I'm hearing a rumor that there will be a serious effort to eliminate the alderman-at-large positions. I guess there would be a petition, which would require 1600 signatures, to get the issue placed on this November's ballot, with the changes happening in 2007. I've heard this has some familar faces involved with it.
I figure the move would save the city a mere $30,000 plus any benefits the at-large Aldermen take. I suspect the real reason has more to do with who those alderman are rather than saving the city money. If the at-large positions were filled by people aligned with Hamerlinck, Meyer and company, I doubt we'd be hearing about this now.
If that's true, this is a maneuver just as shady as trying to sneak the 4 year terms vote by during summer. The at-large aldermen provide representation to those who don't agree with, get along with, or know how to get ahold of their ward's alderman. This would just be another effort to get around the current democratic system that's in place. Right now, 2 of the 10 aldermen are elected by the city as a whole, and if the city as a whole tends to lean towards the Frink/Howard/Brooke side of the aisle, than that's democracy in action.
Update at 6:30am Here's Tom Saul's article about this very rumor.
12 comments:
I hope this isn't true. You're exactly right that they are targeting who has the seats right now versus targeting the actual positions. This is pointless.
If they succeed, this will make the council even more divided than it already is by concentrating power in fewer hands.
I have heard the same claims. I have also heard this is a George Nicholas, Phil Yerrington plot.
Time will tell. But this is a time of concern in our community. We have 19 year old kids getting shot, gangs versus gangs, and a former cop and mayor have nothing better to do then deal in politics.
How sad. I hope Davenporters realize the political coop at hand. Get ride of the City Administrator, legal counsel, At Large Alderman then slickly modify the law that gives power to the CA position back to the council.
Makes me sick
Getting rid of the at-large positions would be dumb. If folks don't like the current two, run against them!
At-large serves as a good mayor hopeful slot, and forces a larger perspective on at least two of the council, although I like the ward positions, too.
I don't see structural problems here. I do see at least one, if not two arrogant elected officials who won't return phone calls, but this is what voting booths are for.
Howard for Mayor.
Bring Brook back to Mayor. He can clean this crap up. Best Mayor we ever had. Make Howard the CA, she would get things down around here. Bladel needs to go now.
Man, those last couple comments are going to get some folks riled up...
I'm hoping they were sarcastic?? Brooke and Howard are two of our most arrogant city officials. Frink and Dumas are close. I hear from a good source that Dumas brings his lap top to council and works on Victory Enterprise work rather than listen to the proceedings. Frink is about as bad. There are a lot of this crowd that need to go.
That being said, we do have a larger council than most cities our size. It would be good to downsize a little.
If we are going to downsize, let's make the wards larger and KEEP the 2 at large.
After reading the QC Times this morning, all I can say is Yerington for Mayor in 07! We need that guy back.
To 7:59
...and I suppose Niky for the city administrator position...GET REAL!!
Maybe an acceptable alternative would be to elect one at large alderman from wards one through four, and elect one from wards five through eight. That would eliminate three from one ward and would "balance" the two at large positions. Just a thought.
Not a bad idea 7:47. Better yet is no at large. We have a mayor postion to give the at-large point of view. Besides, he needs something to do.
Post a Comment