One glaring omission to my previous entry on the background of our Charter Change controversy here in Southbridge: I forgot to mention Agenda Item #15 from the 10/3 Town Council Meeting. In their standard 7-2 split, the council accepted to add the following language to Section 2-2-2: “No qualified voter of the Town shall be eligible to run for the office of Councilor if he or she is not in good financial standing with the Town by being current in all bills from the Town.”
This was a new proposed charter change that didn’t come from the work of the CRC. The first reference to it I can find is in the General Government Subcommittee minutes from 7/18. In the 10/3 Town Council Meeting Minutes it looks like citizen Monique Manna takes credit for the proposal, although it doesn’t look like she attended the 7/18 subcommittee meeting.
I suppose it’s impolite to say (as Councilor Vandal did) that this charter proposal is a direct result of the former Council Chair’s financial problems, but the general consensus from people I’ve talked to is that it is.
Former Chairman Lazo aside, whose public service I have no strong opinions about seeing as I’ve only been following local politics since May, I have to say that this proposed financial litmus test for prospective Council candidates really rubs me the wrong way. Property taxes and water/sewer bills aside, let’s not forget our new draconian trash program that calls for $250 fines for improper trash set-outs, with a $36,000 per year consultant and a half-time police position dedicated to enforcement. Don’t like a potential candidate? Inspect their trash and start writing tickets! Easy-peasy. Given the deeply politicized climate surrounding police investigations in our town, I don’t think I’m out in tinfoil hat territory here.
“What no one seemed to notice,” said a colleague of mine, a philologist, “was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people.”
(An excerpt from They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45
by Milton Mayer)
Next up: How municipalities go about Charter changes here in Massachusetts
Town council eliminates competition with improper election rules
by powerandpolitic on July 19, 2011
Submitted by goldwater on March 22, 2011
Goldwater Institute Daily Email
March 23, 2011
The Town of Quartzsite, Ariz., recently used unlawful restrictions to limit the choices of voters in a town council recall election. Quartzsite Ordinance 09-15 prohibits otherwise qualified candidates from running for council if they owe the town money. This might sound like a good idea – who would oppose a ban on debtors running their town? But in reality, this ordinance has been used to insulate the seats of current council members and prevent potential opponents from running for office.
(above continued)
The March 8 recall election was no different. Voters were asked whether they wished to recall five of Quartzsite’s six council members, but the council limited the options for replacement council members. At least three potential candidates were prevented from campaigning for seats under the ordinance. In at least one case, evidence establishing a candidate’s debts to the town is questionable. But the ordinance hasn’t harmed a current council member, initially appointed to fill a vacancy and a target of the recall, who appears to owe the town a substantial amount of tax money.
(above concluded)
This is why limitations on who may run for local office are set at the state level. Allowing current politicians to limit their potential competition is the proverbial fox guarding the henhouse. An Arizona statute, A.R.S. § 9-232, establishes the qualifications for council candidates. A council member must be at least 18 years old and a qualified elector living in the town for at least a year. State courts have recognized that towns cannot set qualifications beyond those established by this statute.
If Quartzsite thinks it is a good idea to place additional limits on who may run for town council, it should persuade the Legislature to pass a new law with those limits. Otherwise, it should repeal the unlawful ordinance and in the next election let the voters decide who among any of the qualified candidates they believe will best represent them.
Christina Kohn is an attorney with the Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.
http://powerandpolitic.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/t…
Quartzsite, AZ politics seem particularly off-the-wall, to put it mildly:
http://theintelhub.com/2011/07/10/mayor-claims-quartzsite-arizona-under-martial-law-after-state-of-emergency-declared-during-secret-meeting/
And thought the city council in Pensacola was bad! Ha.
Oh, I don't know. It seems that we're rapidly becoming Quartzite East.
Or Pensacola North. I've got a great video to share.