If Pueblo Wants A "Strong Mayor", Then Pueblo Must Have A Charter Convention
If we're going to radically change how Pueblo operates, personally, I would rather see the City of Pueblo & Pueblo County consolidate to reduce their many redundancies, and therefore, save a bunch of money. I also want to turn our trash into electricity, like how they're doing it in Sweden. Sweden is buying Norway's trash right now because they're running out of trash! Sweden's trash-2-electric program is too successful. The City of Pueblo should also adopt a Ranked Choice Voting system as our electoral system, so as to be inclusive of independents, but a "Strong Mayor" system? Really? That's the proposed solution for Pueblo's problems?
A Strong Mayor system is a monumentally bad idea. It's a dumb idea, but more importantly, it's not even constitutional! It's outright criminal, which is why I'm shocked that it's on the ballot now, and that it was a referendum once tried before. This attempted electoral coup detat has been attempted in the past!
The reason why it's a dumb idea is because the City of Pueblo already has a strong executive system. Maybe it's just not working right. All machines need oil & routine maintenance. If Chris Nicoll wants to be a King-Mayor with an annual salary of $150,000, i.e., the benevolent dictator of Pueblo, then he should apply to be city manager, and then win the approval of the city council, i.e. the people's people... 1 year after he steps down from council. "No Councilman shall be appointed to the position of City Manager or any position in the Classified or Unclassified Service of the City during the term for which he shall have been elected, nor within one year after the expiration of his term." (Section 4-1)
With a "Strong Mayor" system, the "people's people" is subordinate to their Fuhrer. With a "Strong Manager" system, the Fuhrer is subordinate to the "people's people". I'd rather have some legislative checks & balances on the Fuhrer, even if it's just the 7 members of council, than no check at all.
The logic behind John Rodriguez's article in "Pulp" was that Sam Azad is blocking any & all of the good initiatives that would benefit Pueblo, and so therefore, the solution is an electoral overthrow of the government through the creation of a "Strong Mayor" position, because with a "Strong Mayor", then there would be a totalitarian fascist benevolent strongman dictator with a hammer who can take charge of Pueblo, and get things done. That's his logic, but John Rodriguez clearly doesn't understand how government works, especially not the City of Pueblo, which is governed by a 1954 City Charter. I also can't decipher Rodriguez's final sentence: "It would be unsophisticated to prefer a mayor of no one and a city government managed to say no."
Rodriguez needs to understand that the City of Pueblo already has a totalitarian fascist benevolent strongman dictator with a hammer who can take charge of Pueblo, and get things done. That's Sam Azad. Sam Azad IS the "strongman" of Pueblo. We already have a strongman leading Pueblo. Not a "Strong Mayor", but a strong executive with a different name: a "Strong City Manager". City Council hired Sam Azad, and they've retained him this whole time. If the 7 City Council folks didn't want Sam Azad, if they didn't approve of his job, they could have got rid of him, easily, by firing him. It only takes 30 days for Pueblo to get rid of her City Manager. To hire & fire the man who can hire & fire everybody else in city government is Pueblo city council's main power (that, and contracts). That's how Pueblo's "Strong City Manager" system works. The city council is the board of directors, and Sam Azad is the CEO, whom the city council can fire at will. Well virtually. A 30 day notice is all that's constitutionally required. That's a perfect amount of time for the outgoing chief to educate the incoming chief.
It only takes 30 days to get rid of a city manager (4-3). If Sam Azad isn't the strong benevolent dictator that you need, then fire him. All City Council needs to do to fire Sam Azad is vote by simple majority - just 4 votes - for a resolution listing the reasons why he's being fired, and then 30 days later, he's gone. I'd err on the side of always firing the City Manager every year to get some new blood in there, and to always keep the city manager on his/her toes, to mind their P's & Q's. I'm not sure how long Sam Azad has been in there, or how good of a job he's done, but City Council still retains him, and discussions of seriously firing him hasn't even been mentioned. Apparently the solution is an RPG named "Strong Mayor" torpedoing us all straight into anarchytown. First, plunge Pueblo into thousands of years of darkness, and once Pueblo has turned into a Mad Max shitshow, the people will be clamoring for a Strong anybody to fix it all. But there's no such thing as a liberator. The people must liberate themselves.
Like a CEO, the city manager is the top executive, until the board of directors/city council changes that. If John Rodriguez wants a city manager to implement the innovative solutions of Larry Atencio & Jerry Pacheco, then he should tell Atencio to dictate policy to Sam Azad. And if Sam Azad doesn't listen - when the cons outweight the pros - then Rodriguez should push 4 members of city council to fire Sam Azad.
The reason why the good Puebloans in 1954 picked a Strong City Manager system is because they didn't want a partisan hack leading the city. The city council is made up of elected partisans, but since the chief executive would be picked by the elected city council, the idea was that they would choose the best, most ethical, most professional, most creative, & qualified leader for the city, instead of just some partisan hack. "He shall be appointed on the basis of administrative and executive qualifications with special reference to his actual experience in and his knowledge of accepted practice in respect to the duties of his office as hereafter set forth." (4-1)
A person who lives in the City of Pueblo will better understand the problems & needs of Puebloans, which is why the 1954 City Charter requires the City Manager to live in the City. (4-1) If you're not a Puebloan, then you shouldn't be an official here in any capacity. Not here. Maybe wherever you're at, you can be, but definitely not here. Only Puebloans should be in charge of Puebloans. Governments are derived by the consent of the governed. "At the time of his appointment the City Manager need not be a resident of the City of Pueblo or State of Colorado, but during his tenure of office he shall reside within the City of Pueblo." (4-1)
City Council needs to work together better. A major legacy of this City Council will be the new Chief of Police that they decide to hire. And I mean "they", because both the city manager & the city council have power in this decision. Private Puebloans, however, do not. The City Council - the people's representatives - should pick the new Chief of Police amongst themselves, unanimously, & then order Sam Azad to hire that person. If he doesn't, then fire Sam Azad. It's that simple. The city council sets the parameters of policy for Sam Azad, & if Sam Azad isn't effective, or if his behavior doesn't reflect that policy, then he's fired. 30 days is all it takes. Then he's gone.
Why would they throw away an entire system of government that's worked for 63 years when one simple immediate solution to their problem would be to fire Sam, & to hire their next well-paid city manager Superman savior right now? We're faced with an electoral coup detat from counter-revolutionary bandits who aren't our forefathers, who disrespect our forefathers, & who do not understand the law.
Pueblo has been effectively governed by a 1954 City Charter for the last 63 years. Our City Charter designates Pueblo a "home rule" city, and being a home rule city gives us more power & autonomy as a urban body politic, than say, Pueblo County, or all counties, which are merely administrative units of the State.
The first sentence of Pueblo's 1954 City Charter is the Preamble, and it states that: "We, the people of Pueblo, under the authority of the Constitution of the State of Colorado, do ordain and establish for our Municipal Government this Charter."
After the Preamble of Pueblo's 1954 City Charter, we have the next part, Section 1-1, the 2nd sentence, which names us "Pueblo", and it also calls us 1st class, which is cool.
After the 1st part is the 2nd part - Section 1-2 - (the 3rd sentence of Pueblo's 1954 City Charter), and this is the sentence that I want to dwell on. Here's the Section 1-2 of Pueblo's 1954 City Charter verbatim:
"Section 1-2. Form of Government - The Municipal Government provided by this Charter shall be known as the "Council-Manager Government," and shall not be changed except by Charter Convention upon majority vote of the qualified voters. Pursuant to its provisions and subject only to limitations imposed by the State Constitution and by this Charter, all powers of the City shall be vest in an elective council."
Well for shit's sake. We can't get more clearer than that. Goddamn... according to Pueblo's 1954 City Charter, which derives its just powers from the US & Colorado Constitutions, we can't change Pueblo into a "Strong Mayor" system "except by Charter Convention upon majority vote of the qualified voters".
Let's read the 3rd sentence of Pueblo's legal founding document again:
"The Municipal Government provided by this Charter shall be known as the "Council-Manager Government," and shall not be changed except by Charter Convention upon majority vote of the qualified voters." (Section 1-2)
Article II, Section 2 of Colorado's Constitution guarantees our right to Revolution whenever we "deem it necessary to [our] safety and happiness, provided, such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States." If Pueblo uses the "Strong Mayor" amendment to electorally overthrow their government, it nullifies the 1954 City Charter, and that leaves Pueblo without a governing document, i.e. anarchy. No doubt Hickenlooper will call the National Guard here in no time to quell the riots. This Amendment is repugnant to Pueblo's City Charter, & America's 1789 Constitution, and Colorado's 1876 Constitution. This Amendment is illegal.
This Anarchy Amendment opens up a Pandora's box of change. Everything will change. There's many things that Pueblo does well. The 211 pages published about the Budget of 2017 was incredible. There's smooth city council meetings, the water & trash systems work well, & the streets are clean... there's lots of great institutions here in Pueblo, but nullifying the City Charter by this "Strong Mayor" amendment nullifies all of Pueblo's institutions, & plunges Pueblo into anarchy. Isn't that a perfect self-fulfilling prophesy?
A messy anarchy will surely get the masses clamoring for a dictator, benevolent or not.
The "Strong Mayor" Amendment could be a "fig leaf" legislation for something else. Personally, and this is pure speculation, I feel like there's something else going on here. The ambitions of the remaining city council, to become Mayor, or to get paid more, may be the actual reason for this Amendment, & if that's the case, then there's other ways to accomplish that. Pueblo! We're blowing up the rickety foundations of the water tower over a molehill! We are throwing the 1954 baby out with the bathwater! 1954... that was the Greatest Generation! The Greatest Generation just finished killing Nazis, fighting fascism, and they wanted to establish a strong anti-fascist democratic system here.
The nerve of using an Amendment to nullify Pueblo's beloved 1954 City Charter. Even if the people of Pueblo vote for this Amendment, they won't get it, because it would at first trigger a Constitutional Crisis. The legal foundations of the 1954 City Charter will be nullified with the approval of a brand spanking new $600,000 King-Mayor-Hitler system. The "Strong Mayor" Amendment contradicts fundamentally the foundational, legal, & structural tenets of the entire 1954 City Charter, and since Pueblo's "Council-Manager Government" ... "shall not be changed except by Charter Convention upon majority vote of the qualified voters" (Section 1-2), that makes the "Strong Mayor" amendment illegal, & therefore, criminal.
..."except by Charter Convention upon majority vote of the qualified voters"... What do you suppose that means?
Without the 1954 City Charter, what legal foundation will the $600,000 King-Mayor-Hitler operate upon? Forgive them Dear Lord, for they know not what they do. I hope these shenanigans doesn't lose Pueblo her powerful & autonomous home rule status. But even if this Amendment is voted up on November 7, 2017, the Charter will still need to be changed. Why not have a referendum calling for a Charter Convention outright first instead? Why wait for the "strong mayor" wrecking ball amendment to destroy the city's institutions & legal infrastructure, to nullify our city's Constitution, the foundation of all of our laws, so therefore, all of our very lives?
Come November 8, put on your anarchy boots Pueblo, & brace yourselves.
A Strong Mayor system is a monumentally bad idea. It's a dumb idea, but more importantly, it's not even constitutional! It's outright criminal, which is why I'm shocked that it's on the ballot now, and that it was a referendum once tried before. This attempted electoral coup detat has been attempted in the past!
The reason why it's a dumb idea is because the City of Pueblo already has a strong executive system. Maybe it's just not working right. All machines need oil & routine maintenance. If Chris Nicoll wants to be a King-Mayor with an annual salary of $150,000, i.e., the benevolent dictator of Pueblo, then he should apply to be city manager, and then win the approval of the city council, i.e. the people's people... 1 year after he steps down from council. "No Councilman shall be appointed to the position of City Manager or any position in the Classified or Unclassified Service of the City during the term for which he shall have been elected, nor within one year after the expiration of his term." (Section 4-1)
With a "Strong Mayor" system, the "people's people" is subordinate to their Fuhrer. With a "Strong Manager" system, the Fuhrer is subordinate to the "people's people". I'd rather have some legislative checks & balances on the Fuhrer, even if it's just the 7 members of council, than no check at all.
The logic behind John Rodriguez's article in "Pulp" was that Sam Azad is blocking any & all of the good initiatives that would benefit Pueblo, and so therefore, the solution is an electoral overthrow of the government through the creation of a "Strong Mayor" position, because with a "Strong Mayor", then there would be a totalitarian fascist benevolent strongman dictator with a hammer who can take charge of Pueblo, and get things done. That's his logic, but John Rodriguez clearly doesn't understand how government works, especially not the City of Pueblo, which is governed by a 1954 City Charter. I also can't decipher Rodriguez's final sentence: "It would be unsophisticated to prefer a mayor of no one and a city government managed to say no."
Rodriguez needs to understand that the City of Pueblo already has a totalitarian fascist benevolent strongman dictator with a hammer who can take charge of Pueblo, and get things done. That's Sam Azad. Sam Azad IS the "strongman" of Pueblo. We already have a strongman leading Pueblo. Not a "Strong Mayor", but a strong executive with a different name: a "Strong City Manager". City Council hired Sam Azad, and they've retained him this whole time. If the 7 City Council folks didn't want Sam Azad, if they didn't approve of his job, they could have got rid of him, easily, by firing him. It only takes 30 days for Pueblo to get rid of her City Manager. To hire & fire the man who can hire & fire everybody else in city government is Pueblo city council's main power (that, and contracts). That's how Pueblo's "Strong City Manager" system works. The city council is the board of directors, and Sam Azad is the CEO, whom the city council can fire at will. Well virtually. A 30 day notice is all that's constitutionally required. That's a perfect amount of time for the outgoing chief to educate the incoming chief.
It only takes 30 days to get rid of a city manager (4-3). If Sam Azad isn't the strong benevolent dictator that you need, then fire him. All City Council needs to do to fire Sam Azad is vote by simple majority - just 4 votes - for a resolution listing the reasons why he's being fired, and then 30 days later, he's gone. I'd err on the side of always firing the City Manager every year to get some new blood in there, and to always keep the city manager on his/her toes, to mind their P's & Q's. I'm not sure how long Sam Azad has been in there, or how good of a job he's done, but City Council still retains him, and discussions of seriously firing him hasn't even been mentioned. Apparently the solution is an RPG named "Strong Mayor" torpedoing us all straight into anarchytown. First, plunge Pueblo into thousands of years of darkness, and once Pueblo has turned into a Mad Max shitshow, the people will be clamoring for a Strong anybody to fix it all. But there's no such thing as a liberator. The people must liberate themselves.
Like a CEO, the city manager is the top executive, until the board of directors/city council changes that. If John Rodriguez wants a city manager to implement the innovative solutions of Larry Atencio & Jerry Pacheco, then he should tell Atencio to dictate policy to Sam Azad. And if Sam Azad doesn't listen - when the cons outweight the pros - then Rodriguez should push 4 members of city council to fire Sam Azad.
The reason why the good Puebloans in 1954 picked a Strong City Manager system is because they didn't want a partisan hack leading the city. The city council is made up of elected partisans, but since the chief executive would be picked by the elected city council, the idea was that they would choose the best, most ethical, most professional, most creative, & qualified leader for the city, instead of just some partisan hack. "He shall be appointed on the basis of administrative and executive qualifications with special reference to his actual experience in and his knowledge of accepted practice in respect to the duties of his office as hereafter set forth." (4-1)
A person who lives in the City of Pueblo will better understand the problems & needs of Puebloans, which is why the 1954 City Charter requires the City Manager to live in the City. (4-1) If you're not a Puebloan, then you shouldn't be an official here in any capacity. Not here. Maybe wherever you're at, you can be, but definitely not here. Only Puebloans should be in charge of Puebloans. Governments are derived by the consent of the governed. "At the time of his appointment the City Manager need not be a resident of the City of Pueblo or State of Colorado, but during his tenure of office he shall reside within the City of Pueblo." (4-1)
City Council needs to work together better. A major legacy of this City Council will be the new Chief of Police that they decide to hire. And I mean "they", because both the city manager & the city council have power in this decision. Private Puebloans, however, do not. The City Council - the people's representatives - should pick the new Chief of Police amongst themselves, unanimously, & then order Sam Azad to hire that person. If he doesn't, then fire Sam Azad. It's that simple. The city council sets the parameters of policy for Sam Azad, & if Sam Azad isn't effective, or if his behavior doesn't reflect that policy, then he's fired. 30 days is all it takes. Then he's gone.
Why would they throw away an entire system of government that's worked for 63 years when one simple immediate solution to their problem would be to fire Sam, & to hire their next well-paid city manager Superman savior right now? We're faced with an electoral coup detat from counter-revolutionary bandits who aren't our forefathers, who disrespect our forefathers, & who do not understand the law.
Pueblo has been effectively governed by a 1954 City Charter for the last 63 years. Our City Charter designates Pueblo a "home rule" city, and being a home rule city gives us more power & autonomy as a urban body politic, than say, Pueblo County, or all counties, which are merely administrative units of the State.
The first sentence of Pueblo's 1954 City Charter is the Preamble, and it states that: "We, the people of Pueblo, under the authority of the Constitution of the State of Colorado, do ordain and establish for our Municipal Government this Charter."
After the Preamble of Pueblo's 1954 City Charter, we have the next part, Section 1-1, the 2nd sentence, which names us "Pueblo", and it also calls us 1st class, which is cool.
After the 1st part is the 2nd part - Section 1-2 - (the 3rd sentence of Pueblo's 1954 City Charter), and this is the sentence that I want to dwell on. Here's the Section 1-2 of Pueblo's 1954 City Charter verbatim:
"Section 1-2. Form of Government - The Municipal Government provided by this Charter shall be known as the "Council-Manager Government," and shall not be changed except by Charter Convention upon majority vote of the qualified voters. Pursuant to its provisions and subject only to limitations imposed by the State Constitution and by this Charter, all powers of the City shall be vest in an elective council."
Well for shit's sake. We can't get more clearer than that. Goddamn... according to Pueblo's 1954 City Charter, which derives its just powers from the US & Colorado Constitutions, we can't change Pueblo into a "Strong Mayor" system "except by Charter Convention upon majority vote of the qualified voters".
Let's read the 3rd sentence of Pueblo's legal founding document again:
"The Municipal Government provided by this Charter shall be known as the "Council-Manager Government," and shall not be changed except by Charter Convention upon majority vote of the qualified voters." (Section 1-2)
Article II, Section 2 of Colorado's Constitution guarantees our right to Revolution whenever we "deem it necessary to [our] safety and happiness, provided, such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States." If Pueblo uses the "Strong Mayor" amendment to electorally overthrow their government, it nullifies the 1954 City Charter, and that leaves Pueblo without a governing document, i.e. anarchy. No doubt Hickenlooper will call the National Guard here in no time to quell the riots. This Amendment is repugnant to Pueblo's City Charter, & America's 1789 Constitution, and Colorado's 1876 Constitution. This Amendment is illegal.
This Anarchy Amendment opens up a Pandora's box of change. Everything will change. There's many things that Pueblo does well. The 211 pages published about the Budget of 2017 was incredible. There's smooth city council meetings, the water & trash systems work well, & the streets are clean... there's lots of great institutions here in Pueblo, but nullifying the City Charter by this "Strong Mayor" amendment nullifies all of Pueblo's institutions, & plunges Pueblo into anarchy. Isn't that a perfect self-fulfilling prophesy?
A messy anarchy will surely get the masses clamoring for a dictator, benevolent or not.
The "Strong Mayor" Amendment could be a "fig leaf" legislation for something else. Personally, and this is pure speculation, I feel like there's something else going on here. The ambitions of the remaining city council, to become Mayor, or to get paid more, may be the actual reason for this Amendment, & if that's the case, then there's other ways to accomplish that. Pueblo! We're blowing up the rickety foundations of the water tower over a molehill! We are throwing the 1954 baby out with the bathwater! 1954... that was the Greatest Generation! The Greatest Generation just finished killing Nazis, fighting fascism, and they wanted to establish a strong anti-fascist democratic system here.
The nerve of using an Amendment to nullify Pueblo's beloved 1954 City Charter. Even if the people of Pueblo vote for this Amendment, they won't get it, because it would at first trigger a Constitutional Crisis. The legal foundations of the 1954 City Charter will be nullified with the approval of a brand spanking new $600,000 King-Mayor-Hitler system. The "Strong Mayor" Amendment contradicts fundamentally the foundational, legal, & structural tenets of the entire 1954 City Charter, and since Pueblo's "Council-Manager Government" ... "shall not be changed except by Charter Convention upon majority vote of the qualified voters" (Section 1-2), that makes the "Strong Mayor" amendment illegal, & therefore, criminal.
..."except by Charter Convention upon majority vote of the qualified voters"... What do you suppose that means?
Without the 1954 City Charter, what legal foundation will the $600,000 King-Mayor-Hitler operate upon? Forgive them Dear Lord, for they know not what they do. I hope these shenanigans doesn't lose Pueblo her powerful & autonomous home rule status. But even if this Amendment is voted up on November 7, 2017, the Charter will still need to be changed. Why not have a referendum calling for a Charter Convention outright first instead? Why wait for the "strong mayor" wrecking ball amendment to destroy the city's institutions & legal infrastructure, to nullify our city's Constitution, the foundation of all of our laws, so therefore, all of our very lives?
Come November 8, put on your anarchy boots Pueblo, & brace yourselves.
Comments
Post a Comment