|
Title: City Council to add Three Men and a Baby? Post by: sgrizzle on October 05, 2010, 08:35:29 am A new group of "connected" people are wanting to add 3 at-large city councilors to the council, as well as make the Mayor the chairman of the council, but only have rights to vote in case of a tie.
Is this another "back of a napkin" idea or does it have merit? http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20101005_11_A1_CUTLIN956999 Title: Re: City Council to add Three Men and a Baby? Post by: Conan71 on October 05, 2010, 08:41:57 am Simply on face value: FAIL!
My guess it was written on the back of a cocktail napkin since it's acronym is SOT. I don't see how this changes the acrimony, it simply adds three more antagonists to the mayor to the council and enjoins the mayor to the council. Sort of like throwing a black prisoner into a cell of 12 Aryan Brothers instead of nine. Councilor Westcott said this makes the mayor even stronger and doesn't solve the acrimony. He said that's a personality clash issue anyhow, not a problem with the charter. I tend to agree. There's nothing about the proposal I like other than elections being non-partisan, even still I don't see that affecting our races very much. D or R doesn't seem to really make much of a difference when it comes to voting for mayor or council. Title: Re: City Council to add Three Men and a Baby? Post by: Hoss on October 05, 2010, 08:54:24 am Simply on face value: FAIL! My guess it was written on the back of a cocktail napkin since it's acronym is SOT. I don't see how this changes the acrimony, it simply adds three more antagonists to the mayor to the council and enjoins the mayor to the council. Sort of like throwing a black prisoner into a cell of 12 Aryan Brothers instead of nine. Councilor Westcott said this makes the mayor even stronger and doesn't solve the acrimony. He said that's a personality clash issue anyhow, not a problem with the charter. I tend to agree. There's nothing about the proposal I like other than elections being non-partisan, even still I don't see that affecting our races very much. D or R doesn't seem to really make much of a difference when it comes to voting for mayor or council. Get those people in the same room too often and I wonder how long before Dewey starts asking what that 'burning smell' is. Whose cell phone will go up in flames first? Title: Re: City Council to add Three Men and a Baby? Post by: Conan71 on October 05, 2010, 08:57:04 am Get those people in the same room too often and I wonder how long before Dewey starts asking what that 'burning smell' is. Whose cell phone will go up in flames first? That burning smell might be why Councilor Trail is wanting drug testing for elected officials. FOTD did make some accusations along those lines about Candidate Bartlet (sic). Title: Re: City Council to add Three Men and a Baby? Post by: DTowner on October 05, 2010, 03:20:04 pm I think eliminating partisan identification and adding two at-large council members would probably improve city governance a little, but would not be a cure to the acrimony that has flared up during the last three mayoral administrations. If at-large positions were adopted, I also don't think it should be by adding more councilors. I would prefer to see the current number stay the same and the distrcts redrawn to create two at-large spots. Of course, the problem with at-large districts is they could draw the scrutiny of the Dept. of Justice under various voting rights acts (at-large districts tend to dilute minority votes, etc.) and lead to lengthy and expensive litigation.
Whatever the merits, I also think this group is making the same mistake as the Islands in the Stream folks did with the river. No public input has been solicited or gathered (other than within this heretofore unknown group) and thus, no ground work laid for public support. |