Was anyone able to attend this meeting? It was held last Saturday, Oct. 18 at Morning Light Coffee House. If so, we would enjoy hearing comments about what was discussed, etc.
8 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I attended the meeting and was happy to see a diverse group with different issues to address.
My purpose was to look at the process of how various issues are addressed and there was a sort of consensus that there are problems with the system that need to be discussed.
I'm looking for input of what people see as problems from their perspective and how things might be changed. I am suggesting we may need to amend the charter, but lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Problems I see are:
State law guarantees the right of initiative, referendum and recall. State law makes recall nearly impossible requiring as many as twice the number of signatures on a recall petition as voted for the commissioner in the first place. As a self governing entity we can modify state law to better suit our needs.
Examining the charter, It seems to me there is no separation of power. The charter addresses the commission as the "legislative and policymaking body" but the commission is also the executive branch because they are the city managers boss.
"A majority of the City Commission shall be the judge of the election and qualifications of its members and the grounds for forfeiture of their office. A City Commissioner or Mayor charged with conduct constituting grounds for forfeiture of office shall be entitled to notice in writing of such charges and a public hearing on demand before a majority of the City Commission."
It seems to me this makes the commission the judicial branch of their own affairs. We have a code of ethics but if the code is unenforceable then what good is it?
Most people don't know any ordinance can be reversed and placed on the ballot by signing a petition within 30 days but once again the number of signatures required is more than the number of people who voted for a commissioner in the first place.
These are just a few observations. The level of discontent has reached a point that I think people are willing to at least examine new ideas.
There is no official organization but we decided to have another meeting Saturday the 15th of November, 9:00 am, again at morning lite. What I would like to see is a diverse group with different issues but making those issues secondary to examining the fundamental process of how the issues are dealt with.
"All powers of the City of Great Falls are vested in and derived from the people of Great Falls."
How did we, at the top of the organizational chart, become so powerless?
We have an opportunity to change for the better, let's seize it.
Those state laws are in place to keep whackos like McKnight and Witsoe from doing just what they are attempting to do - take over city government from elected officials on the flimsiest of grounds. Watch either of them in action at a city council meeting and decide. Do you want THESE lunatics running the asylum???
Ed, don't give those freaks a platform. If they are to cowardly to do anything but make stupid attacks anonymously then you shouldn't give them the time of day.
The Charter defines the commission as the legislative branch of the city.
As I stated earlier, I am interested in other peoples perspective and what other people might see as a problem. If no valid problems are identified then I'm fine with that. I did get some input at the meeting as far as problems, but proposing solutions will be a much more daunting task.
If policy change is all that is required then I'm fine with that to.
If the status quo is the most desired then so be it. The voters have the right and will decide.
Can you identify any perceived problems with the way things are done from your perspective?
Anon 4:04
You may be right but my goal is to change the way we do things, including how we respond to distraught individuals.
Even though those attacks seem ludicrous and vicious, there could be some rational behind the snidest of comments.
Democracy to me means balance and compromise. If they can make a valid point of unintended consequences in an attempt to improve a less than perfect process then we should not discount the input. If there is no valid input then we'll all laugh it off.
8 comments:
I attended the meeting and was happy to see a diverse group with different issues to address.
My purpose was to look at the process of how various issues are addressed and there was a sort of consensus that there are problems with the system that need to be discussed.
I'm looking for input of what people see as problems from their perspective and how things might be changed. I am suggesting we may need to amend the charter, but lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Problems I see are:
State law guarantees the right of initiative, referendum and recall. State law makes recall nearly impossible requiring as many as twice the number of signatures on a recall petition as voted for the commissioner in the first place. As a self governing entity we can modify state law to better suit our needs.
Examining the charter, It seems to me there is no separation of power. The charter addresses the commission as the "legislative and policymaking body" but the commission is also the executive branch because they are the city managers boss.
"A majority of the City Commission shall be the judge of the election and qualifications of its members and the grounds for forfeiture of their office. A
City Commissioner or Mayor charged with conduct constituting grounds for
forfeiture of office shall be entitled to notice in writing of such charges and a public hearing on demand before a majority of the City Commission."
It seems to me this makes the commission the judicial branch of their own affairs. We have a code of ethics but if the code is unenforceable then what good is it?
Most people don't know any ordinance can be reversed and placed on the ballot by signing a petition within 30 days but once again the number of signatures required is more than the number of people who voted for a commissioner in the first place.
These are just a few observations. The level of discontent has reached a point that I think people are willing to at least examine new ideas.
There is no official organization but we decided to have another meeting Saturday the 15th of November, 9:00 am, again at morning lite. What I would like to see is a diverse group with different issues but making those issues secondary to examining the fundamental process of how the issues are dealt with.
"All powers of the City of Great Falls are vested in and derived from the people of Great Falls."
How did we, at the top of the organizational chart, become so powerless?
We have an opportunity to change for the better, let's seize it.
Those state laws are in place to keep whackos like McKnight and Witsoe from doing just what they are attempting to do - take over city government from elected officials on the flimsiest of grounds.
Watch either of them in action at a city council meeting and decide. Do you want THESE lunatics running the asylum???
Those lunatics or the criminals we have now.. tough call.
"take over city government from elected officials on the flimsiest of grounds."
Could you please clarify your position?
Why don't you run for the legislature, McKnight? If you want the laws changed to suit you, that's where to start.
Ed, don't give those freaks a platform. If they are to cowardly to do anything but make stupid attacks anonymously then you shouldn't give them the time of day.
Anon 3:33
The Charter defines the commission as the legislative branch of the city.
As I stated earlier, I am interested in other peoples perspective and what other people might see as a problem. If no valid problems are identified then I'm fine with that. I did get some input at the meeting as far as problems, but proposing solutions will be a much more daunting task.
If policy change is all that is required then I'm fine with that to.
If the status quo is the most desired then so be it. The voters have the right and will decide.
Can you identify any perceived problems with the way things are done from your perspective?
Anon 4:04
You may be right but my goal is to change the way we do things, including how we respond to distraught individuals.
Even though those attacks seem ludicrous and vicious, there could be some rational behind the snidest of comments.
Democracy to me means balance and compromise. If they can make a valid point of unintended consequences in an attempt to improve a less than perfect process then we should not discount the input. If there is no valid input then we'll all laugh it off.
At least citizens showed up to DO something and at least raise issues of governence and
laudable.
Post a Comment