Given the recent event concerning the mayor, certain
sections of the city charter should be brought up for review again dealing with
the election of the mayor, how to fill empty seat and recall.
It has come to my attention that it is not uncommon for a
person to run for reelection and then resign immediately after the election or
refuse to take a seat won through the election. Typically, this would result in
the board or council selecting a new member.
Richardson voters passed the direction election amendment by
a 3 to 1 margin. It was clear the voters wanted to have a direct say in who the
mayor would be.
Before the filing
deadline, there were promises and statement made that the current mayor would
not run for reelection. She finally did file on the last day of the filing
period, at a late hour. Then her story changed to she would not accept being
sworn in. She has in effect resign for a term she is not even elected to yet.
This tracks with how it appears other election are manipulated.
Perhaps it would be best and should be considered that if
any seats open, there should be a special election.
The suggestion that recall be limited to only specific time
periods should also be removed. There is a high enough bar already, 10% of the
voters, to prevent needless actions. Creating these times periods only adds
protection to the council members, it does not expand the rights of the
citizens, it erodes the rights of the citizen. That is not the purpose of a
city Charter.
While I think most of you probably have good intention
concerning reviewing the charter, as it has been executed, it is very poor.
The almost total lack of public involvement is one of the
worst actions concerning this charter review. While some of you may have wanted
more public involvement, this disregard for the public was largely ignored. It
was your choice, as a group, how these meeting would proceed.
The city attorney in, effect leading the meeting, was
another design failure. He works to protect the city and the council members.
It is his job to do their bidding. There is a clear bias against the public
with this action. It may not have been clear to each of you when this process
began, but it should be clear to you all with the current hindsight.
By all appearances, the charter commission has never been
conducted with the citizens as the priority. The priority has been skewed to
the city council and city administrations wants and desires. It woulod be hard
to deny that.
Given current events, and the view of hindsight, I would
hope that you all consider carefully how this charter review process has been
done. I would hope that you all can see my points and would agree it needs to
start over with the focus being on balance view of both the city administrator’s
needs and views to protect the citizens and allow them to have input at all
future meetings.
Have we seen her formal letter of resignation? Has it been accepted by the City? (of course not).
ReplyDeleteIs it possible that we'll see another Slagel two-step "I said I was going to resign but I decided the City needed me too much!" (I know that's not his exact statement but ....)
She's elected, she changes her mind and decides to serve AND work at Sooner ... what's to stop her?
It could happen again. Here was Slegel's resignation speech.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpxt3NJKy5w