OTHER COSTS TO TAXPAYERS FOR 2 MORE COMMISSIONERS

Thanks for the disclosed ballpark figures, that's not alot of money considering the budget in it's entirety.  However it's alot of money to me as an individual. 

I did a little figuring of my own.  I saw a news story awhile back about how communte times and even gas consumption could be reduced if the lights at the intersections were updated timing wise.  It was said that is something that has NEVER been done.

If you take that roughly 60K for two more Commissioners, and if the reported cost to update the timing at 3K an intersection is accurate then the county could update 20 intersections.  12 could be updated if the cost were 5K.  But that is for one year. If those funds set aside for those jobs were earmarked for all timing in all intersections that would be one of the cheapest fixes for the overall traffic flow everywhere.

It'll never work though, it makes too much sense. 

This is yet another example of what is wrong with CTLAC.  Are we seriously saying that we are going to dump an entire new system of government over this amount of $$ when the overall budget is over 250 million per year?  I'm all for a discussion of the pros and cons of certain systems of government, but this is embarrassing. 

Marsha, don't you know that this all about the CTLAC getting their knickers in a wad over the fact that the voters modified the system that they proposed?  It's personal for them.  I guess I assumed you realized that, but do you?

Come on bloggers, we have more common sense than to take these arguments seriously, don't we?

Stan

Yet ANOTHER attack on the CTLAC, pontificating about their motives!!

Debate attendees heard many arguments, in addition to the higher cost of the 5-2 plan. Cost is one aspect, but as the CTLAC presented it, power and control by citizens is far more important.

Stan, you're right that the discussion about commissioners' benefits is over a small drop in the large bucket of government expenses.  That doesn't make the topic unworthy of discussion or embarrassing, though.

Come November, I'll be supporting the proposed amendment to limit the salaries of our County Commissioners.  The drop from 41 to 37K in annual salary, and accompanying drop in benefits, doesn't make that much difference to me and I wouldn't bother supporting it if that's all it did.  But I do like that the amendment call for Clay County voters, and not some state-recommended formula, to be the source of any future pay increases.

I don't understand why the debate over proposed amendment to eliminate the two at-large seats from the BCC is so intense.  If the CTLAC-backed amendment gets on the ballot and is passed by the voters, there won't be any upheaval or coup overthrowing government.  The only result will be that the day after the election Clay County government will be exactly like it was the day before.  What will change is a plan, and those are changed as a matter of routine government business.

Michael S. Mann

michaelsmann@comcast.net

With the passing of amendment 1 the cost of 2 additional Commissioners could result in 2 police or 2 fire personnel being removed from the budget just to cover Commissioners salaries and benefits. Even more so the state mandated yearly increases that could morph into more of those positions being removed from the budget. The fire and police will have to adjust their budget limits on funds available. If these positions remain on the Charter we will have to fund them regardless of what happens to the reduction of fire and police. We should really think about that and what is important to the taxpayers.

I've never thought my position on anything was so significant to cause the ruckas it has in the last 18hrs.

I'm neither a member of, nor the supporter of the CTLAC, or the CRC, or the BR549.  If I see a petition I agree with, I sign it after I look into it enough to satisfy what's important to me.  Who has their knickers in a knot over what so far as organizations go leave me out of it. 

I state my opinions based upon my own personal criteria, and try to respect those who believe otherwise.  I don't enjoy confrontations but I will snap back if snapped at, I am no ones punching bag.  I am sorry for your embarrasment but I still believe what I believe.  The best way to get me to not listen is to criticize me for thinking for myself.

Thats what Americans do!

ClayVoter I am glad you appreciated my attempt to disarm the situation somewhat.  I was born and raised in the northwest corner of Missouri, about two hours north of Kansas City in a little town called Skidmore.   I've never heard what I said anywhere, it just kind of came to my mind and it made me laugh so I said what I was thinking.

You are correct, pioneer, I do question the CTLAC's motives.  You assert that your group is for the "people," but when the majority of the people disagree with you, you are no longer for the "people."  So that's can't be your group's motivation.  

So then you say, well the people don't understand what they voted for, our system of single member districts with no elected chairman actually gives more power to the people.  Really.  How does the fact that the citizens would only get to vote for one commissioner (which is the case under the CTLAC's proposal) rather than 3 commissioners (which is the case under the existing system) give more power to the people?  How does the fact that under the CTLAC's proposal, the chairman is voted upon by the politicians, but under the existing system, the people vote for the chairman, give more power to the people?  It just doesn't make sense.

So then you say, well the people don't understand the under the existing system, you can have 3 commissioners live near each of other, and then they only need one more vote to control the County!  Of course, under the CTLAC's proposal, you can have two commissioners live next to each other (on either side of a district boundary), and then they only need one more vote to "control the County."  Of course, the CTLAC knows this, but they continue to make that false argument.

Then comes my favorite.  Single member districts removes the influence of money from local campaigns.  Of course, in the first single member district election in our County's history, a winning candidate spent $70,000, mostly raised from the special interests the CTLAC calls evil.  That's more money spent on an election than Bush or Rutledge spent to get elected to their at large seats.  So that argument goes out the window.  The CTLAC's theory didn't work.   But they still make the argument as if it's fact.

So what are they left with?  Gutter politics.  They say we will have to lay off a policeman to pay for commissioner benefits, as if that would be the choice. 

OneMann, the intensity began when the CTLAC sought to change a system a lot of us think is good for the County and the majority of us voted upon.  They introduced this issue into the public discussion and they brought an intensity to the issue.  Are those who disagree supposed to just let it go without challenge? You are a reasonable guy.  Saying that this issue is about paying for commissioners' benefits or laying off a police officer is the type of embarrassing scare tactics one would expect from a gutter politician.  And that is what the CTLAC is been reduced to on this one.  It's time to restore some common sense to this debate and this county.

Here's a question. The CTLAC wants to change the charter so that it takes 60% of the voters to approve an amendment.  But they don't want the 60% requirement to be effective until after the next election.  They did this deliberately because they don't want to have to get 60% of the vote to approve their petitions in this election.  If the 60% threshold is such a good idea, CTLAC, why not make it effective at this election? 

Just like last time hard questions were asked, I don't expect any answers.  Just more whining about how you can't believe that anyone would question your motives.

In your above post are you saying Beseler is a gutter politician. Just wondering. 

Stan, my point is that there is an actual issue on the table that can be debated.  But the issue seems to be debated far less than the motivations of people who are for or against it.

The motivations of anyone can begin and end with "I think this system of government is better for Clay County."  Anything else is a vain attempt to psycoanalyze from afar.

There are plenty of reasons, with a variety of supporting academic theories for either position.  No Clay County citizen on either side of the issue should have their motivation, character, personality or anything else questioned.

Debate the freakin' issue instead of the impossible-to-know inner feelings of people.

Michael S. Mann

OneMann,

I thought I just debated the "freakin'" issue.  I addressed each argument one at a time.  And, I agree that its impossible to know everyone's inner feelings.  The problem is that the cornerstone argument for the CTLAC and for the amendment is that certain people are motivated by evil and must be stopped.  Are opponents of those tactics and ideas allowed to suggest that motivations go both ways?

In your above post are you saying Beseler is a gutter politician. Just wondering. 

If the proponents of adding 2 more commissioners think the CTLAC is not giving this a chance, why did the Charter Review not give the single member district a chance to work before changing it? 

Yeah, Stan, you hit the issues.  They were there in between the parts where you question the amendment sponsor's motives and concluded that their politics are in the gutter, where you seem ready to descend to battle them.

There is no evidence that a seven-member County Commission will better serve the citizens of Clay County.  There can't be because all that can be offered is theory, supposition and opinion.  There's also no evidence that the current system of five members, one elected by each of the five voting districts in the county, would serve citizens better.

But without the change from five to seven, we would have had the opportunity to see for ourselves if the single-member district plan worked well.  We could be gathering empirical data to see if it lowered the cost of local campaigning.  Offering one example as proof that it won't or can't doesn't satisfy me.

And. c'mon Stan, you can't make election results retroactive, so your argument about the proposal requiring a 60 percent majority for Charter amendments is silly.  By the way, that's another CTLAC amendment I'll be voting for this year.

Michael S. Mann

They had a feeling, no documentaion, just feelings. How do you debate feelings? You don't. Show us the documentation that as a member stated proved it was the best. It wasn't presented then and it can't be presented today. So we are working off feelings.

Thus subverting the process before it had time to show if is was the best form of government in the county.

Maybe starting back at square one the SMD. and then let the taxpayers see if the process works. Remember the people were broken not the system.

Listen if they just wanted to have someone represent the county on a more consistent basis they could change a policy like Commissioner Rutledge suggested and have the Chair remain for 2 years which would be a policy change. Not a change to the Charter. Which could have been included with the recommendation of the CRC. With staggering terms it could give all of them a chance to serve in a 2 year position, but would have honored the voter SMD without the expense of added government and no way around the added expenses. Not only that, we would not have a weak mayor position looking for a strong mayor one day without the need for voter approval.

I guess he doesn't want to answer the statement about Beseler.