Jump to content



Photo

Predictions?


  • Please log in to reply
133 replies to this topic

#21 TomD

TomD

    Commissioner

  • Moderators
  • 1,076 posts

Posted 15 November 2015 - 10:10 AM

One more example of concentrated power in our current system.

 

Without invoking the Don Quixote Complex, and working within current state statutes, how would you suggest fixing the problems you perceive with the current method?  I have an instant solution that would guarantee the executive is directly elected by the voters, but I'd like to read what you would suggest before I toss it out for consideration.  Thanks.



#22 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 15 November 2015 - 10:14 AM

I outlined my proposal in the News and Tribune voters guide. Here it is:

 

  • Pass an ordinance that the at-large member of the council with the most over all votes in the general election shall be the Town Council President. In the event of a tie then the Council will vote to break the tie.

  • Pass an ordinance making the Town Council President a non voting member of the Council who shall be the Town Executive as per IC 36-5-2-2.

  • Pass an ordinance that grants the same authority and duties of a City Executive (IC 36-4-5-3, 4, 5,6,7,8(instead of deputy mayor it would be clerk/treasurer),9) to our Town Executive.


Edited by Russell Brooksbank, 15 November 2015 - 10:16 AM.


#23 grayarea

grayarea

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 835 posts

Posted 15 November 2015 - 03:39 PM

Here is the 411 from a normally very reliable source:

 

The newly elected majority requested the town manager issue be on the work session agenda in order to get a consensus from the outgoing council allowing for a town manager search committee to be re-assembled.  It is the intention of the newly elected majority to move forward promptly with the search for a town manager, and if consensus is favorable would allow the search committee to begin its work at once rather than wait until the middle of Jan, 2016. 

 

Changes are coming.  :yes:

 

This, for the most part is good news.

 

If the same folks that were making recommendations before are somehow convinced to return and finish their work this is good. Afterall, the present council (i.e. Gang of Four) unceremoniously botched the work these good folks put in and left a sour taste in the mouth of those who were on the committee. I would hope, under the new administration they will return and make the recommendations unfettered by the ridiculous parameters that were put on them when the council, after saying yes, then no, then yes again a month or two later...but with a bunch of restrictions as to any possible hiring that tied the hands of the committee from seeking a qualified candidate.

 

Honestly, instead of including the present council on anything, I'd rather wait until January...


  • GrumpyGranny likes this

#24 TomD

TomD

    Commissioner

  • Moderators
  • 1,076 posts

Posted 16 November 2015 - 07:31 AM

 

I outlined my proposal in the News and Tribune voters guide. Here it is:

 

  • Pass an ordinance that the at-large member of the council with the most over all votes in the general election shall be the Town Council President. In the event of a tie then the Council will vote to break the tie.

  • Pass an ordinance making the Town Council President a non voting member of the Council who shall be the Town Executive as per IC 36-5-2-2.

  • Pass an ordinance that grants the same authority and duties of a City Executive (IC 36-4-5-3, 4, 5,6,7,8(instead of deputy mayor it would be clerk/treasurer),9) to our Town Executive.

 

 

At first glance, this sounds like a good solution to your perceived problems with our current method.  The big problem here is that your suggestions would make changes using local ordinances that could easily be unwound at any time by the same or a future council merely by passing other local ordinances. 

 

The way to permanently get what you say you want is to change to a city form of government.  If change is important to you, why don't you start a PAC or other movement to attempt to get that done?  Here is a link to the group that got the job done in Fishers, Indiana:   https://www.facebook.com/CityYesPac

If you'd like, I can furnish you with contact information for one of the principal people in the group.  I talked to several people involved with CityYes when Clarksville's city/town study committee was active, but I don't think any members of the Clarksville  committee did so.  I can also provide you with information on Zionsville's decision to stay a town while merging with Eagle and Union townships using the government modernization act.  To this day, I'm still not certain that some on the city/town study committee seriously considered changing our form of government to a city, since I could find no one who had talked to principals of a town that converted to a city to get their perspective.

 

If you really want change, sometimes you have to stop talking and take action.   



#25 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 16 November 2015 - 08:15 AM

At first glance, this sounds like a good solution to your perceived problems with our current method. The big problem here is that your suggestions would make changes using local ordinances that could easily be unwound at any time by the same or a future council merely by passing other local ordinances.

The way to permanently get what you say you want is to change to a city form of government. If change is important to you, why don't you start a PAC or other movement to attempt to get that done? Here is a link to the group that got the job done in Fishers, Indiana: https://www.facebook.com/CityYesPac
If you'd like, I can furnish you with contact information for one of the principal people in the group. I talked to several people involved with CityYes when Clarksville's city/town study committee was active, but I don't think any members of the Clarksville committee did so. I can also provide you with information on Zionsville's decision to stay a town while merging with Eagle and Union townships using the government modernization act. To this day, I'm still not certain that some on the city/town study committee seriously considered changing our form of government to a city, since I could find no one who had talked to principals of a town that converted to a city to get their perspective.

If you really want change, sometimes you have to stop talking and take action.


1). I did take action. I put my name on the ballot.
2). I'll continue to take action. Speaking out, lobbying, and rallying the people is action.
3). Your solution isn't permanent either.
4). My solution will be as permanent as the people of the town want it to be.
5). My solution does not require becoming a city, something the people of our town has voted down.
6). My solution will be a great transition phase between the two if we should ever choose to become a city later.

#26 TomD

TomD

    Commissioner

  • Moderators
  • 1,076 posts

Posted 17 November 2015 - 07:02 AM

 I did take action. I put my name on the ballot.
 

 

Yes, you did.  And you got 247 votes.  Congratulations.

 

I'll continue to take action. Speaking out, lobbying, and rallying the people is action.

 

Rocking in a rocking chair is also taking action...it keeps you busy, but it sure won't get you anywhere.  The action I was referring to is positive action that moves you closer to the realization of a worthy goal. 

 

Your solution isn't permanent either.

 

Oh?  State law provides for changing from a town to a city...but does not provide statutes for regressing from a city to a town.  I realize than nothing in life is truly 'permanent', but what sources do you cite that supports your claim that the solution presented is not 'permanent'?

 

My solution does not require becoming a city, something the people of our town has voted down.

 

How long ago did the people of our town vote it down?  I believe it was many, many years ago.  Has there been a change in demographics or attitudes that would make such a change possible now? 

 

Now it's time for me to cry 'Uncle' and stop participating in the 'rocking chair' activity of this discussion.  Have it your way if you wish.  I think I'll move on to goal achieving activities. 

 

Back on topic...



#27 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 17 November 2015 - 08:02 AM

Yes, you did.  And you got 247 votes.  Congratulations.

 

 

 

 

Rocking in a rocking chair is also taking action...it keeps you busy, but it sure won't get you anywhere.  The action I was referring to is positive action that moves you closer to the realization of a worthy goal. 

 

 

 

 

Oh?  State law provides for changing from a town to a city...but does not provide statutes for regressing from a city to a town.  I realize than nothing in life is truly 'permanent', but what sources do you cite that supports your claim that the solution presented is not 'permanent'?

 

 

 

 

How long ago did the people of our town vote it down?  I believe it was many, many years ago.  Has there been a change in demographics or attitudes that would make such a change possible now? 

 

Now it's time for me to cry 'Uncle' and stop participating in the 'rocking chair' activity of this discussion.  Have it your way if you wish.  I think I'll move on to goal achieving activities. 

 

Back on topic...

1). 247 is considerably more than you. Thanks.

2). Speaking out, rallying people, and lobbying is positive action.

3).IC 36-4-1-6 Petition to change city to town; summons; trial; issue; order;transition; provisional government

Sec. 6. (a) A petition to change a city into a town may be filed as a civil action in the circuit court for the county in which the city is located. The petition must be signed by at least two-thirds (2/3) of the taxpayers twenty-one (21) years of age or older who reside in the city.

(b) Whenever a petition is filed under this section, the clerk of the circuit court shall issue a summons to the city in its corporate name. A taxpayer who signed the petition may not withdraw his signature on or after the return date of the summons.

© An action under this section shall be tried by the court without a jury, and the only issue to be determined is whether the petition contains the genuine signatures of the number of taxpayers required.If the court finds in the affirmative, it shall enter an order changing the city into a town.

(d) After an order is entered under subsection ©, the executive and the legislative body of the municipality shall organize as a town legislative body, with the executive becoming the town executive,and the remaining officers of the municipality shall exercise only the functions that may be exercised by the corresponding town officers.If none of the functions of a city officer or board is exercised undera town government, that officer or board shall immediately file a finalreport with and turn over all records and property in his or its custodyto the town legislative body. After the final report of a former city officer or board is approved by the town legislative body, that office or board is abolished.

(e) The provisional town government provided for in subsection(d) shall serve until the time prescribed by IC 3-10-6-5 for a regular town election

 

You may want to read the statutes before you make statements like, "State law provides for changing from a town to a city...but does not provide statutes for regressing from a city to a town."

4). I recognize that a vote to change from a town to a city could be had at anytime. My suggestion, if implemented, would make that transition easier in my opinion. Also, moving to a city does not get rid of the Town Manager argument. 3rd class cities can have a Town Manager as well.

 

You asked for my opinion Tom. I gave it to you. I'm glad that you have decided to join me in activism away from the keyboard. Perhaps we could work together to make Clarksville great.



#28 GrumpyGranny

GrumpyGranny

    Local Legend

  • Administrators
  • 5,169 posts

Posted 17 November 2015 - 08:31 AM

We voted for change; we got change. I'm not concerning myself with predictions. I am willing to wait a bit and see what the new council brings to the table. The new council hasn't even taken office yet! Of course, I am expecting transparency, a council that can work together for the town and it's citizens and that will be willing to discuss an issue from all angles before making any decisions. Oh, and I am expecting the new council to retain the department heads we currently have. I will be one of the most vocal if they do not!

 

I don't know where I stand on the town/city question. If a town manager is hired, applications can be accepted from anywhere...the town manager doesn't have to be from Clarksville and it may be best to bring in new blood, a fresh set of eyes that isn't weighed down by friends in town, favors that may be owed. A contract can be written in such a way that the town manager's contract would have to be renewed every year or two based on job performance.

 

Electing a mayor, on the other hand, means there is a chance we would elect someone who would owe favors to the people who helped him/her get elected. A chance that department heads would be replaced on a whim. A chance that the elected mayor would be a friend of long time political figures in Clarksville and our leadership would be more of the same. Electing a mayor doesn't mean pleasing everyone in town. Just read the Chatter Jeff and C-town forums...an elected mayor can be fought against by the city council or the residents. Four years of discord.

 

 

 

 


  • Clarksville Voter likes this

#29 TomD

TomD

    Commissioner

  • Moderators
  • 1,076 posts

Posted 17 November 2015 - 10:02 AM

Russell

 

I bow down and acquiesce to your apparent vastly superior knowledge, intellect, and reasoning ability.

 

I probably won't join you in activism*...I'd rather continue to do what I've done in past years behind the scenes.  I believe it's been more productive than activism*, but others can be the judge of that.  Confrontation is just not my style.

 

* From thefreedictionary.com: ac·tiv·ism (ăk′tə-vĭz′əm)n. The use of direct, often confrontational action...in opposition to or support of a cause.

 

 

Concerning the new council, I predict an improved business climate, a town manager (that was an easy one), district voting (another easy one), personnel changes (another easy one), better spending practices, and a reduction in nepotism/cronyism.  


Edited by TomD, 17 November 2015 - 11:44 AM.


#30 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 17 November 2015 - 10:10 AM

Behind the scenes activism is still activism if you are performing actions in support of or opposition to a cause. There's no reason there can't be a two-pronged approach to achieving our goal of a better Clarksville, is there? You work behind the scenes and I'll work in the public arena. Together, we might be able to effect positive change.

#31 Sleepy

Sleepy

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,359 posts

Posted 17 November 2015 - 12:37 PM

Personnel Changes???

 

I thought they vowed to keep everyone??


  • kelley likes this

#32 Clarksville Voter

Clarksville Voter

    Resident

  • Account Closed
  • PipPip
  • 86 posts

Posted 17 November 2015 - 05:14 PM

There are several retirements coming in 2016, many who a familiar with the town have known for awhile of them.

 

Its amazing who the first are to question breaking election vowels.



#33 TomD

TomD

    Commissioner

  • Moderators
  • 1,076 posts

Posted 18 November 2015 - 04:17 PM

Personnel Changes???

 

I thought they vowed to keep everyone??

 

There will be some retirements in the near future...at least 2 in the first 3 months of the new council's term.  Knowing this made the prediction of 'personnel changes' an easy one.  Didn't your candidate know about the retirements?



#34 Sleepy

Sleepy

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,359 posts

Posted 19 November 2015 - 11:34 AM

Gotcha

 

Im not sure what he knew.  


Edited by Sleepy, 19 November 2015 - 11:35 AM.


#35 Sleepy

Sleepy

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,359 posts

Posted 02 December 2015 - 11:06 AM

TomD

 

I hear someone got their walking papers....He did not retire.

 

I say again...I thought there would be no dept head changes?????

 

Buddy needs a job...HMMMMMM



#36 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 02 December 2015 - 12:04 PM

Hmmm indeed. Care to let the rest of us know who got canned Sleepy?

#37 Sleepy

Sleepy

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,359 posts

Posted 02 December 2015 - 12:19 PM

I will soon, I just hope they are not replacing this guy with who I hear.

 

More later.



#38 Clarksville Voter

Clarksville Voter

    Resident

  • Account Closed
  • PipPip
  • 86 posts

Posted 02 December 2015 - 12:32 PM

I didn't know the new town board had taken over already. I thought the old dems still in charge. Maybe you should be asking BobP instead of TonD.


Edited by Clarksville Voter, 02 December 2015 - 12:34 PM.

  • GrumpyGranny likes this

#39 TomD

TomD

    Commissioner

  • Moderators
  • 1,076 posts

Posted 02 December 2015 - 12:51 PM

TomD

 

I hear someone got their walking papers....He did not retire.

 

I say again...I thought there would be no dept head changes?????

 

Buddy needs a job...HMMMMMM

 

Sleepy...

 

Why would you direct this at me?  I am not, nor will I be, an elected official.  Perhaps if you have questions or concerns they should be directed to our elected officials?

 

Hmmm indeed. Care to let the rest of us know who got canned Sleepy?

 

Russell...

 

It appears to me that Sleepy just likes to stir the pot.  His posts are usually short on substance, and long on vagueness.  Oh well, at least it is sometimes entertaining.



#40 Sleepy

Sleepy

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,359 posts

Posted 02 December 2015 - 02:34 PM

I sent it to Tom per our conversation on post 33.

 

This guy is not retiring....And it won't happen until the new board takes over.

 

Sorry Tom you can no longer blame the old board.

 

Russell...A man getting fired is a serious matter.  Not an attempt to stir the pot

But an attempt to shead light on a shady deal getting ready to go down.,

 

The repubs floated the rumor that if elected the Dems would get rid of Palmer.

After many said no.   Then they said " all department heads are doing a good

job and are safe"

 

We shall see if this is true.   I say False.


Edited by Sleepy, 02 December 2015 - 02:34 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users