Well, here it is.

The decision of which specific term limits recommendation the Charter Review Commission would make was ultimately left by them in the hands of the Council to decide on what gets sent to the ballot in November: end term limits all together, extend them for everyone from two terms to three or, do nothing (Of course, the third option wasn’t ever really going to be up for deep consideration, was it? This blog’s POV could predict that). That action then which has led the council to this quandary*. Will one be voted in by Council but not another? Will both be voted down by Council or will both be voted in and the Mayor will have to make a veto decision? Which decision with regard to the hen house will the foxes make? As one of them said at last night’s Committee meeting, the decision should be in the voters hands. I’ve predicted they were gonna say this and indeed they keep doing so:

As has happened before, a Charter Review proffers a recommendation to Council which happens to contain a conflict of interest for Council who, not wishing to appear biased, decides to send it through to the electorate, throwing their hands up in the air as if to say, ‘We can’t decide on this, we’re just gonna HAVE to send it to the people. Who are we to stand in the way of their right to make a decision on this matter?’ And why does this matter KEEP coming back after the citizens have definitively settled the matter, three times!! Then, like last time, I predict a committee will be formed and interested parties will finance a campaign to end term limits.** 

So as not to irritate some critics of me who complain bitterly about my ‘big words’ and my ‘stupid big word phrases’ I thought this simple GIF offered as concise a picture of my reaction than a thousand ‘big’ words could.

* From the blog post ‘Whitehall Charter Review Meeting April 23rd: Discussion Time; ‘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.’

** Citizens for Kim Maggard donated $300 to ‘Your Right to Vote                                                    Committee to Elect Mike Shannon also donated $300 to ‘Your Right to Vote’