|
|
Saginaw City Charter Commission Announces
Public Education Forums
As a member of the Saginaw City Charter Commission and Drafting Committee, I feel it incumbent to address allegations, criticisms, misconceptions, and outright lies concerning the final charter draft that have been perpetrated by biased reports & editorials in The Saginaw News in recent weeks, and also uttered by uninformed critics such as Councilman Greg Branch, along with respected members of our panel such as Joyce Seals who, quite frankly, ought to know better.
Over the months & weeks ahead, The
Review intends to develop a discourse on the need for adopting
Charter change, specifically addressing each section in a clear &
concise manner that supports the reasoning for each change with
substantiating facts and evidence.
At the outset let me say that the key to
any successful political endeavor is centered on public education.
Therefore, The Saginaw City Charter
Commission is pleased to announce that we will be holding several
City Charter Forums open to the general public at Butman
Fish Library.
The dates are as follow: Wednesday * February 7th * 7-9 PM Wednesday * February 21st * 7-9 PM Wednesday * March 7th * 7-9 PM Friday * March 9th * Noon - 2 PM Friday * March 16th * Noon - 2 PM Thursday * March 22nd * 7-9 PM Friday * March 23rd * Noon - 2 PM Thursday * April 5th * Noon - 2 PM Weds. * April 11th * Noon - 2 PM & 7-9 PM Monday * April 30th * Noon - 2 PM & 7-9 PM Friday * May 4th * Noon - 5 PM Speaking on the behalf of the majority of Charter members supporting change in Saginaw City Government, I urge anybody concerned about the future of our city to attend. Each of these meetings will consist of Charter members being on hand to answer, discuss, and debate whatever question you care to pose, as good government ought to do. There will be no time limits on questions and you won't have to worry about being tazered if you go over three minutes or decide to wear a baseball cap. The Rest of the Story . . . At our final Charter Meeting on Tuesday, January 9th, when the Commission voted 5-3 to approve the final version of our document, Saginaw News reporter Joe Snapper wrote an account the next day focusing primarily on unfortunate outbursts that occurred at the end of our meeting when Charter members Pamela Pugh and Carolyn Surles, frustrated at their inability to garner majority opinion on the Commission, opted to play the 'race card'.
What they failed to report are the
significant discussions that went on for two hours, where I and other
commission members addressed the concerns expressed by Joyce Seals,
Pugh and Surles; along with the reasons why Chairperson Susan Carter
curtailed Surles comments when they fell outside the boundaries set
forth in Roberts Rules of Order.
Essentially, the 'blueprint for tragedy,
pandemonium, and confusion' that Seals predicts for the City, should the
Charter be adopted, center around three objections that were clearly &
rationally addressed.
First, Seals and other critics object to
the proposed Ward System, which will generate distinct
representation on Council from all areas of the city. They claim the
architecture of the wards is racially biased. The reality, however, is
that according to law, there can be no greater deviation when setting up
wards than a margin of three to five percent along racial lines.
The borders defined in the proposed Charter do exactly that. Moreover, and as I pointed out to Seals at this meeting, the notion that an 'East Side' and a 'West Side' of Saginaw even exist anymore is racially motivated thinking dated by at least a decade. Think about it: Can you name any area of Saginaw - East or West - that is not integrated today?
Secondly, Seals objected to the Charter's
plan to create a financial 'Ombudsman' that must have an advanced
accounting degree or a law degree and will essentially act as a
financial watchdog to assure public efficiency.
Charter language clearly states that the
ombudsman "shall seek cost effective alternative sources for ineffective
processes, departments or services, and receive complaints of citizens
relative to the city affairs."
As I pointed out to Seals at that
meeting, if this office had existed ten years ago the City would not
have wasted $500,000 on purchasing computer software that was
outdated, and would not be courting lawsuits based upon illegal bidding
practices that award contracts along racial lines. More about this
topic will be forthcoming in future editions of The Review.
Finally, Seals objected to the notion of
paying councilpersons $20,000 per year, claiming it will bankrupt
the city. Ask yourself this: How can competent candidates be expected to
dedicate the time it takes to do an effective job in council when they
only receive $1,000 per year?
As I argued at that meeting, in
government - as with anything in life - you get what you pay for.
Again, specific examples of cost savings and how these salaries will be
budgeted and ultimately save the city money will be outlined at
future public forums.
Regarding the portion of our final
meeting that the mainstream media did cover, further explanation is
warranted.
For two years now, Pamela Pugh Smith
has sat at meetings where every key provision of this Charter was
deliberated, language developed, and motions adopted. For her to call
the final draft an '11th-hour document' is disingenuous at best. When
she childishly labeled our hard work & endeavors a 'joke', it sadly
reflected on the lack of respect for the democratic process that has
gotten our fair city into the state it currently finds itself in.
As for Surles, when the motion was made
to adopt the Charter, Roberts Rules of Order demands that all
discussion be focused upon the topic. Because Surles comments were
directed at telling people how they should feel about the Charter,
instead of dealing with specifics of the document itself, Carter was
entirely within her rights to curtail discussion.
As stated at the outset of this piece,
over the months ahead, the duty of our Commission will be to 'sell' this
document to the public. Given a fair and unbiased playing field, free
from media distortion, I am confident we can do exactly that.
Before signing off on this installment,
two important points need to be made to correct gross misconceptions
fostered by councilperson Greg Branch and The Saginaw News
Editorial Board.
First is the notion that we are proposing
a 'Strong Mayor' with 'imperial' power to appoint and/or fire a City
Manager, Ombudsman, or any employee of city government.
This is simply not true.
What we are proposing is an Elected
Mayor with the power to nominate not 'appoint' people
for these positions.
The City Council may also appoint
nominees and if a majority of the Council, as comprised from each of the
wards, does not like the Mayor's appointment; they can override it with
a majority vote.
Finally, and the most important thing to
remember about the proposed new City Charter is the fact that if a
majority elected to Council is dissatisfied or does not like any
particular section, they can always change that section by putting it up
to a vote in the following election cycle.
So�what's the big beef?
Frankly, 'change' is hard for certain
people to swallow, especially if they base their careers on catering to
a status quo that has bankrupt our city over the years while amputating
all potential for growth, resurrection, and vibrancy.
Greg Branch may think all that the
city needed was a little 'nip & tuck', but in reality, the problems are
far deeper and more systemic than that.
Besides, I would rather be on Michael
Jackson's plastic surgical team and make a mistake that can be reversed
through the democratic process, than be like Michael Jackson himself -
full of denial, feeding the monkeys, playing with the elephants, and
oblivious as the Walls of Wonderland continue to crumble.
|
|
|
|
||