NDN on Middletown "Hypocrites"
There is an interesting mini-editorial in todays NDN. It comments on our recent Charter Review Board's suggestions for Charter changes. Now I've commented on this more than a few times before. Why was this commission formed in the first place? That in itself is a good question since the last one was only a few years ago & the requirement is every 10 yrs.
Anyone who voted for this committee (and it was unanimous) had to realize that non-partisan elections would once again put forth unless they were blooming idiots or thought that they had so stacked this board that it would not be on the agenda. Either one gives pause.
However, the board voted uanimously that this proposition should be placed before the town electorate along with longer terms and term limits. So why were all their other suggestions approved as voter questions except these three?
Repeatedly I've heard the Dem. Town leadership lecture on this topic (non-partisan elections) and insist that it was going to be the litmus test for candidate approval for its slate. The questions needs to be ask- is it? And what about the Republicans? Their leadership has weighed in on the topic before as being against it & its two members on the Council did not support it.
One wonders why not? Myself, I really don't see that much would change. Because you have non-partisan elections does not mean that one cannot seek Party endorsements or funding. Party structures would still exist. The one caveat is that candidates would all have to go out on their own & seek the 50 voter nominations on their own. Now, party slates obtain the 50 signatures for ALL their candidates. Easier. Definitely.
Should voters be allowed to vote on this? I say yes. Vote on them all. If they are intelligent enough to vote for councilors & school committee members, they can weigh in on this. What is the Party leadership so darned worried about anyway? Whoever has been giving them advice should have been relieved of command a long time ago. Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Yeah, hypocritical.
So who didn't think you were smart enough to vote on this- Barrow, Santos, Rodrigues, and Mello (the latter two aren't running in Nov.). Who thought you should vote on these issues- Silveira, Sylvia, and DiPalma (latter isn't running for Council).
The question at this point is not whether or not you like ALL of the Charter changes, but whether or not you should be able to VOTE on ALL of them. I say yea. The voters in my poll say yea.
If you're running for election as a Party endorsed candidate, you have some 'splainin' to do here. Why should the public be allowed to vote on most Charter changes, but not others. And you'd also better be willing to 'splain your Party leadership's position if it's not yours. Good luck.
Anyone who voted for this committee (and it was unanimous) had to realize that non-partisan elections would once again put forth unless they were blooming idiots or thought that they had so stacked this board that it would not be on the agenda. Either one gives pause.
However, the board voted uanimously that this proposition should be placed before the town electorate along with longer terms and term limits. So why were all their other suggestions approved as voter questions except these three?
Repeatedly I've heard the Dem. Town leadership lecture on this topic (non-partisan elections) and insist that it was going to be the litmus test for candidate approval for its slate. The questions needs to be ask- is it? And what about the Republicans? Their leadership has weighed in on the topic before as being against it & its two members on the Council did not support it.
One wonders why not? Myself, I really don't see that much would change. Because you have non-partisan elections does not mean that one cannot seek Party endorsements or funding. Party structures would still exist. The one caveat is that candidates would all have to go out on their own & seek the 50 voter nominations on their own. Now, party slates obtain the 50 signatures for ALL their candidates. Easier. Definitely.
Should voters be allowed to vote on this? I say yes. Vote on them all. If they are intelligent enough to vote for councilors & school committee members, they can weigh in on this. What is the Party leadership so darned worried about anyway? Whoever has been giving them advice should have been relieved of command a long time ago. Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it?
"... council members should heed the recommendation of the Charter Review commission they appointed and put the proposals on the ballot for voters to consider. Instead, some council members beat their chests about the two-party system being the foundation of democracy in America. Unfortunately, coming from a council that has a bitterly divided Democratic majority, that excuse seems hypocritical at best."
Yeah, hypocritical.
So who didn't think you were smart enough to vote on this- Barrow, Santos, Rodrigues, and Mello (the latter two aren't running in Nov.). Who thought you should vote on these issues- Silveira, Sylvia, and DiPalma (latter isn't running for Council).
The question at this point is not whether or not you like ALL of the Charter changes, but whether or not you should be able to VOTE on ALL of them. I say yea. The voters in my poll say yea.
If you're running for election as a Party endorsed candidate, you have some 'splainin' to do here. Why should the public be allowed to vote on most Charter changes, but not others. And you'd also better be willing to 'splain your Party leadership's position if it's not yours. Good luck.
No comments:
Post a Comment