In case you missed it, a group of citizens have undertaken an ambitious effort to review the city's charter to see if a change is needed. At this point, the group is just collecting signatures to put the simplest of questions on the Nov. ballot: Should a committee be formed to do such a review. (Paraphrasing of course.)
Moak's applying for the Winthrop job, which pays twice what he currently makes, raises the question of compensation for the city's chief executive. But that's only one question, and a I dare say one of the less interesting ones.
The more compelling question is should we even have a mayor or would the city be better off with a manager or administration making the day-to-day business decisions with broad direction from the city council.
Or, for those people eager to retain the ability to directly hire and fire the chief executive, should a mayor be given a four-year term instead of two, giving them more time to manage and requiring less campaigning.
The group put together a nice primer and published it in the Daily News two weeks ago. Read it here. I'll try to link to additional material as it's available.
A few months back someone asked me why I was in favor of a charter change. The honest answer is, I'm not certain that I am. I do like the fact a mayor answers directly to me. However, at times I wonder whether I might actually have more influence over a
But I am in favor of taking a look at the current structure.
Anyway, I'll be posting on this again. The real reason I'm writing is to say that I'll be collecting signatures as well. If you're interested in signing a petition shoot me an email and I'll make sure you get the chance.