| City of Long Beach Special Municipal Election Tuesday, May 1, 2007 I am asking you to vote on May 1st, either by absentee ballot or by going to the polls. Vote NO on this expensive political power grab! Each of these propositions has something that makes it look good and worthwhile. Items on their own merit may be good. However, by combining multiple concepts into one proposition it is easy to overlook the item which they do not want you to consider on its own. No on Proposition A: Labeled “A common-sense proposal that will improve the efficiency and accountability of our City government”. The sticking point: Removes all independence of the commissions and makes them puppets of the Mayor and City Council. Empowers the Mayor to remove a member of a Charter mandated commission at any time, upon the concurrence of 2/3 of the City Council – eliminating the requirement to state in writing the reasons for removal and allowing the member to be heard. It also removes the conditions under which someone can be removed. This means if a friend or supporter needs a job, a commission member can easily be removed without cause and without being heard as long as 2/3 of the council goes along with it. The City Council already has the power to hold commission members accountable. This is not an urgent item that needed to be on a special election.
No on Proposition B: Described as “Creating independent citizen oversight, making city government more honest, effective and accountable to citizens.” The sticking point: This does not make our government more honest, effective, or accountable to citizens. How independent can any commission be when it is appointed by the city officials they are supposed to oversee? On each of these five member commissions, the Mayor either gets to appoint two members or gets two votes out of five votes for each appointment. How effective can a commission be when their recommendations can be changed? How can a commission promote accountability when they have no power to enforce? Again, this is not an urgent item that needed to be on a special election.
No on Proposition C Modifies terms limits, increases accountability and reduces the influence of lobbyists and bureaucrats. The sticking point: Voters overwhelmingly voted for term limits in 1992. Extending term limits does not increase accountability or reduce the influence of lobbyists and bureaucrats. Well qualified new members are discouraged from running against an incumbent because incumbents have access to automatic media coverage, staff, lobbyists, and bureaucrats. Serving on the city council should not be considered a career opportunity. We are currently having a special election to replace a sitting councilmember who opted to run for State Assembly at the taxpayer’s expense. New members bring a fresh perspective to problem solving and new ideas. Every organization needs new blood to keep it healthy. Again, this is not an urgent item that needed to be on a special election, except to those that would be termed out in 2008.
No on Proposition D Election Requirements Modifies residency requirements for City Council Candidates Prohibits a candidate from running for two City offices at the same time. On its own merit this is a good idea. Permits the name of a termed-out candidate to appear on a run-off election ballot if qualified in a primary election. Sounds reasonable Again, this is not an urgent item that needed to be on a special election.
The sticking point: No on Proposition E Parks in Perpetuity. This sounds great The sticking point: Adds a provision whereby the City Council could dispose of parkland acreage without voter approval. Using the caveat that the land must be replaced with double the amount of land would allow a developer to acquire a prime location park and substitute it with some horribly unusable land, even if it is twice as much as long as it was within the same district. There is no guarantee timely replacement of the land. Again, this is not an urgent item that needed to be on a special election.
Yes on Proposition F Moves the duty of representing city management in employee disciplinary appeals before the Civil Service Commission from the City Prosecutors office to the City Attorney’s office. I didn’t find any specific objection to this, other than this is not an urgent item that needed to be on a special election. No on Proposition G Described as ‘getting rid of outdated portions of the charter’. The sticking points: Destroys the Reserve Account (Sec. 1707), Destroys the Library Fund (Sec. 1714), and Destroys the Transportation Fund (Sec. 1717). Rather than eliminating these Accounts and Funds, they need to be strengthened so that city council cannot cut library hours as in the past. That is why they are reopening library hours so that you will be quiet until after they roll everything into the general (slush) fund. Again, this is not an urgent item that needed to be on a special election.
Yes on Proposition H Police and Fire Public Safety Oil Production Act – aka Oil Tax The sticking point: Special Note:It appears that, in order to fund pay raises for the Police and Fire Department in the middle of a contract other budgets funds, including the libraries, were raided.This statement “Nothing in this Section shall prevent disbursements from this special fund to reimburse the general fund and/or other funds if, and only if, money has been advanced from those other funds to pay for the uses provided in Section 3.80.224.” will be used to repay those funds previously raided. Using this as the main reason for an expensive citywide election instead of just the 6th District to replace their city council person, other propositions were added as a convenient method to increase power.
|
