Here is a link to the packet for the next city commission meeting.
You may also get there by clicking on the title of this post.
http://arkcity.org/DocumentView.aspx?DID=2221&DL=1
The hospital is item no. 4
It says a five member board in the preview, but its really supposed to be seven.
The board has nine members now.
A member of the commission will be a non voting member.
One thing that I thought was interesting, is a provision to make the charter have to be approved by voters. If 10 percent of the voters present a petition, the city will have to put it before the people to vote. So even if it were passed, it could be blocked by voters.
Here is the wordage ...
Section 9. Effective Date. This Charter Ordinance shall be published once a week for
two consecutive weeks in the official City newspaper, and shall take effect sixty (60) days after final publication,
unless a petition signed by a number of electors
ten percent (10%) of the number of electors who voted at the last preceding regular City election shall be filed in the office of the City Clerk, demanding that this Charter Ordinance be submitted to a vote of the electors, in which event this Charter Ordinance shall take effect when approved by a majority of the electors voting at an election held for such a purpose.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
Why spend money on an election for this? Is there still time to even get it on the ballot for April? Why do we need it
What constitutes 10% of the voters?
Are these registered voters or those who voted in the last election, or what?
It obviously is not 10% of the population, but may be as low as a few hundred people.
It might make sense if the public wants to have its say on the matter.
How many voted in the last election?
It would be 10 percent of the number that voted in the last election.
It was about 3700, so 370 would work.
but it will probably get tabled this week.
I just mentioned that just in case it doesnt get tabled.
I don't see the reason for objections that seem to be coming up. Has anyone really given any substantive reasons why this is a problem? From what I hear this is a long time coming to fix issues with an unwieldy board.
"Unwieldy"?? Think the only ones considering it unwieldy are the ones that can't control it. Those on the board have not expressed complaints, the paper has not heard complaints, the citizens have not heard complaints. Now, we are in the middle of building a new hospital and someone decides it is "unwieldy". Sounds like we need to really hear why it is so imperative that we do it now. Why not last year or next year or not at all.
The logic of this process is what causes so many to question and have distrust for some of the commissioners.
If it is redesigned who selects the new board? What happens to the current board members? How much has the issue been studied?
A new board..what does that mean for the new hospital. Will the new charter affect any of our accreditation or ability to attract doctors?
How well thought out is this new idea to get rid of the "unwieldy" board. I just don't get it unless it is a ploy to appoint some key friends to key positions within the next few months and to impede progress once again in the guise of "listening to the people". Think we heard that once before.
"Unwieldy"?? Think the only ones considering it unwieldy are the ones that can't control it. Those on the board have not expressed complaints, the paper has not heard complaints, the citizens have not heard complaints. Now, we are in the middle of building a new hospital and someone decides it is "unwieldy". Sounds like we need to really hear why it is so imperative that we do it now. Why not last year or next year or not at all.
The logic of this process is what causes so many to question and have distrust for some of the commissioners.
If it is redesigned who selects the new board? What happens to the current board members? How much has the issue been studied?
A new board..what does that mean for the new hospital. Will the new charter affect any of our accreditation or ability to attract doctors?
How well thought out is this new idea to get rid of the "unwieldy" board. I just don't get it unless it is a ploy to appoint some key friends to key positions within the next few months and to impede progress once again in the guise of "listening to the people". Think we heard that once before.
I think the step that is being skipped with the current leadership is the announcement and discussion of a problem. There seems to be a remedy in effect prior to making the citizen base aware of the problem.
Maybe we need to first communicate there is a problem and clarify what it is before taking drastic actions.
Mell wants to do things his way. The hospital board is not doing everything the "know it all mayor" wants them to. They are now "unwieldy" for trying to do the right thing, not the thing that makes Mell more powerful. Its Mell's way or the highway. The funny thing is that his way is usually wrong but not everyone can see that.
Post a Comment