- The current form with a full-time city manager, directly elected part-time mayor and six councilors elected at-large
There was some suggestion at last night’s meeting that the order be changed to list the current form of government first. I totally agree that that is an appropriate suggestion. There has been some talk in the community, however, that there are too many options for a referendum question; I tend to agree. It’s one thing I suppose in an informal, unscientific survey like several of us have done to list multiple options, but people with more experience than I in drafting actual referenda questions have suggested to me that for official ballot purposes, more than two options is too many.
Given that, and since this would be an advisory referendum only, and specific details could be worked out before any official action would be taken, perhaps a better approach would be to offer just two options, those being something like as follows:
- The current form of government with a full-time city manager, directly elected part-time mayor who serves as a council person and with six other councilors, all elected at large; or
- A full-time elected mayor with executive powers who does not serve as a member of the common council, but who would vote to break ties, when necessary, and who could veto council actions and with seven council members elected either at large, by district, or some combination thereof.
By offering just two distinct options it makes the people’s intent more clear as to the form of government they want, but doesn’t put too many options out there which may only serve to confuse voters.
Should, however, the council decide to stick with what is currently being proposed, I would recommend tweaking it to prohibit a full-time elected mayor from being a voting member of the council, or a council member at all for that matter. Most cities which have a mayor/council have the two separated and it seems to be a very effective way to operate. But under no circumstances am I in favor of a full-time elected mayor having multiple kicks at the cat, as is currently proposed.
Whatever is done with regard to the proposal, I think having an advisory referendum should be more palatable to those who are opposed to a government form change. After all, it doesn’t set anything in stone and it would give next year’s council plenty of time to craft or develop a more precise form of government that the people would like, as well as give citizens ample opportunity for discussion and input. And by putting it on the spring ballot the need for a special election is done away with. Finally, as I’ve already said before, it would put the form of government issue to rest, at least for now, so we don’t have it hanging over our heads as we try selecting a new city manager.
One word of concern, however: Since a change of government can be petitioned for every two years, once this issue is settled this time – if the current form of government is chosen to remain in place - I would hope we would not see this issue keep coming up every two years, because that threat could also cut into our ability to get the best qualified candidates for the city manager position.
posted by Cheryl Hentz at 1:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home