City Charter amendments on tonight's agenda
More later, but for now just a brief note: Tonight's Tulsa City Council agenda includes a vote on whether to move forward with nine proposed amendments to the Tulsa City Charter. Many of the amendments came from the work of the Citizens' Commission on City Government in 2006.
Here's a quick description of the items being proposed:
Non-partisan elections
Council attorney
Appointed city auditor
Three-year staggered terms for city councilors
Four-year terms for city councilors, with elections during the non-mayoral year
Fall elections
Setting Councilor salaries to half the mayor's salary
Clarifying the term "qualified elector" to refer to the definition under state law
Tulsa City Charter proposed amendments (3 MB PDF)
I'm fully supportive of moving city elections to the fall of odd-numbered years.
I'm utterly opposed to doing away with electing the city auditor, to non-partisan elections as proposed (but I support multi-partisan elections with instant runoff voting), and to longer terms for councilors, particularly the three-year staggered terms, which would prevent the voters from cleaning house in a single election. (Staggered terms are used for school boards, and they don't work well for keeping the elected officials accountable to the public.)
On the other proposals, I need to know more.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: City Charter amendments on tonight's agenda.
TrackBack URL for this entry: https://www.batesline.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3162
Subscribe to this blog's feed:
I just don't get the non-partisan elections. The parties help recruit candidates and help fund them, the citizens feel an affinity for one party or the other based on their fiscal or social beliefs, and primaries make good proving grounds for a candidate.
Look at the voter turnout for non-partisan elections. Oklahoma City has one third the voters that Tulsa has for a Mayor's race.
I understand Councilor Eagleton's concerns. It is a shame that republicans don't run for north Tulsa seats and democrats don't even file in south Tulsa. But there has to be a better solution than to throw out a party system that does have some advantages.
Non-partisan elections - no way.
Council attorney - left over from the gang of five days? Isn't Drew Reese part of the council staff?
Appointed city auditor-Appointed by whom. If he or she is an at will employee of the mayor then the anwswer should be absolutely not.
Three-year staggered terms for city councilors - hate the idea of three year terms. do not like the idea of having council elected when the mayor is not campaigning. that would lead to a sitting mayor endorsing favorite candidates. Being pre occupied with his or her own election precludes this.
Four-year terms for city councilors, with elections during the non-mayoral year - no for the same reason as above
Fall elections - ?????????????????
Setting Councilor salaries to half the mayor's salary -
Clarifying the term "qualified elector" to refer to the definition under state law - housekeeping
Oklahoma City has one third the voters that Tulsa has for a Mayor's race.
Yeah, but we don't spend our odd hours thinking of ways to drown the incumbent. :)
Just who was the chair of the Tulsans for Better Government, er I mean, Citizens' Commission on City Government. Well, it was none other than Ken Levitt. Didn't the Kaiser Family Foundation help fund Tulsans for Better Government's failed attempt at a bloodless coup de tat by adding At-Large Councilors? Things that make you go hmmmm.