Hello all
Thank you for taking an interest in the Change Memphis campaign, We have had an exciting month,registering voters, phone banking and getting everything in order after our campaign launch last week.We are also preparing Three major neighborhood canvass shifts this Saturday morning.
Change Memphis seeks to alter the traditional power structure of the city be informing, registering and empowering voters in low turn out, low income districts. We also want to ensure that the Charter Amendments are fully and clearly explained, but to do that, we need your help. This weekend we have two fun upcoming events that will give this campaign, our campaign the chance to register new voters and spread Charter information to the public. Change Memphis is currently seeking more volunteers to work the Voter registration/Voter education Booth at the Memphis Music and Heritage Festival,http://www.southernfolklore.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=89 located at the Center For Southern Folklore. We will also are seeking volunteers to work the Voter registration/Education table at the WLOK Stone SOUL Picnic http://www.wlok.com/stonesoulpicnic.shtml located at Tom Lee Park. Both events will take place from 11am until 11pm Saturday August 30th and Sunday, Aug 31st.
We are seeking volunteers who would be willing to work at least one three hour shift at this time , but all volunteers are welcome and any time that you could donate would be greatly appreciated. Any one interested should contact Brad Watkins at Bradwat@gmail.com, or by phone at 901-725-4990
Demand Change.
Brad Watkins
Change Memphis
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Change Memphis Press Release!!!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DATE: August 19, 2008
CONTACT: Tarrin McGhee, Community Voting Project, Manager
PHONE: (901) 517-2870
EMAIL: tarrin@newpathmemphis.com
Change Memphis to host Campaign Launch
Community Voting Project Will Educate Voters on Proposed Charter Amendments
MEMPHIS, TN-- On Thursday, August 21, 2008, Change Memphis, a coalition of organizations formed to promote voter education and advocacy will hold a press conference to launch its Community Voting Project (CVP) campaign. The purpose of the CVP is to educate and inform voters about the proposed amendments to the Memphis City Charter and increase voter participation and turnout in target communities.
The press conference will be held at City Hall located at 125 N. Main, and will begin at 2:30 p.m., prior to the Charter Commission meeting scheduled for 3:00pm. Representatives from Mid-South Peace and Justice Center, New Path, and Concerned Memphians United will address the media and the public on their objectives for the Community Voting Project, and encourage campaign participation and support.
New Path co-founder, Cardell Orrin said, “We expect several very important measures to be included in the recommendations from the Charter Commission. The decisions we make in these areas will impact our city for years to come.”
The proposed amendments to the Memphis city charter will appear on the ballot for the upcoming November 4th election. Change Memphis has developed an extensive campaign to ensure voters are educated on the potential changes, which includes phone-banking, canvassing, direct mail, and a series of community forums surrounding each issue.
“We want to make sure that our coalition works to avoid what recently took place with the Shelby County referendum that appeared on the August 7 ballot.,” said Brad Watkins, representative of the Mid-South Peace & Justice Center. “Because there wasn’t an education campaign associated with those amendments, and there were several issues grouped together, we believe voters weren’t given an opportunity to cast an educated vote.”
Members of the Memphis City Charter Commission will meet August 21 at 3:00pm to finalize the language for the proposed amendments that will appear before voters this November. With 6 other races set to appear on the ballot, including the presidential election, Change Memphis wants to ensure that voters make well informed decisions on each item, and that they are just as eager to do so.
“This is a very exciting election year throughout the country, and while national politics are tied up in the race to see who is going to 'change' this country, we cannot forget that change is also needed on the local level here in Memphis,” said Jacob Flowers, Director, Mid-south Peace and Justice Center.
For more information on this event, please contact Change Memphis Project Manager, Tarrin McGhee at (901) 517-2870 or email tarrin@newpathmemphis.org. To find out more about Change Memphis visit www.changememphis.net
DATE: August 19, 2008
CONTACT: Tarrin McGhee, Community Voting Project, Manager
PHONE: (901) 517-2870
EMAIL: tarrin@newpathmemphis.com
Change Memphis to host Campaign Launch
Community Voting Project Will Educate Voters on Proposed Charter Amendments
MEMPHIS, TN-- On Thursday, August 21, 2008, Change Memphis, a coalition of organizations formed to promote voter education and advocacy will hold a press conference to launch its Community Voting Project (CVP) campaign. The purpose of the CVP is to educate and inform voters about the proposed amendments to the Memphis City Charter and increase voter participation and turnout in target communities.
The press conference will be held at City Hall located at 125 N. Main, and will begin at 2:30 p.m., prior to the Charter Commission meeting scheduled for 3:00pm. Representatives from Mid-South Peace and Justice Center, New Path, and Concerned Memphians United will address the media and the public on their objectives for the Community Voting Project, and encourage campaign participation and support.
New Path co-founder, Cardell Orrin said, “We expect several very important measures to be included in the recommendations from the Charter Commission. The decisions we make in these areas will impact our city for years to come.”
The proposed amendments to the Memphis city charter will appear on the ballot for the upcoming November 4th election. Change Memphis has developed an extensive campaign to ensure voters are educated on the potential changes, which includes phone-banking, canvassing, direct mail, and a series of community forums surrounding each issue.
“We want to make sure that our coalition works to avoid what recently took place with the Shelby County referendum that appeared on the August 7 ballot.,” said Brad Watkins, representative of the Mid-South Peace & Justice Center. “Because there wasn’t an education campaign associated with those amendments, and there were several issues grouped together, we believe voters weren’t given an opportunity to cast an educated vote.”
Members of the Memphis City Charter Commission will meet August 21 at 3:00pm to finalize the language for the proposed amendments that will appear before voters this November. With 6 other races set to appear on the ballot, including the presidential election, Change Memphis wants to ensure that voters make well informed decisions on each item, and that they are just as eager to do so.
“This is a very exciting election year throughout the country, and while national politics are tied up in the race to see who is going to 'change' this country, we cannot forget that change is also needed on the local level here in Memphis,” said Jacob Flowers, Director, Mid-south Peace and Justice Center.
For more information on this event, please contact Change Memphis Project Manager, Tarrin McGhee at (901) 517-2870 or email tarrin@newpathmemphis.org. To find out more about Change Memphis visit www.changememphis.net
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Change Memphis Update!!!!!!Term-Limit Referendum
Backing into a Term-Limit Referendum: How the Commission Reached Agreement
By JACKSON BAKER
The end result of Wednesday morning's two-hour special meeting of the Shelby County Commission --the second this week -- was that two referendum proposals for the November ballot were adopted -- one to reconstitute five formerly constitutional county offices under the county charter and another limiting the officials holding those offices to two consecutive four-year terms.
But the story behind the story -- or, more properly, the several stories beyond the stories -- provided an object lesson for commission members henceforth, one more or less summed up in lines from the Kennedy Rogers ballad, "The Gambler," concerning how to play one's cards. Namely: "You've got to know when to hold 'em/ Know when to fold 'em/ Know when to walk away/ And know when to run."
The background of Wednesday's proceedings was the defeat in last week's countywide general election of Ordinance 360, a charter-revision proposal which was placed on the August 7 election ballot so that the affected five county offices – sheriff, trustee, assessor, county clerk, and register – might once again function under legal sanction. Their status under the state constitution had been nullified by the state Supreme Court in January 2007, in a ruling affecting both Shelby County and equivalent positions in Knox County.
Cross-Purposes
Months of deliberations had seen the eruption of cross-purposes both on the commission and in the community at large. Shelby County Mayor A C Wharton had made no secret of his preference for re-chartering the five affected offices as appointive ones, and he had limited support on the commission for the idea – particularly from commissioners Steve Mulroy, Deidre Malone, and Henri Brooks, all of whom were open at one point or another to the idea of appointment of some or all of the five officials – by the mayor, subject to commission approval.
In the course of public forums conducted by the commission, however, strong opposition materialized to the appointment concept –both in the inner city and the county's suburban rim. Long after the idea had been shelved, the managerial-minded Wharton would comment, "That's the problem," when someone noted that a side effect of subjecting the offices to popular election was the empowerment of them vis-à-vis the county administration.
But proponents of the appointment concept knew when to fold their cards, and the idea died a peaceful death – abandoned, as it were, of life supports.
The issue of term limits proved less tractable. Conservatives, especially in the suburbs, brought to public discussions their traditional suspicion of government, while people in the inner city tended to look with disfavor on creating new impediments in the public sector. Some commissioners – notably longtime political broker Sidney Chism and Henri Brooks – stoutly opposed any term limits at all. Others – like commission chairman David Lillard and Wyatt Bunker – were just as staunch for limiting the five reconstituted officials to two consecutive four-year terms.
Term limits provoked serious and prolonged disagreement on the commission, a fact complicated by Wharton's insistence, late in pre-election discussions, that the five officials have the same limitations on their tenure – or lack of them – as applied to the mayor and the 13 county commissioners. As of a 1994 countywide referendum, the mayoral and commission limits had been fixed at two consecutive four-year terms.
The long and the short of it: ultimately, after months of serious wrangling, the commission settled on a compromise proposal for a limitation of three four-year terms, applying not only to the five reconstituted county offices but to the mayor and commissioners as well (though Wharton himself and the commissioners currently serving were grandfathered out of the expanded version of term limits).
Mounting Opposition
While all of this had been going on, serious opposition was developing -- to both Ordinance 360, which contained the new term-limits proposal, as well as to companion Ordinance 361, one of whose features was a controversial proposal for recalling officials, fixing the number of petition signatures necessary at 15 percent of the county's registered voters.
Two of the leading opponents of the two ordinances were a pair of citizen activists -- John Lunt , who had taken the lead in organizing community sentiment on behalf of revising the city charter; and Joe Saino, proprietor of memphiswatchdog.org, a declared foe of runaway government and an exponent of total transparency. Their highly public activities – and those of their associates and sympathizers – proved instrumental in the narrow defeat of Ordinance 360 , especially since "Vote No" signs began to sprout in public-domain areas everywhere, while evidence of pro-ordinance efforts was limited or non-existent. (Ordinance 361 passed easily, suggesting that term limits had been the main obstacle for 360.)
In pre-election discussions, both Lunt and Saino had concentrated their displeasure on the change in term limits for the mayor and commissioners. They were less avid about the five newly configured county offices, and, in fact, both delivered encomiums to the late trustee Bob Patterson suggesting they would have been in favor of Patterson staying in office indefinitely.
The distinction is crucial, since the commission's action on Wednesday, resolving the matter by equalizing all county elected officials within the limits of two four-year terms, was as much a defeat for Lunt and Saino as it was a victory. There had never been much of a public groundswell among their adherents for limiting the terms of the five reconstituted officials—the sheriff and trustee, especially.
In the two special meetings this week, the commission, racing against the clock, ended with the two-term compromise largely out of miscalculations by opponents of term limits. Prominent among those was Chism, who dropped his pre-election support of a three-term compromise in the apparent hope that a new deadlock on the commission might result in no statement whatever concerning term limits. (That had been the case when Knox County reconstituted its own invalidated officers.) Commissioners Joe Ford and James Harvey were of similar mind. They, like Chism, also believed strongly that the increased Democratic vote expected in November would be antithetical to term limits.
Kenny Rogers might have advised a different strategy than stonewalling against any compromise –whether for two terms or for three – inasmuch as Democratic Commissioner Steve Mulroy, a key exponent of compromise along with his Republican opposite number, Mike Ritz, had signaled clearly on Monday that, rather than risk failure to meet an Election Commission deadline for a new ballot referendum in November, he would be prepared to vote for the two-term limit.
The End Game
Ultimately, on Wednesday, Mulroy played that card – an action that was magnified when Democrats Deidre Malone and, more surprisingly, Henri Brooks followed suit. That tipped the balance in favor of a two-term limit, leaving Chism, Ford, and Harvey with no hole cards to draw on. Like Lunt and Saino, the three commissioners would end up with both less and more than what they had sought.
Chism would protest later on that he had been led to believe that Republican commissioners George Flinn and Joyce Avery, along with Democrat J.W. Gibson, had promised him the same support for a three-term limit in the event of a deadlock that they had come to in the final pre-election session that had produced Ordinances 360 and 361. He felt that Mulroy, Malone, and Brooks had given in prematurely.
Whatever the case, there had been no public intimation whatsoever that Flinn, Avery, and Gibson were a part of any such understanding. All had consistently held out for a two-term limit in this week's deliberations, and it had been Flinn, in fact, who first moved to include the two-term limit in a revised referendum for November.
The bottom line: Shelby County voters will have two referenda to vote on in November – one that merely re-establishes, more or less, the five formerly constitutional officers as chartered officials, and a second one that imposes the stricter two-term version of term limits upon them.
All is not lost for Chism and other term-limits opponents. If they play their Get-Out-the-Vote cards right, they can re-focus public opposition to the new term-limits referendum while leaving the other one alone. An additional complication, however; in November, the two county referenda will be sharing ballot space with a plethora of recommendations on city government emanating from the city Charter Commission.
What was already complicated enough could turn into a game of veritable 52 Pick-Up.
By JACKSON BAKER
The end result of Wednesday morning's two-hour special meeting of the Shelby County Commission --the second this week -- was that two referendum proposals for the November ballot were adopted -- one to reconstitute five formerly constitutional county offices under the county charter and another limiting the officials holding those offices to two consecutive four-year terms.
But the story behind the story -- or, more properly, the several stories beyond the stories -- provided an object lesson for commission members henceforth, one more or less summed up in lines from the Kennedy Rogers ballad, "The Gambler," concerning how to play one's cards. Namely: "You've got to know when to hold 'em/ Know when to fold 'em/ Know when to walk away/ And know when to run."
The background of Wednesday's proceedings was the defeat in last week's countywide general election of Ordinance 360, a charter-revision proposal which was placed on the August 7 election ballot so that the affected five county offices – sheriff, trustee, assessor, county clerk, and register – might once again function under legal sanction. Their status under the state constitution had been nullified by the state Supreme Court in January 2007, in a ruling affecting both Shelby County and equivalent positions in Knox County.
Cross-Purposes
Months of deliberations had seen the eruption of cross-purposes both on the commission and in the community at large. Shelby County Mayor A C Wharton had made no secret of his preference for re-chartering the five affected offices as appointive ones, and he had limited support on the commission for the idea – particularly from commissioners Steve Mulroy, Deidre Malone, and Henri Brooks, all of whom were open at one point or another to the idea of appointment of some or all of the five officials – by the mayor, subject to commission approval.
In the course of public forums conducted by the commission, however, strong opposition materialized to the appointment concept –both in the inner city and the county's suburban rim. Long after the idea had been shelved, the managerial-minded Wharton would comment, "That's the problem," when someone noted that a side effect of subjecting the offices to popular election was the empowerment of them vis-à-vis the county administration.
But proponents of the appointment concept knew when to fold their cards, and the idea died a peaceful death – abandoned, as it were, of life supports.
The issue of term limits proved less tractable. Conservatives, especially in the suburbs, brought to public discussions their traditional suspicion of government, while people in the inner city tended to look with disfavor on creating new impediments in the public sector. Some commissioners – notably longtime political broker Sidney Chism and Henri Brooks – stoutly opposed any term limits at all. Others – like commission chairman David Lillard and Wyatt Bunker – were just as staunch for limiting the five reconstituted officials to two consecutive four-year terms.
Term limits provoked serious and prolonged disagreement on the commission, a fact complicated by Wharton's insistence, late in pre-election discussions, that the five officials have the same limitations on their tenure – or lack of them – as applied to the mayor and the 13 county commissioners. As of a 1994 countywide referendum, the mayoral and commission limits had been fixed at two consecutive four-year terms.
The long and the short of it: ultimately, after months of serious wrangling, the commission settled on a compromise proposal for a limitation of three four-year terms, applying not only to the five reconstituted county offices but to the mayor and commissioners as well (though Wharton himself and the commissioners currently serving were grandfathered out of the expanded version of term limits).
Mounting Opposition
While all of this had been going on, serious opposition was developing -- to both Ordinance 360, which contained the new term-limits proposal, as well as to companion Ordinance 361, one of whose features was a controversial proposal for recalling officials, fixing the number of petition signatures necessary at 15 percent of the county's registered voters.
Two of the leading opponents of the two ordinances were a pair of citizen activists -- John Lunt , who had taken the lead in organizing community sentiment on behalf of revising the city charter; and Joe Saino, proprietor of memphiswatchdog.org, a declared foe of runaway government and an exponent of total transparency. Their highly public activities – and those of their associates and sympathizers – proved instrumental in the narrow defeat of Ordinance 360 , especially since "Vote No" signs began to sprout in public-domain areas everywhere, while evidence of pro-ordinance efforts was limited or non-existent. (Ordinance 361 passed easily, suggesting that term limits had been the main obstacle for 360.)
In pre-election discussions, both Lunt and Saino had concentrated their displeasure on the change in term limits for the mayor and commissioners. They were less avid about the five newly configured county offices, and, in fact, both delivered encomiums to the late trustee Bob Patterson suggesting they would have been in favor of Patterson staying in office indefinitely.
The distinction is crucial, since the commission's action on Wednesday, resolving the matter by equalizing all county elected officials within the limits of two four-year terms, was as much a defeat for Lunt and Saino as it was a victory. There had never been much of a public groundswell among their adherents for limiting the terms of the five reconstituted officials—the sheriff and trustee, especially.
In the two special meetings this week, the commission, racing against the clock, ended with the two-term compromise largely out of miscalculations by opponents of term limits. Prominent among those was Chism, who dropped his pre-election support of a three-term compromise in the apparent hope that a new deadlock on the commission might result in no statement whatever concerning term limits. (That had been the case when Knox County reconstituted its own invalidated officers.) Commissioners Joe Ford and James Harvey were of similar mind. They, like Chism, also believed strongly that the increased Democratic vote expected in November would be antithetical to term limits.
Kenny Rogers might have advised a different strategy than stonewalling against any compromise –whether for two terms or for three – inasmuch as Democratic Commissioner Steve Mulroy, a key exponent of compromise along with his Republican opposite number, Mike Ritz, had signaled clearly on Monday that, rather than risk failure to meet an Election Commission deadline for a new ballot referendum in November, he would be prepared to vote for the two-term limit.
The End Game
Ultimately, on Wednesday, Mulroy played that card – an action that was magnified when Democrats Deidre Malone and, more surprisingly, Henri Brooks followed suit. That tipped the balance in favor of a two-term limit, leaving Chism, Ford, and Harvey with no hole cards to draw on. Like Lunt and Saino, the three commissioners would end up with both less and more than what they had sought.
Chism would protest later on that he had been led to believe that Republican commissioners George Flinn and Joyce Avery, along with Democrat J.W. Gibson, had promised him the same support for a three-term limit in the event of a deadlock that they had come to in the final pre-election session that had produced Ordinances 360 and 361. He felt that Mulroy, Malone, and Brooks had given in prematurely.
Whatever the case, there had been no public intimation whatsoever that Flinn, Avery, and Gibson were a part of any such understanding. All had consistently held out for a two-term limit in this week's deliberations, and it had been Flinn, in fact, who first moved to include the two-term limit in a revised referendum for November.
The bottom line: Shelby County voters will have two referenda to vote on in November – one that merely re-establishes, more or less, the five formerly constitutional officers as chartered officials, and a second one that imposes the stricter two-term version of term limits upon them.
All is not lost for Chism and other term-limits opponents. If they play their Get-Out-the-Vote cards right, they can re-focus public opposition to the new term-limits referendum while leaving the other one alone. An additional complication, however; in November, the two county referenda will be sharing ballot space with a plethora of recommendations on city government emanating from the city Charter Commission.
What was already complicated enough could turn into a game of veritable 52 Pick-Up.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Charter Commission FAQ
Hi, this is Brad Watkins, and I am a fellow with the Center For Community Change and I am currently the Campaign Manager for the CHANGE MEMPHIS initiative. Change Memphis is a nonpartisan coalition working to inform, involve and educate the people of Memphis about what the Charter Commission is and what these changes would mean.To ensure that the voices of the people are heard loud and clear by our elected officials.
This fall, the people of Memphis will have the opportunity to vote on a series of ballot initiatives for proposed amendments to our city Charter.These issues include Term Limits for elected officials, as well as issues such as If MLG&W could be sold without a public referendum. These along with several other proposals will be placed on the November ballot for the voter's approval, and have the potential to make sweeping changes in the way our local government works.officials. Below I have provided information on each of the proposed referendums as well as information about other potential ballot items as well. Check this space for updates and also check out our website at WWW.Changememphis.net, which will launch later this week. Also hit us up on Myspace or Facebook very soon.
CONFIRMED ISSUES-
-TERM LIMITS, for both the City Council and the Mayor will be on the ballot, limiting each to two consecutive terms each. Now it is important to note that these term limits will be prospective not retroactive, in other words the existing Council members would be allowed to serve another two terms, Mayor Herenton as well.
-MLG&W,If the utility Can or Cannot be sold without a public referendum, will be on the ballot as well. There is some concern that the wording of the initiative may confuse local voters.
-STAGGERED TERMS FOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, This one is a little complex, originally proposed by Councilman/Commissioner Myron Lowery back in 2006, this would have the people of Memphis elect half the City Council every two years. Thus ensuring that there could not be a total over turn of that body in a single election. This also would allow the Councilmen on the staggered term to be able to run for Mayor without giving up their seat on the Council.
This could be done, by either having half the council run for a two year shift, in 2011, and for re-election in 2013. OR could be created by having all of city Government run for a ONE year term in 2011 and then have half the Council run for a short two year term in 2012. Now while this may sound strange on the surface, by putting Memphis municipal elections on even years, Memphis could split the cost with the County as they would also have elections that year, thus saving Memphis an estimated 1 million dollars.
-IRV, Instant Runoff Voting, this one is a doozy....In an IRV system voters would be allowed to rank candidates in order of preference "1", "2","3","4",..etc If a candidate gets a majority of the 1st place votes then he or she wins. If not then the candidate with the fewest 1st place votes is eliminated. 1st place votes for that candidate are then redistributed to the remaining candidates based on the 2nd place votes. If there is a candidate with a majority, he/she wins.
NOTE-Subject to available technology and approval of the Election Commission.
MAYORAL VACANCIES- This referendum would state that if the Mayor, resigns, or for some reason can no longer serve, then the Council Chairman would serve as Mayor Pro Tem for a period no longer than 180 days, if there is a general municipal or special election in that time period. If no such election exist then then the Chairman will serve for 90 days at which time a special election will be held to elect a new mayor to serve out the remainder of the term.
-ETHICS, This one makes me a little nervous, If any elected or appointed official is charged with official malfeasance, he or she shall be suspended from duties with pay until such a time where as the issue has been resolved.
NOTE-Commissioner Lowery stated at the March 20th meeting that if such a referendum is approved by the voters and added to the charter, suspensions are automatic and are not subject to the approval of the City Council.
PERSONAL NOTE- I am trying to find out more about this one "AS IT IS CURRENTLY DEFINED" it raises many questions.
A. Trials take a long time, who would represent these districts in the interim.
B.Who would select these people?
C.It opens the door to political witch hunts, as one could trump up charges on political rivals and railroad legislation down the Council's throats.
ISSUES UP FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE AUG 14TH MEETING-
PART TIME JUDGES- The Commission will discuss and vote on approving a possible referendum that would create two new part time judges. Proponents say that this would expedite over burdened courts. Critics contend that the Commission has no budget authority with which to fund such an exercise.
FUTURE CHARTER COMMISSIONS-The Commission will discuss and vote on approving a possible referendum that would make the creation of a Charter Commission into a regular process of city Government, every 10-20 yrs.
-AUTHORITY OF THE MAYOR- This amendment would if approved by the voters, prohibit any legislative body from limiting the authority of the Mayor by ORDINANCE OR REFERENDUM.
ISSUES UP FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE AUG 21st MEETING-
SCHOOL FUNDING- The Charter Commission is considering a possible referendum that would if approved by the voters would MANDATE funding of Memphis City Schools into the Memphis City Charter.
CAMPAIGN FINANCE- This possible referendum would if approved by the voters would bar all campaign fundraising except for a period of time beginning six months before the filing date and ending once a candidate takes the oath of office.
RECALL OF THE MAYOR- This amendment would change the current wording of the City charter on the subject of a Recall, which stated that in order to have a mayoral recall a petition must be signed by 10% of the total voters of the last Mayoral election. This amendment would make the City Recall rules to match the State law which contends that the petition would require signatures equal to 15% of ALL REGISTERED VOTERS in the city of Memphis.
THE FOLLOWING ARE POSSIBLE REFERENDUMS PLACED ON THE BALLOT BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
-CONTRACT AUTHORITY,This motion would declare that the Mayor of Memphis be named the sole contracting authority and that contracts at or above a certain amount must be approved by the City Council.
NOTE,-The amount in question has yet to be set, but proposal have been made in the amounts of 75,000 dollars as well as 50,000. There is also some wrangling as to how this would impact the sale of municipal bonds.
NOTE, Mayor's Herenton and Hackett both appeared before the Commission at the previous meeting and spoke against this proposed amendment. As a result the Commission withdrew it's support for this amendment, but City Council Member Barbara Sweregen Holt-Ware, has placed it on the agenda for the City Council. Thus it may still appear on the November ballot.
-DEPUTY DIRECTORS-The City Council will also discuss and vote on approving a possible referendum that would give the City Council oversight and approval in the selection of the Mayor's Deputy Directors.
I am sure that the Commission is looking into and considering the finer points of all these issues, but i'll keep you posted on the progress.
I hope this answers your questions and we really hope that we can count on your help. As you can see these are complicated issues.
We are seeking volunteers for the Phonebank portion of our campaign.Here at the Mid-South Peace and Justice Center @ First Congo Church just south of the intersection of Cooper and Young. 1000 South Cooper, Mphs Tn. 38104. We will be making calls On Tues-Weds-Thurs nights on and Aug, 12th 13th and 14th. and every week afterwards until the week of Aug 27th From 5:30 to 8:30pm I hope we can count on your help.If you have any other questions please feel free to email me at Bradwat@gmail.org and or call me at 901 745-4990.
DEMAND CHANGE
This fall, the people of Memphis will have the opportunity to vote on a series of ballot initiatives for proposed amendments to our city Charter.These issues include Term Limits for elected officials, as well as issues such as If MLG&W could be sold without a public referendum. These along with several other proposals will be placed on the November ballot for the voter's approval, and have the potential to make sweeping changes in the way our local government works.officials. Below I have provided information on each of the proposed referendums as well as information about other potential ballot items as well. Check this space for updates and also check out our website at WWW.Changememphis.net, which will launch later this week. Also hit us up on Myspace or Facebook very soon.
CONFIRMED ISSUES-
-TERM LIMITS, for both the City Council and the Mayor will be on the ballot, limiting each to two consecutive terms each. Now it is important to note that these term limits will be prospective not retroactive, in other words the existing Council members would be allowed to serve another two terms, Mayor Herenton as well.
-MLG&W,If the utility Can or Cannot be sold without a public referendum, will be on the ballot as well. There is some concern that the wording of the initiative may confuse local voters.
-STAGGERED TERMS FOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, This one is a little complex, originally proposed by Councilman/Commissioner Myron Lowery back in 2006, this would have the people of Memphis elect half the City Council every two years. Thus ensuring that there could not be a total over turn of that body in a single election. This also would allow the Councilmen on the staggered term to be able to run for Mayor without giving up their seat on the Council.
This could be done, by either having half the council run for a two year shift, in 2011, and for re-election in 2013. OR could be created by having all of city Government run for a ONE year term in 2011 and then have half the Council run for a short two year term in 2012. Now while this may sound strange on the surface, by putting Memphis municipal elections on even years, Memphis could split the cost with the County as they would also have elections that year, thus saving Memphis an estimated 1 million dollars.
-IRV, Instant Runoff Voting, this one is a doozy....In an IRV system voters would be allowed to rank candidates in order of preference "1", "2","3","4",..etc If a candidate gets a majority of the 1st place votes then he or she wins. If not then the candidate with the fewest 1st place votes is eliminated. 1st place votes for that candidate are then redistributed to the remaining candidates based on the 2nd place votes. If there is a candidate with a majority, he/she wins.
NOTE-Subject to available technology and approval of the Election Commission.
MAYORAL VACANCIES- This referendum would state that if the Mayor, resigns, or for some reason can no longer serve, then the Council Chairman would serve as Mayor Pro Tem for a period no longer than 180 days, if there is a general municipal or special election in that time period. If no such election exist then then the Chairman will serve for 90 days at which time a special election will be held to elect a new mayor to serve out the remainder of the term.
-ETHICS, This one makes me a little nervous, If any elected or appointed official is charged with official malfeasance, he or she shall be suspended from duties with pay until such a time where as the issue has been resolved.
NOTE-Commissioner Lowery stated at the March 20th meeting that if such a referendum is approved by the voters and added to the charter, suspensions are automatic and are not subject to the approval of the City Council.
PERSONAL NOTE- I am trying to find out more about this one "AS IT IS CURRENTLY DEFINED" it raises many questions.
A. Trials take a long time, who would represent these districts in the interim.
B.Who would select these people?
C.It opens the door to political witch hunts, as one could trump up charges on political rivals and railroad legislation down the Council's throats.
ISSUES UP FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE AUG 14TH MEETING-
PART TIME JUDGES- The Commission will discuss and vote on approving a possible referendum that would create two new part time judges. Proponents say that this would expedite over burdened courts. Critics contend that the Commission has no budget authority with which to fund such an exercise.
FUTURE CHARTER COMMISSIONS-The Commission will discuss and vote on approving a possible referendum that would make the creation of a Charter Commission into a regular process of city Government, every 10-20 yrs.
-AUTHORITY OF THE MAYOR- This amendment would if approved by the voters, prohibit any legislative body from limiting the authority of the Mayor by ORDINANCE OR REFERENDUM.
ISSUES UP FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE AUG 21st MEETING-
SCHOOL FUNDING- The Charter Commission is considering a possible referendum that would if approved by the voters would MANDATE funding of Memphis City Schools into the Memphis City Charter.
CAMPAIGN FINANCE- This possible referendum would if approved by the voters would bar all campaign fundraising except for a period of time beginning six months before the filing date and ending once a candidate takes the oath of office.
RECALL OF THE MAYOR- This amendment would change the current wording of the City charter on the subject of a Recall, which stated that in order to have a mayoral recall a petition must be signed by 10% of the total voters of the last Mayoral election. This amendment would make the City Recall rules to match the State law which contends that the petition would require signatures equal to 15% of ALL REGISTERED VOTERS in the city of Memphis.
THE FOLLOWING ARE POSSIBLE REFERENDUMS PLACED ON THE BALLOT BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
-CONTRACT AUTHORITY,This motion would declare that the Mayor of Memphis be named the sole contracting authority and that contracts at or above a certain amount must be approved by the City Council.
NOTE,-The amount in question has yet to be set, but proposal have been made in the amounts of 75,000 dollars as well as 50,000. There is also some wrangling as to how this would impact the sale of municipal bonds.
NOTE, Mayor's Herenton and Hackett both appeared before the Commission at the previous meeting and spoke against this proposed amendment. As a result the Commission withdrew it's support for this amendment, but City Council Member Barbara Sweregen Holt-Ware, has placed it on the agenda for the City Council. Thus it may still appear on the November ballot.
-DEPUTY DIRECTORS-The City Council will also discuss and vote on approving a possible referendum that would give the City Council oversight and approval in the selection of the Mayor's Deputy Directors.
I am sure that the Commission is looking into and considering the finer points of all these issues, but i'll keep you posted on the progress.
I hope this answers your questions and we really hope that we can count on your help. As you can see these are complicated issues.
We are seeking volunteers for the Phonebank portion of our campaign.Here at the Mid-South Peace and Justice Center @ First Congo Church just south of the intersection of Cooper and Young. 1000 South Cooper, Mphs Tn. 38104. We will be making calls On Tues-Weds-Thurs nights on and Aug, 12th 13th and 14th. and every week afterwards until the week of Aug 27th From 5:30 to 8:30pm I hope we can count on your help.If you have any other questions please feel free to email me at Bradwat@gmail.org and or call me at 901 745-4990.
DEMAND CHANGE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)