|
|
11/30/2015
Article by Renee Wilkins
“We are a nation of laws” as City Councilor Shelby Smith likes to remind us.
For Smith, the meaning seems to be getting lost in his literal misinterpretation. His fixation with law and order has us beginning to wonder if he’ll jump over the dais to yell “citizen’s arrest” the next time he is upset with his fellow councilors.
In a recent column, Smith expressed his outrage over councilors Chuck Wilkins and Mark Scott voting against sending the city charter amendments, as approved by the governing body majority, to the voters in March.During the meeting he called their votes illegal and said the vote was only supposed to be a formality.
Apparently, this is one of Smith’s misinterpretations about city "laws” — they cannot be opposed once the majority has decided. If this way of thinking is correct, then why have a vote at all?
So why is Councilor Smith so passionate about getting these amendments to the city charter before the voters? Could there be anything bad hidden in the the myriad things voters may have to consider in March? Let’s take a look at some of the proposed changes:
1. Moving the code of ethics out of the city charter and into an ordinance. After all, the governing body knows best and we all know politicians can police themselves. It makes it so much easier to conduct those witch hunts when someone gets out of line with the will of the majority. And having it in an ordinance makes future governing bodies able to tweak it to suit themselves.
2. Almost tripling the mayor’s pay and doubling the council’s pay — for no good reason. Supporters of this huge increase have argued that we’ll finally get a mayor with half a brain if we just offer more pay. They are missing a simple truth about what motivates people: Few serious or successful people will run for a position that has no real authority. But this amendment will dangle an extra large carrot out to see who bites.
3. Letting the mayor vote when councilors are absent. Next time councilors Smith or Cheryl Everett are absent, rest assured they’ve figured out how to keep the wheels of the majority’s “progressive train” turning. This majority has had so many absences that they felt the need to integrate this with their newly approved rule change allowing members to vote by phone or Skype. We understand the motivation — it really is the best way to ensure they keep a a majority in place to pass garbage like civil asset forfeiture. (This year Smith worked with our city attorney to craft an illegal civil asset forfeiture program that defies a new state law. Two state legislators are suing the City of Albuquerque over the same type of program.) Could it be Smith is really saying that all councilors need to act in accordance with his interpretation of the “law” — a police state interpretation. This “off with their heads” attitude is at odds with the spirit of American government and our Constitution.
“The majority rules” is a phrase used often by this governing body, as if to remind the minority members that they are not in charge and really have no legal right to say anything but “yes” when asked to vote.
We say this is fine in North Korea but it’s contrary to what used to be American and just plain old common sense.
Article by Renee Wilkins
“We are a nation of laws” as City Councilor Shelby Smith likes to remind us.
For Smith, the meaning seems to be getting lost in his literal misinterpretation. His fixation with law and order has us beginning to wonder if he’ll jump over the dais to yell “citizen’s arrest” the next time he is upset with his fellow councilors.
In a recent column, Smith expressed his outrage over councilors Chuck Wilkins and Mark Scott voting against sending the city charter amendments, as approved by the governing body majority, to the voters in March.During the meeting he called their votes illegal and said the vote was only supposed to be a formality.
Apparently, this is one of Smith’s misinterpretations about city "laws” — they cannot be opposed once the majority has decided. If this way of thinking is correct, then why have a vote at all?
So why is Councilor Smith so passionate about getting these amendments to the city charter before the voters? Could there be anything bad hidden in the the myriad things voters may have to consider in March? Let’s take a look at some of the proposed changes:
1. Moving the code of ethics out of the city charter and into an ordinance. After all, the governing body knows best and we all know politicians can police themselves. It makes it so much easier to conduct those witch hunts when someone gets out of line with the will of the majority. And having it in an ordinance makes future governing bodies able to tweak it to suit themselves.
2. Almost tripling the mayor’s pay and doubling the council’s pay — for no good reason. Supporters of this huge increase have argued that we’ll finally get a mayor with half a brain if we just offer more pay. They are missing a simple truth about what motivates people: Few serious or successful people will run for a position that has no real authority. But this amendment will dangle an extra large carrot out to see who bites.
3. Letting the mayor vote when councilors are absent. Next time councilors Smith or Cheryl Everett are absent, rest assured they’ve figured out how to keep the wheels of the majority’s “progressive train” turning. This majority has had so many absences that they felt the need to integrate this with their newly approved rule change allowing members to vote by phone or Skype. We understand the motivation — it really is the best way to ensure they keep a a majority in place to pass garbage like civil asset forfeiture. (This year Smith worked with our city attorney to craft an illegal civil asset forfeiture program that defies a new state law. Two state legislators are suing the City of Albuquerque over the same type of program.) Could it be Smith is really saying that all councilors need to act in accordance with his interpretation of the “law” — a police state interpretation. This “off with their heads” attitude is at odds with the spirit of American government and our Constitution.
“The majority rules” is a phrase used often by this governing body, as if to remind the minority members that they are not in charge and really have no legal right to say anything but “yes” when asked to vote.
We say this is fine in North Korea but it’s contrary to what used to be American and just plain old common sense.
