Charter Arguments Posted On City Web Site
ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST, AND MORE...As if this week already wasn't busy enough, late Friday evening Costa Mesa City Clerk Julie Folcik posted the following items on the City web site dealing with Jim Righeimer's Charter. Just click on any title in red to be taken to the appropriate .pdf file or web page.
FOR...
Argument in Favor of Measure - This document was filed at 5:00 p.m., March 9, 2012 by Mayor Pro Tem Jim Righei
mer, Mayor Gary Monahan and Chairman of the Orange County Supervisors John Moorlach.AGAINST...
Argument Against the Measure - This document is signed by Costa Mesa Councilwoman Wendy Leece, John "J
ay) Humphrey, former Vice Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa, Sandra Genis, former Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa, Robin Leffler, President of Costa Mesans for Responsible Government and John B. Stevens, Business Owner and Attorney
.ANALYSIS...
Impartial Analysis of Measure - by Costa Mesa City Attorney Tom Duarte.
IMPORTANT DATES...
Notice To Vote
rs Of Date After Which No Arguments For Or Against May Be Submitted - Rebuttals are due to the City Clerk's office no later than close of business on March 19, 2012.AND MORE...
City Clerk Page On Costa Mesa Web Site - For helpful information, including a link to the Charter, Registrar of Voters and much more.
TRUDGING ON TO JUNE 5TH
The beat goes on as we now march toward the Primary Election on June 5, 2012
and the vote that theoretically takes "power" from the State and places it in the hands of the City Council - and may turn our city into dictatorship.Labels: Charter City, Gary Monahan, Jay Humphrey, Jim Righeimer, John Moorlach, Julie Folcik, Robin Leffler, Sandra Genis, Tom Duarte, Wendy Leece
posted by The Pot Stirrer at 3/10/2012 12:15:00 AM
3 Comments:
A sad day! The City of Costa Mesa has officially proved that they can't be trusted. The City Attorney's "Impartial" Analysis of the charter is not only not impartial, it's not even true.
The analysis says, "the proposed charter requires elections to be governed by State law."
BUT, the charter says, "unless otherwise provided by ordinance here-after enacted" elections will be governed by State law. So, the Council gives itself the power to change how elections are handled.
That's just the most blatant lie in the "Impartial" Analysis. Other sections are incomplete and misleading, or at least omit important facts that voters should know about before they make a decision.
And,of course, the argument in favor commits many of the same sins. For example, it says it would "save millions..by competitive bidding," while failing to disclose that the charter specifically allows the Council to avoid competitive bidding.
The argument says elections and ordinances will continue to be handled according to State law, when the charter provisions say otherwise.
If you ever wondered if your government could flat-out lie to you in printed election materials, the answer is "yes." And the same people want us to "transfer power" to them! I think not!
VALAN IS VERY MIXED UP, LOL
Valan2, you really don't have a clue, do you? How is something that MIGHT be changed in the future, but exactly accurate now, a lie? It isn't.
The rest of your post is wrong also.
Post a Comment
<< Home