This is a meme I made to thank the citizens who served on the Charter Review Board. To step forward, when asked, is the essence of ones civic duty. These five are to be commended for doing theirs.

What amounts to the final meeting of the Charter Review Commission happened Monday evening, April 23rd. This was the meeting they were going to ‘discuss’ those things which they’d focused on in the previous meetings before sending their recommendations to city council. Jack Soma, Kevin Skinner, Allyson Sharp and Paul Werther were present with the exception of Kim Bentley, who sent her thoughts on matters to the other members. Present in the audience were myself, Councilpersons Larry Morrison, Wes Kantor, Lori Elmore and Council President Jim Graham. I was the only citizen present at this and every single meeting they held.

In the list of things they were considering: there was concern in regard to the use of ‘he/him’ throughout the charter and so they want to make it gender neutral. Language regarding the mayor’s absence and line of power when he/she is gone from the city. Term limits, whether extending them from two to three, ending them unilaterally or, leaving them alone and finally, having future Charter Review members chosen from all Wards and all council members. I will focus primarily on the term limits question but, before I respond, I’d like to say this:

While I am fully aware of these citizens fulfilling a civic duty, and have publicly thanked them for it, they are nevertheless political appointees tasked with a job that deals with our city’s charter. While they are volunteers, their decision-making processes can have impact on our laws and so, still fall under the gaze and notation of the public, those who have a right to a) agree, b) ignore them or c) react in a critical fashion as they see fit. While agreeing with them needs little to no time to justify, a critical response demands the counterargument to make its case. Without anyone playing devil’s advocate or countering their arguments with critical thinking, you simply have a yes-person pathology. No one is completely right and its only through healthy argument one finds the truth and what is best. If I find the failings in their arguments, it is my American right and holy civic duty to add what I feel I must.

At the meeting, the rightly criticized President of Council, Jim Graham, was in attendance and while speaking with them on several topics, he also said something about how difficult their task was, particularly with (paraphrasing) ‘the brunt of criticism’ or something like that. Being that there was no other criticism leveled at this commission other than mine I had to assume he was referencing me. Its sad to think that anyone who accepts this task or enters the political arena doesn’t understand what tenets America entails. In England, you couldn’t criticize the King, that is ONE of the reasons we fought the Revolutionary War and have freedom of speech, so that any leader, anyone tasked with a handle on our governance could be rightly criticized, thereby averting anyone accruing to much power. Jim Graham, because he doesn’t like it, keeps vocalizing in regard to criticism. One member made a note about dissent, that person gets it.  From Brittanica.com: ‘Authoritarianism, principle of blind submission to authority, as opposed to individual freedom of thought and action.’ Mr. Graham should take a refresher course on our Democratic Republic and if not, remove himself from our government’s offices.

First item, gender neutrality in the Charter. While this is all good and fine, each recommendation, if chosen by council to go to the ballot, must each be their own ballot issue. If five recommendations go through, five ballot initiatives are born . One must be Spartan in their recommendations given then as it takes up a lot of space and consideration from the citizens at the ballot.

Secondly, the issue of the mayor’s absence is of no interest to me here so, no comment.

While I have opinions on how Charter Review members are chosen, I would prefer to allow for my time to be spent analyzing the term limits question.

Listening to them, with the slight exception of one member, I felt there was no real discussion, no one playing devil’s advocate in service to the truth or the citizen’s ultimate benefit. It was more what felt like, a perfunctory response. Viewpoints were given, Ms. Bentley’s were written (most felt the language on the ballot might be to blame for the last time it failed at the polls in 2013. Did anyone consider the notion that it failed because people want them kept in place? Why must it’s loss be attributed to anything else?), but no one, outside of one, made counterarguments or offered critical questioning in response to other’s arguments, i.e.- a real discussion. (I had sent the Council office an introduction, argument and summation of my feelings on the matter, that which I just found out today had been too large to send in one email and therefore it had been returned to me and never shared with the Charter Review.) So, outside of two emails slightly laying out opposition to ending term limits and one asking them to end them, the only other argument made was that of Mayor Maggard in a letter to them. At one point, they decided they could simply send all three options to council ( extending to 3 terms, ending them completely or leaving them alone). This option (of sending things to council to decide) was invoked too many times, in my opinion. They’re there to make decisions, it is for them to decide what they want but too often they said things like, ‘Let council have it’…’Give it to Council’…’Let council make the decision’. They were tasked with a job, while they can certainly make one or more recommendations to council, it really felt as though they were giving up the responsibility they were tasked with up to another entity, that entity I remind you, who are not known for their impartial, citizen-centric decision-making abilities. With actual discussion to flesh out feelings and thoughts, these decisions might have been made but, for whatever reasons, they didn’t.

So, there you have it. Giving up the decision on what to do with the hen house, among a plethora of options, to the foxes themselves. Let us pray.