The Charter Revision Commission is eyeing a possible change to dump the elected, part-time treasurer.
Instead, it would establish an appointed treasurer's post with explicit qualifications laid out for the job.
The mayor and City Council would make the appointment.
Though I've listened to the discussions on this issue for several charter meetings, I still don't understand why the panel wants to make the change. I'm sure it will offer a detailed explanation at some point.
"I like the idea of still having the independent treasurer," Furey said. "I like the idea of not making a much bigger position than it needs to be."
The treasurer makes something like $5,000 annually and basically oversees a small treasurer's office, though the full-time deputy treasurer does that job admirably, by all accounts.
Do voters want to lose the right to elect the treasurer? I'll be curious to see if that happens.
Furey said the change would take effect after the current term is up so Bill Veits, who just won the office, won't get booted mid-term.
Al Marko, a charter commissioner, said he'd like to see a four-year term for the appointed post, which the rest of the panel is fine with.
Update at 9:35 p.m. - Furey just said the reason for the proposal is "to try to ensure somebody considered has basic qualifications. We want to have people with a business background in that position."
*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
23 comments:
This is another stupid move by the worthless Charter Revision Committee. This move does nothing to improve the quality of life in Bristol. We already have a paid Deputy Treasurer.
I heard the appointee was going to be Robert Dunlap.
Mayor Ward: Seriously, please disband this committee before they wreck Bristol.
Just what we need a nother name to add to the payroll. Keep up the good work ARTIE HA HA
Just another way of eliminating the voter from having the right to make a decision regarding who will serve the community. The voting population isn't stupid and they won't put an inexperienced person in charge of the City's treasury. Bill Veits is well qualified. Why mess with this now?
To clarify, the charter panel is not looking to add a position or to get rid of the existing deputy treasurer post. It would simply change the part-time treasurer from an elected to an appointed slot.
It would also add qualifications to the job so the mayor and City Council could only pick someone who has met the standards laid out by the charter panel, assuming the idea passes.
The difference is that voters now can elect anyone they want, no matter how unqualified that person happens to be.
Steve, you really should give the voting population a little more credit. They aren't going to vote someone to take the treasurers position if they don't prove their qualifications. This is why Bill was elected. He has the qualifications.
Let me try to clarify again... The charter commissioners are seeking this change because they are concerned the voters could pick someone who's unqualified.
Those who have more faith in the voters probably don't worry about that possibility much.
Steve, I understand your clarification. I guess I wish the Charter Revision Panel would have more faith in the intelligence of the voting population instead of taking away our right to election someone ourselves.
I would ask when was the last time an Independent or Republican was elected to this position? I think we all know the answer to the question.
The Charter Revision Commission is doing a fine job and will bring forth several good concepts for possible adoption. However, with such an overwhelming Democratic electorate and Council, none of them will become part of the City Charter.
If you cannot embrace change, nothing changes.
Phyllis Spooner, a Republican, was elected as treasurer a long while back, probably when Mike Werner won the mayor's office. I don't think there's been a Republican picked since then.
Steve, your right.
Again, this is a choice that should be made by the voters and not the Democratic Party in bristol.
Steve,
Last line at 11:23
Were you referring to City council members????
I'll leave that to you to decide.
Re: 12:42 post
I don't see any difference.
2 years term? How about a four year term? How about a five year term?
What term? This is a appointed staff, managerial position. This is an at-will state. In other words you can be terminated for almost anything at any time. If the guy/gal is doing a cruddy job then fire him/her.
This is the problem when you have a commission made up of a bunch of stooges.
Steve,
If you're saying Patti Ewen was an unqualified hack, I agree with you.
I'm not saying anything of the sort. The charter commission is eyeing a change that it thinks would guarantee only qualified people can hold the post.
What a insult! Furey doesn't think the voters can pick qualified people.
There are no guarantees: the Treasurer is selected by the Town Committees, or, under the new version by someone who may never have managed before.
What guarantees????
Why are they worrying about the city treasurer? Bill Veits is an accountant, albeit not a CPA and I think he'll do a good job.
John Letizia (a CPA) had to bow out because I guess he wasn't "qualified" according to the Dumb-o-crat Town Committee.
Hey wait a minute maybe this is a good idea?
...I truly hope that it snows again real soon so that you people can do something constructive like timing how long it takes for the snow to melt off your porch railings. What a bunch of losers.
I wonder who or what special interests is ? Furey knows someone already that needs a job.
In all honesty how can this bashing kind of "Change" be good for anything? If you don't have the courage to stand up and be counted rather than complain about everything anonymously ?
Post a Comment