Comments on: Mayor selection proposal outrages many

By: Dirty Dogs!!

Dirty Dogs!! — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 02:12:15 +0000

Those dirty dogs on the City Council have NEVER had honor! First Cameron was gypped out of a Mayoral position, then after the 1998 elections Guerin, and Holz dumped then Deputy Mayor Bond in favor of making Cameron Mayor. Then in 2003 Guerin, Houlihan, and Stocks dumped Depty Mayor Bond in favor of Stocks for Mayor.

I’m pleased the devil Stocks is at least trying to eliminate the horrible annual personality play more suited to the sand box than a City Council. It’s overdue…

By: Violet Cadburry

Violet Cadburry — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 17:24:31 +0000

Gaspar made a fool of herself. Why was she so offended by Ms. Barth’s small little card — is it because Barth has supporters or is Gaspar feeling like a bastard? Wow, maybe she needs some self-esteem work. Calm down.

By: No honor

No honor — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 14:31:15 +0000

From article: “It gets the City Council used to the fact that there isn’t an annual selection,” Stocks said. He indicated it would take effect immediately. “It never has been a rotation, it has never been fair,” he said.
There is no doubt Mr Stocks knew this statment was not true when he made it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JN68mn3CxQ&feature=player_embedded#!
Again, Mr Stocks shows a lack of honor and an effort to deceive the public for his benefit.

By: Cyrus Kamada

Cyrus Kamada — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 16:01:26 +0000

The council majority’s original proposal may be in violation of the due process clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. constitution. The potential procedural violation occurred when the proposed extension to a two-year term was moved, seconded, and voted on with no public discussion, then placed on the consent calendar where it would receive nothing more than a pro forma vote. The potential substantive violation lies with the council’s ability to make such a proposal in the first place. With a majority vote, the council could just as easily have amended the city code in 2008, declaring the appointed mayor to have a term of four years. This is a clear due process violation that infringes on the people’s right to free and fair elections. Whatever they come up with next, I think the city attorney should advise the council as to the constitutionality of their actions, and before it is enacted, it should be put to a popular vote. Yes, that costs money, but democracy shouldn’t be on a budget. My absurd hypothetical reinterpretation of the 2008 election is just an illustration of the problem of allowing a simple council majority to amend both the mayoral term and selection process at any time.

I’d also be concerned that this proposed community advisory board not be “stocked” with citizens who would simply launder” the majority’s wishes in a bath of public exposure. There is certainly a danger of this result with the ERAC committee.