Let me get this one straight.
The proposed legislation would create a new sub-class of citizen, who not unlike the convicted felon, would have basic tenets of citizenship denied to him?
Meanwhile, with conflicts of interests over salary deftly "eliminated," and presumably with another stake driven through the heart of one or another union (isn't this the goal?), luminaries like Bob Caesar remain free to vote in favor of monies destined to be given to bodies like One Southern Indiana, of which he's a member, and which also is a conflict of interest?
Perhaps when Ed Clere and Ron Grooms finish stroking St. Mitch's backside and appeasing the reigning populist instinct (horrors -- just as long as it isn't that untidy bridge toll populism -- chortle) by means of legislation like this, they can begin eliminating the other conflicts of interest which roll merrily forward.
Let's toast the emerging GOP nanny state.
New bill to ban public employees from certain government boards;Current elected officials could serve remainder of their term, by Daniel Suddeath (Tribune)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I think its a good idea to get people away from being able to set there own pay and rules. I wish we could stop this in the US Congress.
I see Roger has tried to somehow include 1SI into the mix. In the coming months Roger, I wish I could be a fly on the wall, just to see your face.
It's going to be fun.
"The proposed legislation would create a new sub-class of citizen, who not unlike the convicted felon, would have basic tenets of citizenship denied to him?"
your rhetoric is becoming more like Freedom of Speech.
How can you write that?
It makes tons of common sense to eliminate just one of the many conflicts of interest that hobble local government. Aren't you on record opposing conflicts of interest?
First, It seems to me that matters pertaining to salary are a small part of the overall workload; as such, given that elected officials like Bob Caesar might actually educate themselves to what is meant by conflict of interest, it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater (because)...
Second, it strikes me as just another way to tilt the balance against public employees/police/fire when it comes time to talk about pay (isn't that St. Daniels' ultimate goal?) (and) ...
Third, I find this to be a slippery slope that offends my sense of fundamental fair play. Again, I ask: If a public employee cannot run for office because once a year the salary vote is a conflict of interest, then is it not a conflict of interest for that same person to vote at all for a politician who has promised to increase his or her pay?
Overall, this is a heavy-handed legislative act thinly veiling Danielsesque ulterior motives, one that may well be a cure that's worse than the crime.
That's how I can say that.
Like a lot of issues, I have mixed thoughts about this one. It can be more than just the salary. Easily.
While it, obviously, didn't seem to make a difference in Jack's situation, the mayor appoints the chief of police who is the the boss of the police officers. Many other situations would be similar. That could affect all kinds of votes--many more than just an annual salary vote. (Emphasis on "could")
On the other hand(for you Randy), is the sense of fair play that Roger cites.
If forced to vote on such a law, I would probably vote against the ban. When it comes right down to it, the voters can always decide, on their own, that the risk is too great and vote against a candidate who also holds a public job.
I'm for democracy. If it's a problem, let the voters decide at election time. Just because their guys Mitch and Ed don't like public employees and they have a supermajority does not make it OK to change that law.
I can think of public employees who I wouldn't vote for. All the council are public employees on salaries, so they must be exempted. Seems a little circular to me.
If someone exposes a conflict and the voters don't like it, they can vote them out.
"I'm for democracy. If it's a problem, let the voters decide at election time."
I would have no problem with putting this out for a vote to everyone. They could easily take the power of self raises, vacation etc. out of each elected office this would fix it as well.
Post a Comment