City Charter Revision

There are a number of City Councilman pushing for a multiple revisions to the City Charter, and while the document might need to be looked at, I don’t know to what extent a massive overhaul is needed.  I know the one item that is going to see a lot of discussion over the next 10 months is a complete change of the City Council makeup.  The proposals I have heard include three year terms for elected officials instead of two, a Mayor that gets a vote and adding a sixth council member to the mix. 

There are multiple arguments for both sides of all of those issues which I hope we will get a chance to fully vet before any election.


10 responses to “City Charter Revision

  • Randy Leake

    Doug was there a charter review committee that made these recommended changes? I think it is very important for the integretity of our city charter and city government that this was done. I am not saying these changes are bad. I just think it is important if anyone was elected to a 2 year term that is what they should serve. No one should automatically roll over for an additional year without the voters having their wishes adhere to.

  • Doug Miller

    From what I have heard, they are going to discuss setting up a review committee at a meeting later this month. Want me to tell them you will serve?

  • Randy Leake

    I am not for sure coming from you will do me any good!!!

  • Doug

    Well, to the elected readers of the blog, contact Randy for the opening on that committee.

  • Thomas

    I might as well put in my 2 cents.

    I don’t mind the mayor getting a vote. However, if that created the need for a sixth council person, so there wouldn’t be ties during the voting, I don’t favor expanding the council. Our horses are already beginning to look like donkeys and I would hate to see them turn into pot bellied pigs with 7 people trying to please everyone.

    I am happy with the current 2 year terms. Even though things have been fairly quiet this year, given the political turmoil during the 13 years I have lived here, we should keep the council on a short leash.

    The only folks that would benefit from a 3 year term are the actual members, I don’t think it would make any difference to the rest of the citizenry. If we went to 3 year terms I might suggest term limits, say 2 terms max in any position.

    Has anyone suggested paying the council yet?

  • Randy Leake

    Thomas I think you raise some valid points that should be discussed by the charter committee and the council. I personally don’t think you can group all the council as one group on the way they serve. I can tell you there are some very independent thinkers on the current council. There is even one on there that I did not vote for that has proven me wrong on how he is serving ( of course that isn’t that hard to do proving me wrong).

    I totally agree with you if the charter recommendation was to go with 3 years then terms term limits should be looked at as well. I disagree with you about the mayor being able to vote even it means expanding the council. I want single member districts along with at large districts to be looked at as well.

    The one area I am very concerned with is that any changes to the Charter do not lessen the control of running our government by elected officials.

    I hope you voice your opinions by either speaking at any public forum the council has on the charter or apply to serve on the committee if one is appointed.


  • Doug Miller

    I nominate both of you to serve……..

  • Randy Leake

    Thanks Doug. I call that the kiss of death!!!!!!!!!

  • Jim Carson

    If you truly don’t want the burden of appointment, I’ll write a glowing letter of commendation….

  • Randy Leake

    Jim I am lmao over here. So true!!!!

%d bloggers like this: