What does this have to do with anything?Originally Posted by columbiasooner
I guess all the chambers are in a conspiracy to attack the Amendment...
I personally know several of the Directors at the Chamber and they are all PhD professionals in the field of economic development and municipal government... in fact one of the Directors was previously at the FW Chamber (I know there has been mention of how good the FW Chamber is).
Thanks J. Hopefully those succinct comparisons will go a long way toward dispelling the notion that the Blackwood Proposal "mirrors" or is the "same as" comparable cities' charters, especially Houston. . .unless of course, proponents of Blackwood now shift their arguments to discrediting the chamber and its ability to collect this information.
A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something. - Plato
We really need accountability.
Last edited by columbiasooner; 10 March 2005 at 12:27 AM.
Are you serious?
How about the following:
Power and duty to enforce the city's laws and ordinances-
Blackwood: Not Assigned (formerly City Manager, not specifically assigned to Mayor)
Houston: Mayor
Management of fiscal affairs of city-
Blackwood: Mayor
Houston: Elected City Controller
City Attorney-
Blackwood: Appointed and Removed by Mayor
Houston: Appointed by Mayor with Council Confirmation.
Mayor Veto-
Blackwood: Veto is not specified, but mayor's authority has effect of veto in park department
Houston: No
Mayor may adopt regulatory orders-
Blackwood- Yes
Houston- Limited to general conduct of the administrative departments, the heads of which are
responsible to him
Creation of departments of the city-
Blackwood- Charter and Mayor
Houston- City Council
What is even more interesting is looking at the other cities to see how they compare to Blackwood...
San Diego looks like they have a pretty good system... Blackwood is not even close.
"We've had to go down to City Hall about 12 times for the DP&L building. That takes up a lot of time for us and for city staff," Mr. Hamilton said. "Anything the city can do to speed up this process is helpful."
Full article
I've done my research..here's a chance to yours..where is the veto power, ability to create dept's, etc?SEC. 8. POWERS OF THE MAYOR.The Mayor shall have and exercise such powers and authority, acting independently of or in concert with the City Council asthe case may be, as are conferred on him by law, this Charter, or by the City Council. He shall be the chief executive and administrative officer of the City, and he shall have such express and implied powers as are necessary to perform his duties.
The Mayor shall have the power to administer oaths.
The Mayor shall appoint, subject to confirmation by a majority vote of the City Council, all members of all commissions and advisory boards created by this Charter or by ordinance except as may be provided otherwise by this Charter or by ordinance.
The Mayor shall appoint, subject to confirmation by a majority vote of the City Council, the Civil Services Commissioners as is provided in Chapter XVIII of this Charter.
The Mayor shall have control over all departments of the City except as may be provided in this Charter or by ordinance.
The Mayor shall appoint and employ the City Attorney, the City Secretary, the Chief of Police, the Chief of the Fire Department, all directors or heads of departments, and all other employees and officers of the City not otherwise provided for in this Charter or by ordinance. All appointments by him shall be on the basis of experience, ability, training, fitness and efficiency of such directors or heads of departments, employees or officers in the work which they are to administer, as he shall determine in his discretion. All appointees shall be responsible to the Mayor in the performance of their duties.
The Mayor may remove or discharge the City Attorney, City Secretary, Chief of Police, Chief of the Fire Department, directors or heads of department, employees or officers who are responsible to the Mayor and may be discharged or removed from office by him at any time, with or without cause. In the classified civil service of the City, all appointments, employment and discharges shall be subject to, and comply with, the civil service provisions of this Charter and all applicable ordinances.
The Mayor may prescribe such general rules and regulations as he may deem necessary or expedient for the general conduct of the departments of the City. He may, subject to civil service provisions, temporarily transfer employees from one department to perform similar duties in another department. He may direct any department or its employees to perform work for any other department or its employees.
The Mayor may, in case of general catastrophe, rioting, or (without limiting the generality of the foregoing) other emergency menacing life or property, marshal all the forces of the different departments of the City for the maintenance of the general security, and in that event he shall have the power to deputize or employ such persons or entities as he shall deem necessary for the purpose of protecting the City and its residents.
The Mayor shall, from time to time, recommend to the City Council for adoption such measures as he may deem necessary or expedient for the welfare of the City, including programs for recommended capital expenditures.
The Mayor shall, each year, submit to the City Council the annual budget of the City in accordance with the State Budget Law applicable to cities and towns. He shall keep the City Council fully advised as to the financial condition and needs of the City.
The Mayor shall be responsible for operating the City within its budget.
The Mayor shall see that all terms and conditions imposed in favor of the City or its inhabitants in any public utility franchise are faithfully kept and performed and upon knowledge of any violation thereof to call the same to the attention of the City Attorney whose duty it shall be to take such steps as may be necessary to enforce the same.
The Mayor shall execute all contracts, deeds, deeds of trust, easements, releases and other legal instruments on behalf
Last edited by columbiasooner; 09 March 2005 at 11:03 PM.
I would hope you have done your HW...
You asked where is the creation of dept's?
According to the Blackwood Amendment:
TheMayor shall have the power by ordinance to establish other departments and offices, other than those created bycharter, and to create divisions or sections within any department, whether established by charter or ordinance. The Mayor may discontinue any department or office established by ordinance and may prescribe, combine, distribute or abolish the functions and duties of such departments and offices not inconsistent with this Charter or state law.
Without the benefit of having the Houston Charter in front of me, it appears that you have reinforced the Chamber's analysis of Blackwood. Thanks for providing the language that expands on the Chamber's summary. To be honest, now that I read some of these statements, I don't like it (i.e. the way I read it, the Mayor can create and ABOLISH city departments and what the hell is regulatory orders). I know....I know, if I want status quo vote no, if I want accountability and change vote yes.....I read it enough that I was about to believe it until I looked at some of language. So Blackwood does not mirror Houston's Charter? I am not trying to antagonize you, it seems as though you are firm in your beliefs and knowledgable. I just don't get how someone could make a blanket statement that Blackwood mirrors the Houston structure.
I believe it is about as close as you can get to Houston, due to the 14-1 system compared with Houston's structure.
???
Not that Houston should really matter....at least that is what I would have said 5 yrs ago.
Not sure what the 14-1 system has to do with the creation and abolishment of city departments...
Out of the 5 listed in the comparison, none of them give that power to one person (like the Blackwood Amendment does). I am guessing there is a reason for this.
Once again, the Dallas Chamber did a great job comparing the Blackwood Amendment with other mayor-council forms of government.. including Houston. .. and they are not the same.
www.dallaschamber.org
"There is no reason to replace one faulty system with another faulty system that does not even address the problems of the city"
I stick with my comparison to Houston, obviously you guys disagree.
So lets hear your changes and how you expect to get them on the ballot.
Yeah, I do disagree but I would be very interested to see your comparison. If you disagree with any of the chambers discrepancies between Houston and Dallas, it would be great for you to post the Houston charter and the Blackwood Amendment to show why the Chamber is wrong. I just don't see the benefit to the Chamber, a non-profit organization who receives no type of compensation regardless of the outcome, to publish false or inaccurate information.
I think I have been pretty open about the changes I think should be made to the Charter... and the council is actually on their way to creating an amendment that is based on research and citizen input that will give the mayor more power... but necessary power, not blanket power. I do not buy into the scare tactics that this is the only chance Dallas residents will ever have to make a change in their form of government... the facts are that a bad amendment will do far more damage to the city's future. That is great to hold the mayor accountable, but I would rather have a great city than the chance to hold a mayor accountable for destroying the city. So I will have to disagree with the other common campaign slogan, A VOTE FOR NO DOES NOT = STATUS QUO!
I know the cities the chamber (www.dallaschamber.org) compared with Blackwood show that it is pretty extreme and radical for a mayor-council form of government... does the Blackwood campaign know of any other city that allows the mayor to create and abolish any city department as he/she wishes?
Last edited by J Dallas; 10 March 2005 at 09:21 AM.
I wonder if the Blackwood proposal folks will produce the legal legwork and research to let voters know there is a remote chance the charter changes will be overturn in court. Seems like a pretty good bet that a challenge will come from someone somewhere.
The Blackwood folks are to be praised for their efforts to force efficiency and accountability upon the city govt. - as this seemed to be a ridiculously impossible accomplishment by the council itself. Seems like everyone with political power has agreed that Dallas city govt needs tweeking to be better, but nothing ever happened. Over the past couple years, the council took no corrective action while the function of City Manager and Police Chief experienced total meltdown. Clearly, the rules of governance must have provisions to prevent those situations - and Blackwood is with out a doubt a step in that direction.
Since the Blackwood campaign put specific and deeply detailed changes on the ballot, that campaign must reveal the due diligence ensuring that the changes will not be nullified by a court decision, for whatever reason. The Blackwood folks need to prove that this charter amendment is airtight. If the thing passes and results in a long disruptive legal battle, the Blackwood proposal will have done more damage to the city than the status quo.
OK, I was trying to stay away from this thread for at least a day--but I can't do it. =)
As far as the legality of the Blackwood Amendment: After the charter revisions were made, Beth Ann sent the charter to an independent law firm in Dallas for review--Carrington & Coleman. The reason that she spent the money to do this was because she knew that everyone would say it can't pass legal challenges.
I keep hearing that this was just 'thrown together' and I promise you that it wasn't. This not only was constructed by ATTORNEYS they also had it verified by independent specialist. They read at least seven city charters to construct the Dallas version. They used Houston as a model.
I think the power debate is fine... but the debate on the "legality" of Blackwood is far-fetched.
The process Carrington & Coleman undertook should be in the public domain so that all the other lawyers in town can scrutinize it. I mean, one reasons law firms are hired in the first place is to make sure a strong position can be spun out of the details. In the interest of public well being, the Dallas legal community needs plenty of target practice at this proposal BEFORE the vote.
I could never vote for something like this - A change to the form of Government - until I was sure it is legal, and that doesnt happen from purchasing one independent review. There's too much mob mentality momentum behind this proposal for me, and not enough proof that all bases have been covered.
I can take it for about a week before I'm exhausted. After about a week of avoidance, I can tolerate it enough to spout out hypersensitive concerns.....arty:
I can see your point about being scared that this will pass legal challenges. But as far as "mob mentality" I disagree. In fact, I think all of you should be applauding Beth Ann Blackwood. Not only did she use her time and spend her money to draft this but she also got the city council and Dallas citizens attention. No matter how much "community feedback" you get it's still going to be a select few people that write and review a charter. Just remember that there is no guarantee that the city council will offer any form of change if this does not pass. In fact, just a few weeks ago they were against ANY change to the charter.
This has nothing to do w/ "power brokers" or any special interest. This was written because most felt Dallas needs a dramatic change.
Lawyers are almost NEVER impartial, unless they are mediating a case. People hire lawyers to advocate their positions, whether that be in court or another forum. I have no doubt that Beth Ann Who retained these attorneys to scrutinize the proposed amendments, in a light most favorable to her agenda (whatever that is).
Unfortunately for us, after the City spends millions of Dollars in legal fees (which could go elsewhere - eg. pothole repairs, TIFs, homeless shelter, etc.), the Fith Circuit Court of Appeals (if not the Supreme Court) will have the final say on how "far-fetched" the illegality of Blackwood is.
A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something. - Plato
It is great BAB was able to get the attention of the council and mayor with her amendment(that is the way politics works... step 1: MAKE THE LEGISLATORS DEAL WITH AN ISSUE...) but I still think her amendment is not suitable for a city charter. She has pushed the council to create an amendment... and now that it is happening, I look forward to seeing how they address the issues I (and many others, including all chambers) have with the Blackwood Amendment.
How were the seven charters reviewed? How did they decide what were the good and bad portions of the other charters? Where is the research? If they hired a consulting firm to do an analysis of the charters, they would definately create a report indicating their findings. No offense to anyone, but I can not believe BAB simply because she says so.
The Chamber's research (which also analyzed other cities charters) is published and available on their website (www.dallaschamber.org)... where is Blackwood's research? I may truly be missing a plethora of information and research she conducted that would answer all my questions, but I have not seen it.
For example, I am still really interested in why the Blackwood Amendment gives the mayor the power to create and abolish any city department he/she wishes... I have not been able to find another city charter that gives the mayor this power (which is an incredible power to give to one person- with potentially devastating effects for the city). If anyone knows the research used to determine this is a good idea, please let me know.
I also think it will be great for all residents when the council creates an alternative amendment. With an issue this serious. Why would anyone think it is a good idea to limit the options to "status quo" or "Blackwood"? There should be alternatives for the residents to review and determine which is best for Dallas. I know, I know, there will tons of postings on how they won't do it... council is bad... bad council, bad! But I won't settle for a flawed and potentially dangerous amendment.
Very good questions, J. And, I'm not going to try and attempt to answer cuz I don't know. I hope you will be at the debate @ SMU in April so that you can ask BAB these questions! The answers I have are from her and I don't have any detail beyond it.
That being said, I'm still on board for Blackwood. I think that large cities need to have one person responsible w/ a lot of power--that is my entire core belief on it. NYC would not be what it is today if they had our form of government. I think the we--the voters--are the true check and balance for a strong mayor. And you better believe that the news, along w/ watchdog groups will be all over the mayors ass. And, the city council will be able to 'impeach' the mayor too. So, I'm just not too concerned about the 'unlimited powers'. Yes, the mayor will have a lot of powers, but remember this is a politician. Politicians have to get elected...to get elected they have to keep peeps like us happy. =)
The reasons for broadening the mayor's power for appointments to boards and commissions are:
1. Since (a) some of the boards have quasi governmental authority and (b) control much of what gets ultimately presented to the council, the mayor should have significant input into who makes up the boards since they will impact the city's performance, which the mayor would be responsible for under the charter amendment.
2. The council has developed the practice of approving everyone's appointments to boards and commissions without any significant substantive inquiry as a "courtesy" to each other. This removes the checks and balances provided in the charter, which requires council approval of all appointments. By having the mayor present the candidates subject to council approval, this breaks the council's pattern of ignoring the charter requirement and should result in the council taking a good look at who is being appointed and making sure that they will represent the city and its citizens well in their work on the commission. In addition, this requirement will force the council and mayor to work together to build consensus.
3. Some of the commissions currently reflect the same infighting and lack of view of the big picture that the council currently reflects. The proposed amendment should break this pattern.
The whole business of the council having the power to "impeach" the mayor is sort of "smoke-and-mirrors" to me.
First of all, we are asking voters to vote for "accountibility" by voting for one mayor with more power. So, the voters will vest their interest of "accountability" in one person, who is soley responsible for ensuring that the city and all its departments operate effectively.
But the amendment allows for only 10 people- the majority of the council- to "impeach" that person. So, we're asking for more accountability to votre FOR someone but less accountability to IMPEACH that pesron? So, if you don't trust your council representatives to be "accountable" to you, then why would you trust them to not impeach a mayor with all the power that they think was taken from them? Seems like the voters who put the mayor there should be the ones who can take that pesron away, especially since the mayor serves four years at a time and the council serve for two years at a time and ESPECIALLY since the whole point of the whole proposal has to do with accountability.
But then it really doesn't matter much about all that anyway. That's just a way for the people (lawyers) who put this together to show the voters that, "see, there's a balance in here, because if the mayor/manager that you chose is doing such a poor job then the council can impaech that person." Which really means that the accountability to the voters is really in the hands of the council. So, why bother even voting for a mayor?
Then again, we'd have to have a pretty bad mayor who gets involved in all kinds of legal scandals before any impeaching really happens. They can't just get together and decide that they don't like the person, so they'll impeach the mayor.
If that were that easy to impeach the mayor, then why don't you think the council would support this? Right now all 14 council members are agianst it! This is their opportunity to get rid of Laura Miller once and for all, and then do all kinds of who-knows-what with the charter later if the chose to do so. So, "impeaching" the mayor is really all smoke and mirrors.
Don't be fooled by that piece of rhetoric.
I am concerned with unlimited power...
One example- the city has 13,000 employees. In order for a city to attract and retain the top professionals (which is what leads to the success of a city) they have to feel confident that some nut-job, good-ole-boy will not be able to get elected (we are still in Texas afterall) and restructure and abolish departments because he does think it is a good idea to have a department focused on affordable housing or brownfield redevelopment. Would you accept a position knowing that even though you may be the best in your profession and produce tremendous results every 4 years your entire department has a high likelihood to be abolished (esp. when there are 100's of other cities also trying to recruit you in a 60-mile radius). Professionals look for careers in which they can grow - and they will find them (just not in Dallas).
I have a feeling there are many reasons why the creation and abolishment of city departments is not found in other city charters. I have latched on to this section for now because it is interesting that it is not even the role of the City Manager to have this ability.
There are real issues... the details are crucial.
yes, voters can vote him out four years later... and then spend millions of dollars fixing the situations he created. Unfortunately, elected officials do not have to keep me happy... they only have to keep 51% of the people happy. Can the council get rid of the mayor whenever they wish... or is it only when there is proven fraudulent activity (I remember reading something about that in the blackwood amendment but do not have time right now to go back and look it up?)
I personally do not have much trust in politicians... especially when I have no idea who the next politician will be.
^ That's exactly what I was going to say. Word
Consumers are not [the same as] citizens, and when a system pretends that they are, peculiar and even perverse things happen to decision making and democracy... - Benjamin Barber
Again, I think the mayor should have this power.
If you look at other threads on this forum you will see quotes that Dallas needs to have economic development action like NY & Chicago. Both of those cities have a strong mayor WITH THE ABILITY to abolish departments at will.
I don't think that this is a radical form of government...in fact, this should be called a 'normal mayor campaign'.
Here's what I say:
Power and duty to enforce laws and ordinances:
This is essentially giving the person Executive power, this will be used to translate what powers are given to this person in the future. It is the sort of thing which should be given to one person and an executive branch. This power must go to the Mayor
Professional Management
Do this and Dallas is right back where it started, this brings an extra person into government with a job that is not needed, it will slow Dallas down, cut it.
Management of fiscal affairs in the city
These jobs should not be elected. People get constituents when they are elected and they get groups that fund there campaigns, we don't want somebody like that handling our city budget. Also, very few people in Dallas will care who the manager of fiscal affairs is so these election rely solely on who gets there name out there. I say we have three financial officer jobs, City Controller, City Treasurer, Director of Finance. The mayor needs a way to get his policies in the budget, but reviews will stall the cities speed at these things. So his only role would be to appoint people he think will use his policies. Then the budget gets approval by city council, all council members who reject must submit reports of how to improve the budget.
Creation of Departments in City
Using the Charter to direct the departments in the city as Philadelphia does is too restrictive on future generations. We should keep our current departments. Creation of new departments or removal of old ones/privatisation of old ones is proposed by mayor, approved by council.
Appointments of boards and commissions
As we are doing now fits Dallas, Mayor, approved by council except P and Z. Council members will stil be able propose there own ideas to the mayor behind the scenes.
Recall provisions for mayor
Standard, yes.
Provisions of removal for mayor other than recall
Any officer can be removed, therefore putting all people under checks.
City Attorney
A simple job, should be appointed and removed by Mayor, one of those things that we need speed on and should avoid infighting.
City Internal Auditor
City Auditor is used as a balance of power over other financial officers. I do not want the city council to elect them as the city council could battle the mayor this way, I'd like to see a finance council appoint 3 nominations which the city council votes on.
Budget
Here's where my charter gets good, the financial officers are all appointed by the mayor, so he has made his effect of policy over these things allready, when it comes time to propose the budget, the fincial officer goes straight to city council. Fast process.
Mayor presides over and votes with council.
I say the mayor can propose laws, and propose repealing laws, however he or she cannot vote with the council. The mayor should preside over meetings so we dont have Mayor vs. Council as we do now, the mayor will not preside during voting whiucxh will occur at the end of the day if needed.
Mayor veto
Yes and council may override veto. This is simply required for there to be any checks and balances.
Mayor may adopt regulatory orders
Yes but only to the administrations the heads of which are responsible to him.
Last edited by Double L; 10 March 2005 at 04:07 PM.
I'm not too sure. Earlier I posted a good point on commissions (post # 953).
I remember there was some controvery over AL Lipscomb's appointment to the Citizen's Police Review Board. Some council members voted agaisnt it. Of course the majority ended up voting for him. I remember Ed Oakly saying that his reason was because Al Lipcomb appointed him to ZOAC, so he didn't feel like he could vote against this appointment.
Of course, appointments have to also go through a process. It's a little rigorous. You have to fill out a lengthy application and list references. You have to pass a criminal background check, you can't owe money to the city or any of its departments, you can't be late in taxes, etc. The city secretary handles all of the background. (and if doesn't like you, she can difficult, so I hea, the secretary has some power too...) My appointment was put on hold because I had an unpaid late fee from the Lakewood Branch Library from seven years earlier. Oops, I didn't ene know that. It was $9. So, I had to go pay it, get a reciept, fax a copy to Chaney's office and another to the Secretary. It took two months after that before council approved it because the secretary's office "lost" my library reciept. I think they ususlly "go along" with other council members reccommendations because they know thay have to have passed the background shecks. If you'll recall, several council members ultimately approved Lipcomb's appointment specifically because he "passed" all the checks at the city Secretary's office. I don't think it's purely out of "courtesy" that they approve or would have cause to deny commission appointents at this time, epecially not for the less important ones, like the one that I serve on.
I can see you point about some commission appointments, like the Airport Board, for example, being reviewed by council, but most of these appoitments are pretty high-profile business people. I mean, why would anybody have a problem with folks like Max Wells, for example, serving on the high-profile boards? Unless they are known for scandal, but I mean, there was a big debate over Al Lipscomb, precisely for this reason.
And, just because a commission makes a recomendation, doesn't mean that the council committee has to approve it. Issues don't go from commission directly to councul. They go from a) citizen board appointed by council to, b) council committee, made up seven council members, c) either rejected by said committee or approval to full council. And usually, the committee makes a reccomendation for action. We're not going o tell Lois how to run her committee, so if she aks to investage and make a reccommendation for restaurant inspections, then we will. Doesn't mean that the HEHS Committee will accept our reccomenations.
EHC did the smoking thing and sent a reccomendation to have restuarants do seperated ventilation systems, but that is not what the council ultimately approved.
Why is everyone complaining about impeachment? Either for or against, it is a standard two-thirds majority required to impeach the mayor with this proposal. That is not uncommon, it is the norm. Impeachment is set to require a 2/3 majority because it is a serious action that should only be a last resort and it shouldn't be used as the arguement for checks and balances either until all other resources have been exercised. What strong mayor does include is a reinstatement of a daily system of checks and balances. It puts in place multiple layors of balance into a city government that today remains a stagnant pool of bickering children. It also clearly defines the limits to the city council's authority over city employees. Something that the city council has been overstepping for quite some time now.
This amendment does not give unlimited power, it is a STRONG mayor amendment. Not super mayor amendment.
1. The majority of positions appointed by the strong mayor are SUBJECT TO COUNCIL CONFIRMATION.
2. Each new mayor can appoint new staff. With power comes responsibility and accountability and a bad mayor will not get elected for a second term. With this amendment, more fault will be blamed on the mayor than ever before which will make it even more important that the mayor fulfill campaign promises and perform positively. New mayors replacing an unpopular one would undoubtedly replace staff thus elminating any ineffective appointees. This is still an elected political position, not a dictatorship.
3. The mayor is still bound to the council and accountable for all actions. As far as I can see, the only real power the mayor is being given is the right to perform the function of mayor.
4. As for all 14 members of the city council being against this amendment, why wouldn't they be? They currently hold immense power and influence over city processes. These people do not run for council because it pays well. They hold these positions to influence investments and businesses of their own. This amendment removes the power from the city council that is currently being abused. That seems to be the hidden issue no one is discussing.
Welcome to the forum, Punk. I'm sure you will have lots to add. =)
When comparing the actual Blackwood Amendment (not arguing for or against a strong mayor) to other city charters (with mayor-council forms of gov't) it DOES give the Mayor more power than other mayor-council forms of government... proposal of a strong mayor is great... the Blackwood Amendment is not.
In case you didn't see previous postings.. the Dallas Chamber of Commerce compared the Blackwood to other mayor-council cities. www.dallaschamber.org
The creation and abolishing of departments is something that takes time and is not something that needs to be done any faster than it will already take. The case of abolishing or creation of departments will be a situation in which this department is needed by the city and therefore it should always be easy to create a consensus among coucil members for its creation.
I did read previous postings and did read the comparison the dallas chamber posted on their website before I posted but thank you referring me to the website. I did notice that nearly line by line we seem to have the same proposals as other cities have compared in the chamber's research. The few exceptions I saw did seem to be considerable enough differences in other city chargers to warrant taking a position against the Blackwood Amendment. In fact the only item that differs significantly is the power to create departments in the city by which the mayor will be limited in budget. The Blackwood Amendment specificly states the mayors duty to run the city within the limits of the budget. It would be rather pointless to create a new department for which you had no budget correct?
Additionally, you'll notice that the other cities compared were approximately the same size as dallas. I'd be interested in seeing comparisons to a larger city with a mayor-council form of government. I would like to think we are doing this to grow as a city and not continue to stagnate. Lets think forward for the city of Dallas.
Besides, reread my post, it had nothing to do with comparing the Blackwood amendment to other city charters. I merely stated the limitations to the mayor's power in the Blackwood proposal.
No it does not pay well, but some council members wouldn't give up their real jobs until they got paid. So, before we started paying them, they didn't spend as much time at city hall, the city manager ran the show. Again, Ron Kirk didn't call for a strong mayor system when he was mayor.
^ Yes he did TG...he just didn't make the fuss Miller does.
“We shape our Cities, thereafter they shape us.”
UM, SO WRONG, TG!!!
Mr. Kirk, the city's first black mayor, proposed giving the office more power after he was elected in 1995. The idea was soundly rejected by the City Council.
Full article: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...yor.22de7.html
And he didn't keep on about it either. Miller has been obsessed with this thing since she was elected. Kirk actually conducted business- Miller on the other hand, conducts interviews wherein she's been constantly quoted for the last three years as complaining about the current system and calling for a new one.
Did you mean to quote someone elses reply Trolleygirl because I do not see your point?
What does Ron Kirk and the issue of whether or not he called for a strong mayor have to do with the Blackwood amendment? Ron Kirk and what he did or did not do for the city isn't the debate nor should it influence your decision on this particular proposal.
I was and am all for paying city council to get them to spend more time there. It still does not address the point that the city council is erroneously exerting authority over city employees which was the focus of the point and an attempt at explaining their opposition to the Blackwood Amendment since they have yet to clearly state their reasons.
^Who cares... the point is that you said that Kirk NEVER tried yet he did. And, I can promise you that if he had the Blackwood Amendment floated in front of him like LM he would have jumped on board.
current charter reads...
SEC. 15. NO INTERFERENCE BY COUNCIL WITH APPOINTMENTS OR SUBORDINATES OF CITY MANAGER.
Except for the purpose of inquiry, the council and its members shall deal with that part of the administrative service for which the city manager is responsible solely through such manager, and neither the council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any of the subordinates of the city manager in said departments, either publicly or privately.
Yeah, that is happening.
From the DMN - Nov. 18 ...link
But they sparred for more than an hour over one recommendation that hit especially close to home: Council members must stop subverting the city's 311 call system, which processes citizens' concerns, by pushing through constituents' code enforcement requests.
City staff estimated that 311 personnel spend about half their time addressing individual council members' concerns. These city employees can't prioritize work or do their jobs effectively, McKinsey's report concluded.
Too bad, said council member Maxine Thornton-Reese.
"An 88-year-old lady has had a crack house next to her for 15 years. I've got to represent her," Dr. Thornton-Reese said.
"I'm going to pick up the damn phone and call," council member Bill Blaydes said.
He said the 311 system is unorganized and constituents expect their elected representatives to help them in times of need.
"When I see old tires and mattresses, when I see grass up to my knees, what am I supposed to do when my constituents call me? Nothing?" council member James Fantroy asked. "I was elected by the people, not McKinsey."
I'm so sick of people bitching about this.
No matter what system is adopted, someone is going to be unhappy. That's the way that these things work. The way that I see it, our current system is NOT WORKING. Something needs to change. Voting yes on this strong mayor proposal is the best way to incite that change.
Is it the absolute best plan possible? Probably not. But, if we let the council stall this issue and create delay after delay (like they do on everything) we are never going to change the way that Dallas is governed.
Sometimes you've just got to dig your heels in and demand change.
^If you like status quo--vote no.
If you want CHANGE & ACCOUNTABILITY--VOTE YES!!!
This is the typical kind of short sighted thinking and stubbornness that is hurting this city.
These idiots couldn't manage a Wal-mart, much less run the city. We need the strong mayor system.
This problem shows up in a lot of cities, regardless of size. It takes a tough city manager to stand up to the council and remind them of their respective jobs. Running a large city like Dallas is already hard, but what makes it really bad is having the mayor and council ignoring their charter defined roles and constantly meddling in administrative matters. Just following the current charter would improve Dallas' government a lot more than a revision would.
Consumers are not [the same as] citizens, and when a system pretends that they are, peculiar and even perverse things happen to decision making and democracy... - Benjamin Barber
This just shows that most politicians don't know squat about public administration. What Dallas really needs is city manager with free reign to actually run the city!
Consumers are not [the same as] citizens, and when a system pretends that they are, peculiar and even perverse things happen to decision making and democracy... - Benjamin Barber
If the mayor ain't strong, you're doing it wrongIf you like status quo--vote no
Dallas uber alles
A city manager that doesn't report to the citizens it serves doesn't work with 14-1 and the dynamics of Dallas.
And, for the umpteenth time, there will be a form of a city manager...hopefully we can finally find a good one.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks