Charter Amendments Wording NOT on Ballot
The January 26, 2010 ballot, nor the pamphlet sent out by the City for purportedly explaining the charter amendments provide the exact wording by which the City charter will be amended.
In essence, the brochure and the ballot do not contain the exact language one is voting on.
Note that the brochure states: "A YES vote on any question means [sic] the voter wishes to change the Charter language on that question." - change the language to exactly what?
For the exact wording on how the City charter will be amended, CLICK HERE (the underlined text has ALL of the new wording).
In essence, the brochure and the ballot do not contain the exact language one is voting on.
Note that the brochure states: "A YES vote on any question means [sic] the voter wishes to change the Charter language on that question." - change the language to exactly what?
For the exact wording on how the City charter will be amended, CLICK HERE (the underlined text has ALL of the new wording).
posted by Mario R. Sanchez, Ph.D. at
10:57 AM
|
Number of Comments: 1
CLICK HERE TO VIEW&POST COMMENTS
1 Comments:
Because I chaired a citizens’ committee, “Preserve Our Paradise” (POP) that studied our City Charter a few years ago for areas of possible improvements, many have asked me to share my thoughts on the proposed charter amendments contained in the upcoming election. I’m not qualified to advise my fellow Marco residents on how to vote; however, I don’t mind telling you how I intend to vote in this election:
Simply put, my one and only “YES” vote (out of all eight questions) will go to question “B”. This question plainly clarifies the 8-year term limitation on councilors, a good and sensible thing to do.
I will vote “NO” on ALL of the remaining questions. To my mind, each of them contains unacceptable flaws in language, timing and/or purpose… They are like hand grenades: harmless until the pin is pulled. Here are two examples:
Question “A”, [Clarification and Update of City Charter] – this would grant the government power to “comprehensively” amend or change the Charter whenever they wished to do so. I note that there are no limitations or specifics defined here. No, thank you.
Question “F”, [Modified Spending Cap]. This proposal would force Marco taxpayers to guarantee that the city’s spending limitation will never fall below that of year 2008, (approximately $18 million), plus 3% and COLA raises for each intervening year…regardless of financial circumstances and regardless of what the spending cap may mandate. A pretty slick insurance policy for the city but again, no, thank you.
As long as we’re discussing elections, I‘ll mention that, of the four candidates running for office, the relatively unknown Mr. Magel will not, repeat NOT receive my vote. I’ll share two of several reasons:
1. Mr. Magel is the only candidate who wants Marco’s spending cap modified as in “F” above. Effectively, this can be an end run around the spending cap provision.
2. Despite his claim of “independency”, Mr. Magel’s candidacy is reportedly supported by people like John Arceri, Monte Lazarus, Joe Granda, Ed Issler, et al. To vote for such an “independent” candidate requires a giant leap of faith that is unwarranted and can possibly be regretted…just one man’s respectful opinion.
Russ Colombo
755 Plantation Court
Marco Island, FL
By
Unknown, at Sunday, January 10, 2010 7:09:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home