POP’s Proposed Amendment to the City Charter
I’d like to correct a misconception concerning POP’s proposed amendment to the City Charter. The newspapers incorrectly stated that POP wants the City Manager to be elected by the people instead of being hired by the city council. This is NOT TRUE. POP’s amendment would continue having the City Manager HIRED by the city council as is presently done. The problem lies is in how a HIRED City Manager is terminated or fired from his position. At present, only a vote of four or more councilmembers can fire the HIRED CM, regardless of how badly that individual performs his job. Even if the
POP’s amendment to our City Charter, if you approve it, would continue allowing the city council to hire a city manager as usual. However, every two years after that, the voters will have the right to approve or disapprove that city manager’s job performance. If we approve, life is good for everyone. However, if the people disapprove of his/her job performance, that city manager gets terminated. Simple. This is called “public affirmation” and definitely is NOT an ‘election” or a “popularity vote” a few opponents try to smear it as. It’s a serious job evaluation that every employee, whether a worker or a CEO, undergoes, even if his father owns the business.
Our present city manager, Bill Moss, has publicly stated he will resign if this amendment is passed. Apparently he feels his job performance wouldn’t get a passing grade by the Marco public. Maybe he’s right and maybe not. Remember that this change gives you the right to approve as well as to disapprove. That’s important. Even more interesting is that councilmen Minozzi and Tucker, pillars of the public’s interests, have promised to prevent the people from voting on this amendment. Their notion seems to be that only the council should have the power to fire a city manager and the voting public should stay out of it. Another claim is that there might not be applicants for a job that requires a public vote of confidence every two years. POP feels that such a shaky individual doesn’t belong in Marco’s most powerful office to begin with.
POP’s proposed amendment, if you approve it, will go a long way to moving the voters back up the city’s order of priorities, perhaps even a bit ahead of the developers, real estate and tourism trades. Right now, given the force-fed sewer scheme, resident’s opinions seem completely irrelevant to the city. POP has spearheaded the effort to give you better control over the direction of
Russ
Preserve Our
2 Comments:
Sounds like a good idea to me. Only someone disinterested in citizen participation could be against this proposal. True democracy is all about citizen participation, what we have now is a dictatorship by council. Councilman Tucker has publicly stated that he no longer listens to citizens that disagree with him. If our city council would take their jobs seriously, Marco Island wouldn't be in this mess. Another good amendment would be to require council members to sign an affadavit swearing that they have no financial interest in nor will they accept any future financial gain from any multi-million dollar projects they support while in office.
By Anonymous, at Tuesday, July 04, 2006 6:34:00 AM
I think I now understand POPs. I can not see any reason the city or the citizens should be affraid of this proposal. Let the citizens have a say throughout the term of any city person. Dont we pay their salary?
Good idea.
By Anonymous, at Tuesday, July 04, 2006 4:10:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home