This gives me hope. It means folks are open to some change and might support the Charter Review question. Excellent.
Speaking of the question, please pardon my atrocious writing. I hope the options were clear enough. The last one is the trickiest one to understand. The city would have both a city manager and a mayor, but the mayor would be more of an honorary position. He or she typically is an elected city councillor.
2 comments:
Hi,
Nice poll. I'm not surprised that the 4-year mayor term is preferred to the 2-year. The 2-year never made much sense, IMHO it was a reaction to the politics in the city at the time. And a 2-year term just made the problem worse.
One thing i'd like to say though is that this vote is for a Charter Review Commission.
The goal is to look at the whole picture. I expect to vote for people that I believe will examine all the alternatives fully and weigh the balances.
I have my own opinion, the same that I have had for years now. (ok, i really believe in the city manager concept)
But i do think it's really important that a consensus is created by a group of the citizens on this Commission.
I certainly would support any decision made by the group.
Luckily many of the people running for the Commission look to be interested in the future of the Port.
The idea that people would elect only those who agree with their beliefs worries me.
thanks,
sds
Hi,
Sorry, one more side note.
The difference between a City Manager w/ a Mayor vs. a City Manager w/o a Mayor is so minimal that it really should not be a separate option.
When I voted I though back and forth a bit but honestly I can't really see very much of a difference.
If we don't have a Mayor would we still not have a Council President? Who's functions would be very similar.
thanks,
sds
Post a Comment