The first sentence describing Tammany Hall is historically accurate. But in trying to connect this to direct election of the mayor in Richardson, Allan Garonzik gets the facts wrong and stands history on its head. After the jump, correcting bad history.Tammany Hall was the Democratic Party political machine that played a major role in controlling New York City and New York State politics for decades. Sound familiar Their infamous leader was "Boss" Tweed---perfect name. Interesting that those who want the City Council to select the Mayor from their inner circle are so desperate to confine the decision making and bypass the voters. What harm could possibly come from the citizens having a voice in selecting the chief executive of their city?
Source: Allan Garonzik.
Tammany Hall was indeed the Democratic Party political machine that played a major role in controlling New York City and New York State politics for decades. New York City had (and still has) what is known as a "strong mayor" form of government, where the mayor, elected by the voters, has responsibility for the administration of the city. Tammany Hall was able to influence elections in order to get their machine candidate elected year after year and control the patronage that came with the mayor's office.
The council-manager form of government used by Richardson (and by 40% of cities across America) arose in the late 1800s in response to the abuses of the strong mayor form of government. It was a reform of government. The reform deliberately weakened the mayor's powers in order to prevent abuse of power. A professional city manager was hired to administer the city. The weakened mayor was left with one power, to preside at council meetings. With that as his only power, it made sense to have the council pick their own presiding officer.
Allan Garonzik asks, "What harm could possibly come from the citizens having a voice in selecting the chief executive of their city?" As we've just seen, the mayor is not the "chief executive" of the city. And what harm could come from direct election? Well, it's ridiculous to compare Richardson city government to Tammany Hall, but because Allan Garonzik brought it up, here goes. New York City had direct election of its mayor during the Tammany Hall era. Richardson moving back to direct election of the mayor would make Richardson a little bit more like Tammany Hall, not less. Garonzik's fear of Tammany Hall is a bad reason to vote YES. In fact, it's a reason to vote NO.
Your posting shows the failure in this City - no, not that the City is a failure, but that outside a relatively small population of civicly active residents, the large majority of the population actually don't know the types of municipal governments, the history of municipal governments, what kind of municipal government we have, the role of the council/mayor/city manager, the role of the city attorney, and so on...
ReplyDeleteIn most times, this is not a big problem, because the majority of the residents who don't understand municipal affairs "self-select" themselves out of the equation...by not voting in City elections. In a municipal election, a turnout of 14% is considered high - which means that 86% of the registered voters choose not to vote, because many of them recognize that they don't know enough about the City to make an intelligent choice.
But this is where the cleverly cynical calculation of the people behind the current petition comes in. By forcing the election to be in November - in November 2008, some 65% of Richardson's registered voters participated - the backers of the petition drive ensured that a large percentage of the people who voluntarily self-select themselves out of municipal voting in most elections, will have this charter proposition unexpectedly placed in front of them.
And far too many will have the same reaction as Mr. Garonzik, "What harm could possibly come...?" and vote "yes".
The people have a right to vote, but they also have a duty to inform themselves. They shouldn't do the first without doing the second...and that's the failure of the City...to fail to ensure that the population understands how and why the City works...
Bill
Your posting shows the failure in this City - no, not that the City is a failure, but that outside a relatively small population of civicly active residents, the large majority of the population actually don't know the types of municipal governments, the history of municipal governments, what kind of municipal government we have, the role of the council/mayor/city manager, the role of the city attorney, and so on...
ReplyDeleteIn most times, this is not a big problem, because the majority of the residents who don't understand municipal affairs "self-select" themselves out of the equation...by not voting in City elections. In a municipal election, a turnout of 14% is considered high - which means that 86% of the registered voters choose not to vote, because many of them recognize that they don't know enough about the City to make an intelligent choice.
But this is where the cleverly cynical calculation of the people behind the current petition comes in. By forcing the election to be in November - in November 2008, some 65% of Richardson's registered voters participated - the backers of the petition drive ensured that a large percentage of the people who voluntarily self-select themselves out of municipal voting in most elections, will have this charter proposition unexpectedly placed in front of them.
And far too many will have the same reaction as Mr. Garonzik, "What harm could possibly come...?" and vote "yes".
The people have a right to vote, but they also have a duty to inform themselves. They shouldn't do the first without doing the second...and that's the failure of the City...to fail to ensure that the population understands how and why the City works...
Bill
Oh, please. Bill if the Council had done what they promised, ie Charter review, there would be nothing for you to talk about. Except that is not really up to the Council per statutes. But you are correct, we each have a responsibility to each other to understand the inner workings of city hall. Then the lies would not be necessary.
ReplyDeleteThe Texas Constitution says what it says. Voters get to vote for Mayor. And it also says a Charter or any ordinance cannot be inconsistent with the Texas Constitution. No hot air is left to be blown.
Now you are putting down a long term retired business owner with state level experience, who recognizes The Coalitionists for who they are.
Shame on you for speaking to your elders that way.
Cheri Duncan-Hubert
Cheri, the question of the constitutionality of Richardson's charter was thoroughly thrashed out on the blog last June. The argument is off-topic here.
ReplyDeleteThen what is the topic, Mark? Bill making up some sinister coincidence that this is October followed by November. It was about the same times in 2007 when Bob Townsend announced at a formal Council meeting they did not have time for a charter review. The had to get their changes on the November ballot. I can go pull the minutes in the City Secretary's office for you, if you like.
ReplyDeleteThis is more of an issue of voters and Council non-communication. And should not be any kind of surprise. It is the way our government works.
So let's all sit down at a table with the COMPLETE Charter in hand and compare the language of the document to the inner workings of city hall and let's see what happens.
This fighting and blaming and faulting finding is dumb.
Cheri Duncan-Hubert
So, Mark, are you going to remove Cheri's off-topic comment (which would be the right thing to do if you really think it's off-topic), or will you give me the chance to defend myself?
ReplyDeleteBill