Last Thursday at 5 PM a workshop was held to discuss the possibility of placing items researched by the 2007 Charter review committee on a ballot so that the citizens could vote on them. This is an item that was discussed during several council meetings and it was decided that it would be best to get the input of the committee (Considering it sat on the shelf for one year before anything was done with it)and how they came to the conclusions they did. Even though the meeting was placed on the board outside city hall to meet basic requirements of law some of the members were not informed of this meeting until 11:55 AM on Thursday by email. This gave some members 5 hours and 5 minutes to prepare and arrange their schedules for the meeting. However some of the members were not notified at all. (Kind of like scheduling a baseball game and notifying one team and the umpires but not notifying the other team of the date or time.)
But the bottom line here is why is there such a rush to place these items on a May ballot? Why don’t some of the council members want to give the voters of our city an opportunity to understand the meaning and impact that each revision will have on our city? The consultant even stated that if single member districts passed it would not be until after the 2010 census that such an action could take place. So why not spend the time by taking each proposed amendment and setting a public meeting every month or so to allow the citizens an opportunity to ask questions and better understand what they will be voting on? Isn’t that what open and transparent government is all about? Why not record those meetings and play them back on channel 16 as well as placing them on the city web site? Why force the citizens to have to make a snap decision that will effect our city for a long time?
From emails I have received some believe that it is to distract the voters from learning about the new candidates that are running for office. Others believe that it is just the good old boys trying to shove something else down the throats of the citizens.
What are your thoughts?
3 comments:
Mr. Mallios,
Thanks for bringing this to the public's attention. I am just starting to learn about this issue and do not really understand the background yet.
However, I am extremely concerned about the secretive manner that you describe in which this issue is being brought to the city. This is very reminiscent of the secretive and legally questionable means with which the city went about reneging on its promise to rebuild the Glen Cove bridge. In that situation certain members of the city obviously took pains to attempt to meet the minimum required standards of public notice without letting the affected parties know what was really going on.
The situation that you describe here has the appearance of being the same sort of behind the scenes deal. This is exactly the reason that those of us affected by the bridge incident have become so vocal about city matters. The public should be extremely wary of any sort of deal that comes up in this manner, especially one intended to have far reaching consequences on the form of democracy (or lack thereof) that we enjoy.
Jeff Hagen
Chris, I remember only recently you were pushing for single member districts. To avoid any false accusations from you know who, could you please elaborate on why you are ok with putting off a vote when you previously semed all for it?
thanks
Mr. Mallios and Mr. Hagen,
I think you have been seeing too many conspiracy theory TV shows. I see nothing secretive about what's been going on with League City charter amendments over the last few months. There have been multiple city council meetings with relevant items on the agenda! There have been Galveston County Daily News articles! There has been more than one workshop between city council and the Charter Review Committee on charter amendments! Agendas have been on the website! Now whether city government properly coordinated and publicized (or NOT) the process is another (sad) issue entirely.
As for the theory that the latest charter amendment push has been a smokescreen to distract from current city elections strains my credulity. I offer a simpler and better explanation. A certain city councilman (maybe with encouragement from other(s), but so what?) has a pet charter amendment or two. On committee, I certainly had mine, namely eminent domain restrictions, that I'm STILL trying to bring to fore despite my status as an ordinary (albeit loud) citizen.
I hear the next good chance for a League City charter election is May 2010. I'm not convinced that we'll ever have a long lead time to educate voters. I have rarely seen city government to be proactive.
Chuck DiFalco
Post a Comment