The Charter Review Committee tonight could get into some good stuff. I wrote about it right smack here.
As noted, one issue that more than like will see some heavy debate is whether to let the mayor appoint some of the fee offices, like trustee, register of deeds, county clerk, blah, blah, blah. And, yes, I know, the voters already shot it down.
And that's what I wanted to note here that I didn't have a chance to do in today's story.
On November 4, 2008 voters overwhelmingly said he!! No to giving the mayor the authority to appoint (and subject to County Commission approval) the law director, trustee, county clerk and register of deeds.
Almost 118,500 voted against it and close to 45,000 voted for it. A real beat down. Since then the issue has been brought up from time to time and folks like to point to the now-four-year-old election as to why we should put the issue behind us. (It kind of reminds me of how Superintendent Jim McIntyre likes to point to a more than 10-year-old study that says his administration isn't top heavy. But I digress.)
Anyhoo, I don't care, really, whether the positions are appointed or elected. Makes no difference to me. But, personally, I wouldn't use the 2008 vote to measure just how the voters of today feel.
Two reasons. First, Mike Ragsdale was the county mayor at the time. A lot of people didn't want him appointing dog catcher, let alone someone who manages property, money and records.
Second: Just read the actually ballot question. It was written by a thief who wanted to keep his job. I mean read it. Seriously.
Click right smack here for the ridiculousness. (It's County Charter Amendment Question 4 by the way).
It asks whether the charter should be amended “to take away from the people the ability to vote . . .” and whether the mayor should have the power to "create or eliminate major departments of county government . . ."
Why was this guy law director again? Oh yeah, he got voted in.