|
|
Latest politicsUser loginNavigationAbout KnoxViewsOther KnoxViews Blogs
Who's onlineThere are currently 2 users and 175 guests online.
|
Charter Amendments: Vote Yes
|
|
|
Latest politicsUser loginNavigationAbout KnoxViewsOther KnoxViews Blogs
Who's onlineThere are currently 2 users and 175 guests online.
|
Charter Amendments: Vote Yes
|
how we select the functionary offices of register of deeds, clerk, and trustee
Why isn't property assessor on your list or the ballot or the petition? Will it still be an elected office if this passes?
I'm also curious about why the property assessor wasn't included. Maybe Gary D. can explain.
It's not, however, the thing I'd choose to focus on when discussing the proposed amendments.
I can't remember who I heard this from but I believe Phil Ballard (our new property assessor) and his supporters were instrumental in keeping property assessor an elected office.
-Sugarfatpie (AKA Alex Pulsipher)
"X-Rays are a hoax."-Lord Kelvin
Dont like the idea of at large county commissioners.It will take too much money to get elected.Rich folks will dominate the at large seats.
Dont like the idea that a commissoner could get elected for a 6 year term then a 4 year term.A decade is just too long.
Nor do I like the idea of staggard terms.It's the establishments way of controlling things if an anti incubent wave hits the electorate.They only lose a few votes.Keep control of the 2 at large commissioners & boom they keep control.
Is it beyond the pale to believe if the 11 member commission proposal is passed the justice dept will file a civil rights lawsuit due to the reduction in minority representation???
Let term limits do its thing..& I think we will have a better government keeping the 19 member body.
I will vote no on the 11 member body.
Yes on the mayoral appointments.
The proposed Charter Amendments are a philosophical choice between Centralization and Decentralization. If approved the amendments would concentrate power into fewer peoples hands. At-Large seats are designed when an area does not have direct representation. The county already has all areas with a representative. There is no need for at-large seats. The same could be said for the City Council.
At-Large seats are designed when an area does not have direct representation.
That's not the purpose. At-large seats are designed so that some folks have to think of the interests of the overall, rather than focusing only on the parochial interests of their own districts. I like 'em.
You make it sound like only At-Large positions think of everyone and the district reps have tunnel vision. The district reps. vote on the whole body politic. The at-large has no more accountability to the voter. It is common for a proposal in a district to be approved by the larger body while being opposed by the district. The district would not have enough votes to effect the outcome in the election. The solution to these common scenarios is to reduce the area of the body politic. An example would be creating a town or village giving them more control locally. The East Knoxville residents who are opposed to the Midway Industrial Park in their community have limited influence from their district in the larger body politic. It suggests to me that a township or city should be formed in that area so the population can have more influence in their own body politic.
Where are the various public forums that were proposed (at one time, one in each district)?
There was some discussion Tuesday on WBIR, but where is the archive on their web site? I recall WNOX did an interview one morning, but no archive their either.
On Knoxaccountability.com, there's nothing (you have to drill down to knoxcharterpetition, and down to Press Room to find anything...)
I still have dozens of neighbors and friends asking me what the amendments are (and how to vote).
I think a lot of voters are going to vote NO just because they don't know what the amendments are about, and fear getting screwed like they did with the pension vote.
Last nights Charter Amendment debate on WBIR will be rebroadcast on WBIR Sunday morning at 9:30 AM in place of "Inside Tennessee".
There is a Charter Amendment forum, where a debate may break out, in Farragut tonight at 7:00 PM in the Farragut Town Hall.
There are two websites to get information on Charter Amendments 3 and 4.
Link...
and
Link...
The Property Assessor's office generated a lot of conversations quite different from the "fee offices". One of the biggest arguments for continued election was the fact that the Assessor presides over the Board of Equalization, which hears assessment appeals. There were also lots of discussion about a so-called "firewall" between the folks who create the budget and the person who assesses property. I'll go back and check my notes to look at the specifics of the discussion.
Personally, I don't undertand how the mayor appointing the fee offices would give him/her any more real "power". In looking at those offices duties: regisetering deeds, collecting taxes, register vehicles, marriage liscenses, etc., I have a hard time seeing where the formation of "king" exists. Those are purely administrative functions which would do well to become part of the normal county HR and budget processes.
It does give the Mayor more power. He will have direct say over every employee in those departments which gives him the power to hire and fire. Why can't people who support these changes just be honest and say it will give the Mayor more power. Instead they say things like reducing commissioners will give voters more representation. It defies logic.
I'll go back and check my notes to look at the specifics of the discussion.
You betcha!
From the lists of actual public comments at the five "One Question" forums, here are the mentions of property assessor:
#22 "Accountability - sheriff, register of deeds, trustee, county clerk property assessor, law director appointed by mayor, not elected"
none
none
#45 "Appointed rather than elected: trustee, county clerk, register of deeds, property assessor, clerk of circuit and criminal courts"
none
While there are not many direct mentions of property assessor, there are plenty of suggestions to make sheriff an appointed position and to make everything but Mayor and Commission appointed. There are several mentions of property assessor in the Baker Center report, all of which occur in list of administrative offices. Nowhere is there any hint that assessor should be treated differently than the other offices.
The Final Report from the Steering Committee said, "Restructuring the Executive Branch beginning with the election in 2010 so that the
newly elected Mayor appoints and is held accountable for the Trustee, Clerk, Register of Deeds, Property Assessor, Law Director, and all other Department Directors." Again, there is no hint that the office should be treated differently, though there is this: "(Note: Although there is
debate about whether the Sheriff’s position, which is also an Executive Branch function, should be appointed or elected, we have not included a recommendation for change at this time, preferring instead to leave the issue to broader ongoing public discussion.)"
Here is the original wording of the amendment: "Beginning on September 1, 2010, the following Executive Branch officers of County Government, specifically including the County Trustee, County Clerk, Property Assessor, and Register of Deeds, shall be appointed by the Mayor rather than elected as in prior years."
I look forward to a compelling explanation for why the office was dropped from the amendment and why Mayoral appointment with Commission approval is an inadequate "firewall" in this instance. I also look forward to a broader, ongoing discussion of these radical changes as early voting begins.
As you are well aware, these amendments went through another round of vetting and public discussion when they went before County Commission this past spring. That is when the aforementioned concerns about the Property Assessor's office came about.
As you are well aware, these amendments went through another round of vetting and public discussion when they went before County Commission this past spring
Yes, and I'm looking forward to a more coherent explanation for the decision to drop property assessor than the vague, half-remembered tidbits you've provided so far. You know, an argument rooted in principles of reform and better governance, as opposed to "Gee, if we piss off Phil Ballard, we'll never get enough votes."
Who made the decision, anyway? Was it the full 30-plus member Steering Committee or a more elite decidin' force?
One argument I've heard over and over again is the idea that at-large representation would, by default, come from the west. The idea here is that there are more citizens and money in the western portion of the county, and therefore that is where anyone willing to run countywide would come from.
So if that argument holds water, wouldn't the same be said for the current countywide elected offices. I'm listing the individuals that I know of, feel free to correct or add. It looks to me like when running countywide, there tends to be pretty good distribution. In fact, proportionate to the population it looks like fewer come from west than you would expect.
Phil Ballard - East Knox County
Sherry Whitt - North/East Knox County (Fountain City)
Fred Sisk - West Knox County
JJ Jones - Northwest Knox County (3rd Commission District)
Mike Ragsdale - West Knox County
Former:
Tommy Schumpert - North Knox County
Mike Lowe - South Knox County
Steve Hall- North Knox County
Tim Hutchinson - Karns (I think?)
Thanks to Mike M., whose personal appearances (like WBIR) are always much more friendly than his online rants.
Yeah, I've noticed he's much better behaved when the camera is on.
Anonymous Nobody,
You said: "It does give the Mayor more power. He will have direct say over every employee in those departments which gives him the power to hire and fire."
Why is it not a good thing for those offices to be included in the county budget and HR practices?
Government is not a corporation. Separation of powers
Frankly,if an at large county commission candidate is in both a contested primary & a contested general election it could take $200k+ in campaign cash just to ante up..not win mind you..just to get in the game.
In my opinion,this has nothing to do with where the candidate is from & everything to do with a candidates ability to raise tons of campaign cash.
Where will the campaign cash come from? We know the answer to that..folks willing to write checks for the big bucks.We also know where the the big bucks come from by the zip codes of the folks writing the checks.
Dont think there are alota folks in the Lonsdale or Five Points zip code writing $1000 checks to candidates.
I dont mind a candidate for sheriff or county mayor raising $200k+ in campaign funds.Those are county wide officers & you need tv,mail outs & campaign staff.
But the county commission is where the common folks can stay in touch with the peoples government.If somethings going on you dont like call your commissioners & work to get it stopped.
I know thats what I do.I pick up the phone & talk to Chairman Strickland & Commissioner McKenzie.
I believe at large commissioners will be beholding to the people that wrote the $1000 checks & not the hard working folks of Knox County
Finally,I still have the same question Chairman Strickland has raised.Will the US Justice Dept.file a civil rights lawsuit due to reduced minority representation if the 11 member commission proposal is passed?
Getting ready to go vote & I am voting NO on the 11 member county commission.
I will vote YES on mayorial appointments.
and I will vote yes on all the charter amendments. Having blotched/scotched consolidation, this is our chance nonetheless to burst into the 20th Century (yes, the 20th). Can you for a moment doubt the wisdom of these changes when you consider the opposition to them coming from the courthouse crowd past and present?
Metro Pulse has three columns on the Charter Amendments.
Hold the Sausage
Link...
Eyes Wide Open
Link...
Home Stretch?
Link...
Vote against Charter Amendments 3 and 4.
Link...
Sorry but I don't want to take away our vote on County Clerk or Trustee and I REALLY don't like this whole at-large Commission seat thing. I'm voting no on both amendments.
~ Bob Aubin
------------------
"Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who's willing to work." ~ Barack Obama
Post new comment