Ok. That sounds good. But I have a few questions (mostly due to my ignorance of how the City functions):
1. I thought the City Council approves employee raises and their pension raises and terms. Is this Charter Amendment in place so that the voters can "overturn" these pension raises and terms decided upon by the Voter-Elected City Council?
2. Is this so the heavily Police and Fire Union backed City Council doesn't have to worry about suffering through the wrath of the Unions who spend thousands and thousands of dollars on supporting their City Council slates (In 2006 Fire supported ALL the winners, Police won all except Barbara Venezia), since the decision to vote down the Employee Pensions increases would not be in the hands of their City Council. The Union-Backed City Council says yes, the voters (who also voted for the City Council) would say no?
3. I was under the impression that we wanted a Representative Form of Government where we trust of City Council to make a majority of the decisions for us and that City Councils typically don't like Ballot Box Governance. I thought that is why some of the voters and the City Council didn't like Greenlight I, Greenlight II and the City Hall in the Park initiative?
Councilman Curry wanting to limit the Employee Pension hikes is a good thing and definitely a step in the right direction (as well as being a very Conservative things to want/do), but it's certainly different that what County Supervisor John Moorlach is doing to combat the Unions. I just would hope that the City Councilmembers (who are voted in) would be fiscally responsible enough and the Gatekeepers of our City's purse strings so that the residents WOULD NOT have to get involved and reverse what the City Council approves.
Follow Up Question - This just occurred to me...if this go to the ballot, can you IMAGINE HOW MUCH MONEY THE POLICE AND FIRE UNIONS WILL SPEND TO DEFEAT IT? Oh boy, that would be some serious dough.
No comments:
Post a Comment