I view Issue 15, the consideration for the Reduction in the Percentage of Signatures for Recall, to be a solution in search of a problem.
While I recognize that Greenhills does not currently map to the minimum recall percentage at the state level, the difference between the current language in the Charter and the proposed amendment is 173 (based upon the 2009 election results) signatures.
2009 Municipal Election Ballots Cast: 1735
Current Recall Requirement (25%): 434
Proposed Recall Requirement (15%): 261
Difference: 173
I've worked petition drives in the community, and frankly, for an issue where there is broad support, an additional 173 signatures (at approximately 15 signatures / volunteer petitioner / hour) as specified in the current charter, might be an additional weekend of effort, especially if a modest sized group works the community events during the summer and fall. For the hypothetical scenario suggested by the Committee supporting the charter amendments, an under-performing or incompetent council person would seem to represent an instance where the current percentage requirement would be more than an adequate benchmark, since one would have to assume his/her incompetence would be broadly acknowledged within the community to trigger an energetic recall effort in the first place.
In addition, recall referenda have a real cost. Although the question of cost was raised during the issue forum on Waycross last week, it was largely glossed over, other than an acknowledgment of a real cost for a recall election. From my standpoint, this is a key consideration for the Charter Referendum Committee to address. By definition, the change to the Charter will increase the likelihood of recalls. Consideration of the cost of a recall is insight the Greenhills electorate might benefit from understanding, since a recall might in fact be taxpayer funded.
Do you agree? Let me know what you think.
2009 Municipal Election Ballots Cast: 1735
Current Recall Requirement (25%): 434
Proposed Recall Requirement (15%): 261
Difference: 173
I've worked petition drives in the community, and frankly, for an issue where there is broad support, an additional 173 signatures (at approximately 15 signatures / volunteer petitioner / hour) as specified in the current charter, might be an additional weekend of effort, especially if a modest sized group works the community events during the summer and fall. For the hypothetical scenario suggested by the Committee supporting the charter amendments, an under-performing or incompetent council person would seem to represent an instance where the current percentage requirement would be more than an adequate benchmark, since one would have to assume his/her incompetence would be broadly acknowledged within the community to trigger an energetic recall effort in the first place.
In addition, recall referenda have a real cost. Although the question of cost was raised during the issue forum on Waycross last week, it was largely glossed over, other than an acknowledgment of a real cost for a recall election. From my standpoint, this is a key consideration for the Charter Referendum Committee to address. By definition, the change to the Charter will increase the likelihood of recalls. Consideration of the cost of a recall is insight the Greenhills electorate might benefit from understanding, since a recall might in fact be taxpayer funded.
Do you agree? Let me know what you think.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment