I've been quietly pondering this issue for a while and I'm now fairly certain that voting to retain the current form of government is Decatur's best choice. The last line of the Herald and Review op-ed column in Sunday's paper pretty well sums up my present position. "Voters should understand that a "no" vote Feb. 5 is not a vote for a strong mayor/alderman system. It's a vote for an antiquated city commissioner form of government that will put city government into a state of chaos for years."
Up to three years of wasted opportunity to advance Decatur's biggest issues is the likely result of voting for a multi-step change from our Council/Manager form of government to a commissioner system, then to also change it again to a strong mayor system.
We can do more to advance Decatur, and our representation with the current Council/Manager form. If you are unhappy with local government in Decatur, it probably isn't the system that needs tweaked to suit you, it is more likely that the people who were elected need to be replaced to suit you. We have the opportunity to change half of the council members every 2 years with the present form of representation. We don't need professional politicians, we need professional management. If the Change Decatur folks dislike our manager so much, they should persuade the council members to do something about it, not throw out the baby with the bath water and revert to a form of government we abandoned 50 years ago.
If you would like to comment about this, feel free to do so. I would like to hear from both sides on the issue. If you think Change Decatur's goal is worthy, or best for Decatur, tell me why.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
One person (the "strong mayor") is easy to buy off.
A city council that changes every 2 years is much harder to buy off.
I say if people want change, get elected, get your party elected, present your case and let the people decide.
There is change for the better, there can be change for the worse. "Change" on its own, with no direction is probably a change for the worse.
The Change Decatur sponsors have indicated they were for a strong mayor form of gov, that would have better representation of the people. It would have meant more council members "representing the people."
Now, because the procedure was botched again, the supporters say that they support a LESS representative form of government. I'm having a difficult time making sense of it. I think that Mr. Daniels probably does have the intention of making a "good" change. However, this last turnaround argues against that.
Change, simply for the sake of change is one of the worst methods I can think of to advance the needs of the city and the citizens.
Change, with a solid plan is logical. The commission form is certainly not a solid plan for "good change."
Both opinions are well stated.
Post a Comment