Matthew John Markling wrote:Jim O'Bryan wrote:If the Charter review were to not look at this they would be negligent.
Jim,
Think about that statement for a minute.
...
Done?
The City Charter Review Commission does not need to review every possible option that could be added to a city charter.
Are they going to discuss declaring the peafowl as the official Lakewood bird?
The City Charter Review Commission is only discussing the "city manager" concept because that is what City Hall wants them to discuss ... and recommend.
Matt
Matt
I really do not think that comment is correct, or even relevant.
Let's say, City Hall is forcing the City Manager agenda. Why wouldn't they just do it?
Instead of putting together some faux committee? Makes no sense.
But let's say they are, which again I do not see happening. It is well within the rules and
laws, correct? All of this is spelled out in the charter.
While you joke about peafowl, Lakewood just took a law off the books banning "suspicious
people." I believe there are still laws on the books about farmland, which might be needed
with urban farming or perhaps not. It would be within the City Charter Revue to place
ownership of livestock in from of Council, and perhaps us.
But what Dr. Keller was referring to was... Many of the laws that they will be looking at that
cover and govern council, mayor, meetings, succession, etc. Are completely different from
the laws that govern our current government. It was also pointed out that One as it would
be a complete rewrite on the Charter is a lot of work, a lot of work. It was also pointed out
that it would take a lot more work from everyone, as they would be starting fresh, and that
none of it might ever be adopted. That language says to me, "Do I really want to do that,
as opposed to getting the current one better?"
Steve Davis is a complete FREAK for City Manager. He has the most experience and in his
day to day life deals with a City that has one. I do not see anything convincing Steve to
vote against the idea. The rest are not as easy to understand. It should be noted that
Steve could have tried for the "powerful" chairperson position, but did not. Another golden
opportunity to "fix the game" missed.
However, I have found some interesting things about one of your premises for being ANTI
try City Manager. It is far easier to get council people out of office or recalled than the
mayor. So in theory it could be easier to get rid of a bad city manager than a mayor.
I do not know anyone that believes City Manager is a panacea for all that ails one of the
best most stable communities in Ohio. Even Mr. Davis.
Also I see three on Council that believe they could be mayor, 2 with the numbers to support it.
.