One question is guaranteed to come up at every Richardson mayoral debate. It's worded something like this: Who killed direct election of the mayor? OK, maybe not as dramatic as that. Maybe more like this: Did you support direct election of the mayor?
Amir Omar makes his answer the centerpiece of his campaign. He says not only did he support direct election of the mayor, but he took a principled stand in favor of it despite being warned that he would have difficulty winning re-election if he did so. Further, he accuses Laura Maczka of "leading the charge" against putting the matter before the voters in a charter amendment election.
Maczka denies Omar's charge, saying "it simply isn't true." She says she recognized that the city council votes weren't there to call a referendum on the question. There was no point to continue discussion and so she moved to end it. She says she has confirmed her account of what happened by going back and listening to the January 30, 2012, council meeting at which the issue was deliberated. She encourages voters to do the same.
I remember watching this drama play out in its first release. I reviewed it in
"Campaign Promise? That Was Then". Here was my appraisal then:
Frankly, I was shocked with how cavalierly the council dismissed what I had considered to be a campaign promise. Not a promise as firm as, say, "Read my lips, no new taxes" but still, a consensus expressed during the campaign forums that it was time, after 25 years, to look into cleaning up our city charter and bringing it up to date. In one meeting, with no call for public input, with little or no homework evident on their own part, with no wrestling with conscience, the council quickly and decisively disposed of any further discussion of a charter review for this council term.
Still, in case my memory was faulty, in case the benefit of time might have me see things differently now, I took Maczka up on her call for voters to go back and watch it themselves. After the jump, what I learned from a second viewing.
