Absolute Power In The People (1911)
ABSOLUTE POWER IN THE PEOPLE
J. KNOX BURTON, in his speech before the Unity club criticizing the pure commission form of government, says: - "The so-called commission plan vests in five men absolute power to run the city; they make the appropriations and then spend the money appropriated; they pass ordinances and then enforce those ordinances; prescribe the terms and conditions on which licenses shall be issued and then issue those licenses, fix the salaries of officers and employes and then appoint those officers and employes."
Like many other critics, Mr. Burton is mistaken when he says the commission has absolute power. It does not. The final & absolute power under the commission system resides in the people.
The commissioners can make no appropriations that the people oppose, they can pass no ordinance not acceptable to the people, and if the officials appointed by the commissioners are no satisfactory to the people, then the commissioners may be recalled.
The five commissioners do, it is true, have charge of all the business of the city, of every kind. That is what makes the commission system so efficient and economical. It is easy for the people to keep track of five officials, and to place the responsibility for everything that is done. It is not easy to keep track of the doings of two or three dozen officials, as under the present system, or under the proposed mixed commission and council system.
If five commissioners were to have absolute charge of the city's affairs, The Chieftain would be the first to oppose the plan. But they do not have absolute power. The final & absolute power, in regard to everything that is done, resides in the people. Nothing can be done that the people do not approve.
And this being so, is not a commission of five more efficient, more economical, than a commission with a council would be? If the people themselves at all times have an absolute check on the actions of the five commissioners, what is the need of interposing an additional check, in the form of a council, the only effect of which will be to delay the efficient working of the commissioners, to scatter responsibility, and possibly, to give an opening for the building of a political machine?
POPULAR CONTROL OF FRANCHISE
ONE OF THE BEST FEATURES of the charter commission form of city government is that it removes from the council the power to grant franchises. Perhaps no feature of the present system of government, in the average city, is so vehemently and so persistently criticized as the granting of franchises by the council. Of ten there is reason for this criticism: often the franchise granted is beneficial to the corporation and the members of the council, and to no one else. Often, even when the franchise is a fair and just one, criticism of the council, unjust criticism, is heard.
But there can be no such objection in any city operation under a charter. If the people of Pueblo vote on April 4 in favor of the adoption of a charter, that very vote will remove from the council forever all power of granting franchises. Henceforth that power will vet solely in the people. Only by a vote of a majority of the people may any franchise, of any kind, be granted.
And, if the referendum is also made a part of the Charter, then no contract may be entered into by the council without the approval without the approval of the people. These two features of the charter system, the popular vote of the people on all franchises, and the right for a referendum of all contracts, are worth millions of dollars to any city.
If the people of Pueblo want the right to govern themselves, to say what franchises and what contracts shall or shall no be made, they have the chance to get it on April 4 by voting in favor of the charter commission form of government.
THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT
"THE PROGRESSIVE movement is nothing more than the crystalized (sic) determination of the American people to take their own affairs back into their own hands and manage their own business themselves." It would be impossible to find a better definition of the progressive movement than the above, from Gifford Pinchot, who has himself done as much as any man living to waken the people to the necessity of resuming their own government."
~RM M'Clintock, progressive Republican Editor of Pueblo Chieftain, 1911
J. KNOX BURTON, in his speech before the Unity club criticizing the pure commission form of government, says: - "The so-called commission plan vests in five men absolute power to run the city; they make the appropriations and then spend the money appropriated; they pass ordinances and then enforce those ordinances; prescribe the terms and conditions on which licenses shall be issued and then issue those licenses, fix the salaries of officers and employes and then appoint those officers and employes."
Like many other critics, Mr. Burton is mistaken when he says the commission has absolute power. It does not. The final & absolute power under the commission system resides in the people.
The commissioners can make no appropriations that the people oppose, they can pass no ordinance not acceptable to the people, and if the officials appointed by the commissioners are no satisfactory to the people, then the commissioners may be recalled.
The five commissioners do, it is true, have charge of all the business of the city, of every kind. That is what makes the commission system so efficient and economical. It is easy for the people to keep track of five officials, and to place the responsibility for everything that is done. It is not easy to keep track of the doings of two or three dozen officials, as under the present system, or under the proposed mixed commission and council system.
If five commissioners were to have absolute charge of the city's affairs, The Chieftain would be the first to oppose the plan. But they do not have absolute power. The final & absolute power, in regard to everything that is done, resides in the people. Nothing can be done that the people do not approve.
And this being so, is not a commission of five more efficient, more economical, than a commission with a council would be? If the people themselves at all times have an absolute check on the actions of the five commissioners, what is the need of interposing an additional check, in the form of a council, the only effect of which will be to delay the efficient working of the commissioners, to scatter responsibility, and possibly, to give an opening for the building of a political machine?
POPULAR CONTROL OF FRANCHISE
ONE OF THE BEST FEATURES of the charter commission form of city government is that it removes from the council the power to grant franchises. Perhaps no feature of the present system of government, in the average city, is so vehemently and so persistently criticized as the granting of franchises by the council. Of ten there is reason for this criticism: often the franchise granted is beneficial to the corporation and the members of the council, and to no one else. Often, even when the franchise is a fair and just one, criticism of the council, unjust criticism, is heard.
But there can be no such objection in any city operation under a charter. If the people of Pueblo vote on April 4 in favor of the adoption of a charter, that very vote will remove from the council forever all power of granting franchises. Henceforth that power will vet solely in the people. Only by a vote of a majority of the people may any franchise, of any kind, be granted.
And, if the referendum is also made a part of the Charter, then no contract may be entered into by the council without the approval without the approval of the people. These two features of the charter system, the popular vote of the people on all franchises, and the right for a referendum of all contracts, are worth millions of dollars to any city.
If the people of Pueblo want the right to govern themselves, to say what franchises and what contracts shall or shall no be made, they have the chance to get it on April 4 by voting in favor of the charter commission form of government.
THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT
"THE PROGRESSIVE movement is nothing more than the crystalized (sic) determination of the American people to take their own affairs back into their own hands and manage their own business themselves." It would be impossible to find a better definition of the progressive movement than the above, from Gifford Pinchot, who has himself done as much as any man living to waken the people to the necessity of resuming their own government."
~RM M'Clintock, progressive Republican Editor of Pueblo Chieftain, 1911
Comments
Post a Comment