A bill can not simply ensure activity.
There will be more on the county’s plate, in addition to reforming the county gov’t in itself.
1 Like
Did you just a say an unelected official?
1 Like
As in, you were not elected to the position you hold.
1 Like
Whether I was elected to this position or not I would still hold the same power to propose laws and influence the Council to concur. Additionally, if I needed the public’s stance on the matter of removing municipal govt’s I would have talked to them.
Obviously so, legally, you do hold all powers of Executive.
And for a decision this big, you should’ve gone to the public.
2 Likes
Notice how repealing the County Charter was a big decision? I didn’t go to the public on that because it was long overdue and needed. It was the same with removing city govt’s–they serve no purpose and have no benefit to the welfare of the community.
You guys claim that we need the municipal govt’s but have never brought any productive events in which they benefited the way things function.
1 Like
I don’t see a point to City Governments, all they do is make bills that nobody follows and take up manpower of people who could actually help in fixing the County Government. I think it was a good decision to remove them, so I don’t support this bill.
1 Like
It’s not our job to reconstruct the municipal governments, they should be self-sustainable. Have you noticed the the County Gov’t has been productive over the past few weeks due to changes in-house?
The Municipal Governments had and still have ample public support for keeping them. The only reason they were “useless” was because of the lack of enforcement of activity.
2 Likes
It is not our job to enforce activity. Elected officials on the municipal-level have the ability to make suitable changes that will ultimately increase activity and improve the quality as a whole.
Just to name a few reasons why municipal governments are necessary. We have cities and a district in the State of Firestone, and each jurisdiction is going to have certain aspects unique to that particular jurisdiction. For instance, in Redwood, a city ordinance to regulate parking on Redwood BLVD would be appropriate for that city, but may not be needed for the main road in the District of Prominence, same with Arborfield. Municipal governments should exist for the purpose of addressing the matters dealing directly with that city (within the scope of Firestone). It shouldn’t really be a county matter, and certainly shouldn’t be a state matter to address issues within a city that would (or should) have its own government.
Am I disagreeing that in past times, municipal governments have demonstrated to be unsuccessful and unnecessary, no, I’m not, and even then, you can’t blame the idea, but instead the personnel who were behind why municipal governments were unsuccessful. But what I’m saying is that to remove them altogether would not be appropriate. When you have a problem of this caliber, you address the problem and create a solution to it. If the concern is a city government that is inactive and creates issues than it solves, you solve the problem by educating the Mayor and/or council, or find new personnel to fit the billet. Additionally, if one would say that it’s not the county government’s job to enforce activity, you’re right, and if government officials that are truly dedicated to their job and are there, and not just there for a title are within those positions, you wouldn’t have that problem. I don’t expect the county government to manage city governments, but rather oversee them, as they are the superior to the municipal governments if you will.
About municipal governments managing themselves, here’s a suggestion, if you’re concerned about them being independent entities of themselves while remaining productive, set standards that must be met for a municipal government to operate, and if those standards are not met, such municipality will not be permitted to have a government. Appertaining to governing a city and managing its personnel and affairs while not creating a burden on other departments, I personally have written a city charter for the City of Arborfield with the expectation of running for Mayor. Perhaps that could be another portion of criteria that must be met for a municipal government to function? The county government should focus on county matters dealing with the entire county or unincorporated parts of the county. If the county government is going to have primary governmental domain over the cities, what is the point of having a city in the first place? You may as well just make Redwood, Arborfield, and the District of Prominence null and void and just say ‘Stapleton County.’ With the current situation, both of the cities and the District of Prominence are exactly that, unincorporated cities.
My opinion was asked on the matter, so there it is.
2 Likes
It would be unnecessary to have an entire governing-body just to make parking regulations (used as an example). At this point in time, the elected officials of the Stapleton County gov’t have no key ideas for legislation; think about when this really hits municipal governments–it’ll lead to inactivity on top of inactivity.
Municipal governments aren’t a nessecity at this point in time.
Are you implying that the county government will become inactive due to lack of legislation?
Well, I did have an idea for a different bill, but after consulting a senator, this one took a higher priority. The other bill also may have been more of a state level bill.
No. It’s meaning that activity will be stacked when inactive municipal-level officials don’t make legislation leading to a downfall in the government creating a larger threshold of inactivity.
They’re useless.
1 Like
All the city governments do is cause SC cases and be a pain in the ass.
1 Like
^ what he said ^