My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Linke to Commission Mayor Terms
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Charter Commission
>
1990-1999
>
1993
>
Correspondence
>
Linke to Commission Mayor Terms
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/10/2018 6:51:37 AM
Creation date
9/10/2018 6:51:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Misc Documentation
Date
5/11/1993
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
e , . <br /> • <br /> {page 2 ) <br /> instead of 2 ? <br /> The feeling is that the city may end up with <br /> a "bad" Mayor and be stuck with him/her for 4 years. One must <br /> remember, a majority of the voters believed in that person and <br /> therefor he/she has rightfully earned the right to be Mayor. It <br /> [a 4 year term] may force the voters to take a longer look at the <br /> candidates because if they vote in a "clunker" they will know <br /> she/he will be there for 4 years. <br /> As to the argument that a shorter term maintains the Charters <br /> intent to establish a weak Mayor form of government, the term of <br /> office has nothing to do with if the office of the Mayor is a <br /> weak or strong one. The descriptive verbiage "weak" or "strong" <br /> when talking about the office of Mayor has to do with the duties <br /> of, not the term of the office. A "Weak Mayor" is one that has <br /> • the same voting powers as any of the other councilmembers whereas <br /> a "Strong Mayor" has veto power over the actions of the rest of <br /> the council. <br /> As the closing argument I submit [attached] the survey done in <br /> 1992 by Decision Resources Ltd. It stated " By a fifty-two to <br /> thirty-nine percent division, residents favored this change" . <br /> What I found interesting was that those that strongly supported <br /> the change were those that plan to "stay in Mounds View for the <br /> rest of their lives, senior couples, clerical-sales households, <br /> and $50, 000-$62 ,500 yearly income households. " . Those that <br /> strongly opposed the change were planning "to stay in Mounds View <br /> over--ten-years,__18-24_-year_olds, and under $12 ,500 yearly income <br /> households. " . I may be reading this information differently than <br /> someone else but I feel that those residents that have lived here <br /> a long time and plan to stay [this is also the group that stays <br /> aware of the happenings at city hall] supports the change whereas <br /> those that are new to the city and in their first home [I say <br /> this because of the age and income] [also the group that is less <br /> interested in the city] oppose the change. <br /> It is for these reasons that I believe that the Mayors Office <br /> should be 4 years like the rest of the council. Since this change <br /> would mean that one year 2 Council positions would be up and 2 <br /> years later 2 Council and Mayor would be up for election, I <br /> believe that the election with the Mayors race should be held on <br /> • the non-presidential year election. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.