|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
Here's my ideas.
Setting Top Pay for Mayor at X times the median income.
Setting the Council Representation at 1 councilman per 25,000 - 30,000 residents.
Time frames for Appointments by the Mayor and Councilmen.
I'm also concerned with not having a Mayor that is available to the public for public comment. Since, City Council is continuosly blamed for things the Mayor does. I believe OUR charter should require the Mayor to be at City Council Meetings. |
|
|
Sat Aug 09, 2008 7:14 am |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
Why shrink the council to only 3 or 4 members?
They're mostly unresponsive to the citizens now, how will tripling the number they "represent" help that? |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Sat Aug 09, 2008 7:27 am |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
Dave? Who said anything about Tripleing the number?
If you took 125,000 divided it by 25,000 that would leave us with ???
Now I'm using an 2000 census number. We are much lower now. But if the Bottom number was 25K and the most number was 30..... 125,000 divided by 30,000 that would be ???
I'm really sure what you're trying to say here? |
|
|
|
Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:09 am |
|
|
Kevin McKague
F L I N T O I D
|
| Ted, I think you misunderstood what Dave said. Flint currently has eight members on the council. If we divide the wards into populations of 30,000, that would give Flint's voters LESS representation. Why would you do that? |
|
|
|
Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:29 am |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
| 125,000 divided by 30,000 is 4.1 If each councilperson represented 30,000 people, that means 4 council members. I'm saying you want to triple the number of people each council member represents. Right now, we have 9 council members, roughly 11,000 people per member. |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:31 am |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
OK, Well here's my thought process...
When Flint had 225,000 residents we had a council of 9, More tax dollars from residents and industry.
With less residents, government should be trimmed to fill demand. Less residents equals less tax dollars. In order to provide neccessary services such as police and fire, parks, etc. If 20 years ago one councilman could represent 50k residents. When we had more tax dollars from industry we could support that many.
I'm just trying to use commonsense and logic as reasoning for cutting back. |
|
|
|
Sat Aug 09, 2008 10:00 am |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
That's why I would do that.  |
|
|
|
Sat Aug 09, 2008 10:01 am |
|
|
Josh Freeman
F L I N T O I D
|
I'm not sure that the Charter needs a total revision. It definately needs to be tweaked though.
Having been a Councilperson - it is not an easy task to represent the level of folks they currently represent. I can't imagine having to triple that number. The Council does not have adequate staff to do the constituent services that the residents deserve. Increasing the number of folks they represent would be bad. And frankly, the Council budget, when put in perspective with the overall City Budget is only 2% of the total. (Not saying that the budget should not be cut i.e. Ward Accounts, just saying that it is not as big of an issue as portrayed)
I don't think that is the first issue that I would deal with. |
|
|
|
Sat Aug 09, 2008 11:08 am |
|
|
Adam
F L I N T O I D
|
| If you want to cut the council say how many we should have. It's obvious we are losing population and destroying houses so if we put in the charter one councilman per 25,000 residents in 25 or 50 years we could have a one person ccouncil. |
_________________
Adam
-
Mysearchisover.com
-
FB
-
Jobs
|
|
|
Sat Aug 09, 2008 12:14 pm |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
| I'm estimating that we have roughly 1 council person for 10,000 people now. |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Sat Aug 09, 2008 12:37 pm |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
I'm estimating that we have roughly 1 council person for 10,000 people now.
A one person council would sure make all the various meetings a lot shorter. |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Sat Aug 09, 2008 12:37 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
Dave, that is a pretty Fair estimate.
So when the city did have 1 council person per 25K that was too much??? And today when we have 1 council person for every 11,000 some are saying it is not an issue???? They are over worked? If they could handle it when there was 25k and better per council person/ward. Why can they not handle it today?
Josh, I agree that it not a March on city hall issue. However, Flint is half the size without any direction as to how to down size or keep pace with the community! I say put it in the Charter! Becuase, if politicians have the choice of looking out for their constituants and their own pay checks. They choose their paycheck and/or own power over the people everytime.
Put how much they make in the Charter based on/off median income. Time frames for appointments. etc. I believe a total revision is needed since we cannot find a judge that seems to understand the intent or even the direct wording of the Charter. It obviously needs to be rewritten so that not only the majority of flint residents can understand it. But so that Judges can understand it also. It's obviously not plain enough. |
|
|
|
Sat Aug 09, 2008 2:59 pm |
|
|
Marko Rollo
F L I N T O I D
|
Only slightly off topic, but it deals with the challenges of Flint's shrinking population and tax base...
There is a state-defined process (don't remember the term) whereby the city property reverts back to the surrounding townships. Why not let the surrounding townships (and City of Burton) shoulder the responsibility of police/fire/roads at their borders, then give them the tax base to help pay for it?
For example, move the City lines to:
Pierson Road on the north.
Bristol instead of Maple in the South.
East boundry to Center, jog over on Davison, up Dort Hwy.
Clio & Ballenger Hwy. on the west.
Residents would like it if the address change lowered their taxes and raised their property values.
Pros? Cons? Just brainstorming here... |
|
|
|
Sat Aug 09, 2008 5:32 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
I've heard other mention similar ideas. Only they want our COunty to take over Flint. WHew, I'm not thrilled with that idea either.
BUt those are the things a Revision commitee should look at. Hopefully others will make some suggestions on this thread then I'll try to put them all together and see if I can generate some support |
|
|
|
Sat Aug 09, 2008 5:57 pm |
|
|
Josh Freeman
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Ted Jankowski schreef:
Dave, that is a pretty Fair estimate.
So when the city did have 1 council person per 25K that was too much??? And today when we have 1 council person for every 11,000 some are saying it is not an issue???? They are over worked? If they could handle it when there was 25k and better per council person/ward. Why can they not handle it today?
Josh, I agree that it not a March on city hall issue. However, Flint is half the size without any direction as to how to down size or keep pace with the community! I say put it in the Charter! Becuase, if politicians have the choice of looking out for their constituants and their own pay checks. They choose their paycheck and/or own power over the people everytime.
Put how much they make in the Charter based on/off median income. Time frames for appointments. etc. I believe a total revision is needed since we cannot find a judge that seems to understand the intent or even the direct wording of the Charter. It obviously needs to be rewritten so that not only the majority of flint residents can understand it. But so that Judges can understand it also. It's obviously not plain enough.
The difference between now and then is that they had the staff to help them do the job. 10 years ago there were 6-8 staff people in the Council office... today there is 3.
I don't think that the problem lies in the Charter. I think that we have a weak Council that does not use the Charter to the fullest extent. Where was the Council when the Mayor was overspending? There was a lot of talk but no action.
Take the appointment process. The City Council has an opinion from Trachelle Young stating that an appointment is an appointment regardless if it is on an interim basis. As such, the appointment must be presented to the City Council for approval. The Council went to Court - the judge says you must appoint - and the Council never followed up when the Mayor simply refused.
I don't care what anybody says... being a Councilperson is a full-time job, if you are going to do it right. Representing more people with less resources isn't the answer to fix our problems.
Of course, I could be wrong. |
|
|
|
Sat Aug 09, 2008 7:37 pm |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
