Author
|
Post |
|
|
Steve Myers
Site Admin
|
Voters soon might decide the fate of the city's troubled ombudsman's office.
The City Council is expected Monday to discuss putting a proposal on the February election ballot to ax the office.
Timing is crucial because Ombudsman Jessie Binion's seven-year contract, which by city charter can't be renewed, expires in January. The vacancy opens a window to ask voters whether to amend the charter to eliminate the office, which costs about $200,000 a year.
Some council members say the office - designed to be a citizen's watchdog over city services - is no longer effective after budget cuts and following an extended sick leave by Binion that lasted nearly four years. Her absence at one point led to the office's closure for more than a year.
They also say with the city's population and tax base dwindling, the money for the office could be better used for public safety or other basic city services.
"City government must maximize the value of tax dollars," 8th Ward Councilman Ehren Gonzales said. "The ombudsman's office has been a major cost."
It's not certain the council will vote to put the issue on the ballot. Council President Darryl E. Buchanan, a former ombudsman, said he would oppose such a move. He said many residents still use the office.
"It helps a lot of people from every ward," he said. "It's based on need."
But Gonzales said the decision should be up to voters.
Voters in 1980 overwhelmingly voted to keep the office after a charter-mandated vote. If it's put on the ballot, it would join a Flint police millage renewal.
Full Story:
http://www.mlive.com/news/fljournal/index.ssf?/base/news-33/1133014802315690.xml&coll=5 |
|
|
Sat Nov 26, 2005 11:05 am |
|
|
Steve Myers
Site Admin
|
At issue
The City Council is expected to consider asking voters in February whether to eliminate the ombudsman's office.
Discussion is expected during its meeting Monday at City Hall, 1101 S. Saginaw St.
Such a change requires a charter amendment and would require at least six votes of the nine-member council to put the question before voters. |
|
|
Sat Nov 26, 2005 11:06 am |
|
|
TJBear
Guest
|
Normally I would be "FOR" a person who is an advocate for the people. However, I've discovered that. It doesn't matter what the truth is with that office. If government denies it (ie the police dept) than that is that. And nothing more happens, What good is it to have an advocate. When they don't do anything but take the other persons side. When the investigation involves only asking them what they felt they did. Not what they did. |
|
|
Sat Nov 26, 2005 8:47 pm |
|
|
|