Poor ol' Ken Svoboda. I'm sure he wanted his company's former city contracts to remain an issue of the past. But now it looks like his will be the deciding vote in determining whether the charter amendment proposal to prevent city officials from having city contracts goes to voters.
Let's be fair. His vote isn't actually any more the "deciding vote" than any of the other three people he'll be joining. Yea or nay, his vote is only 25% of the total of the winning side. But the other six City Council members have already made their votes known; Mr. Svoboda has not. That, plus Mr. Svoboda's history with this issue, makes it tempting to place the bulk of the weight of the vote on his shoulders.
I'm still not certain what I think about the proposed charter amendment. I am torn between the importance of preventing shenanigans by government officials, and the restrictions that will place on folks who are otherwise excellent candidates for office. Regardless, I am very disappointed in the three Republicans on the council who have already voted against sending the issue to voters. (The votes, so far, have fallen on party lines.) By casting their nay votes, they have told us that they don't trust us and that this issue is too much for us to handle. I strongly disagree. More than any other topic, matters of government ethics and accountability are exactly the sorts of issues the public should vote on. This issue falls under the same category as elected officials' term limits, salaries, and qualifications, all of which should be determined by the people to whom the officials are responsible.
I suspect the Republicans think the stronger restrictions will receive the blessing of the public, and that's why they want to keep the item off the ballot. I am pretty sure they are right. But that is no excuse. We entrust the Council with decision-making authority that affects our everyday lives; in return, they ought to trust us to decide the guidelines by which they must abide if they wish to be granted that power.
Comments
See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.
I would have to agree. It’s not like by sending it to the voters that they’re automatically changing the charter. You KNOW that if the issue was allowing elected officials to bid on city contracts, they would have sent it to the voters and probably lobbied for a special election. 😉
It appears that people are still a little upset about their poppy mallows. Get over it! I know the prospect of a Camp-free Council excites some, but please settle your differences with him through an election, not a back-door, ‘power to the people’ guise.
Deena Winters comes through with a rare disappointment by adding some election analysis to a story about a charter amendment. She also engaged in what is becoming a cliche: talking about the ‘breakdown of partisanship’ when Republicans all vote for something. I don’t remember partisanship being an issue when the Democrats ran the Council. Why aren’t the Democrats on the Council getting roasted for being partisans (lack of a question mark means it’s a rhetorical question). We could celebrate bipartisanship if they voted with the Republicans.
I knew I could count on you to play the victim card, Dave. Thanks!
I’m not the one who hates Svoboda because he couldn’t get my poppy mallows! 😉
Share your thoughts with the community.
Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.