Viewpoints » Editorials

Subscribe

Consider a recall election superfluous

  • Print
  • •
  • •
  • 2 Comments
  • •
  • Favorite
  • •
  • Report an error Report error
    • Thank you for your submission.
      Error report or correction
      Contact name (optional) Contact phone/e-mail (optional)  
      Sending report
    • Close
  • •
  • Originally published July 1, 2008 at 6:33 p.m., updated July 1, 2008 at 6:33 p.m.

Now comes the Citizens for Responsible Government pushing for the recall of nearly everybody on the Victoria City Council.

The catalyst for this action was the city council’s vote to provide a $200,000 cap on legal fees for the city staff and elected officials who have received grand jury indictments.

Specifically, the group wants to recall council members Jim Wyatt and Philip Guittard and Mayor Pro Tem Lewis Neitsch — maybe more.

The group of loosely organized Victoria residents is serious. And they should be taken seriously. The group in 2005 successfully pushed for and got passed the tax exemption for the disabled and those 65 years old and over. In fact, 85 percent of voters in that November election turned out to get the measure passed.

Election Administrator George Matthews said there are two uniform election dates that the group could shoot for a recall election: Nov. 4 and May 2009.

However, consider that Guittard and Neitsch are up for election in May 2009, why bother with a petition that will need about 3,000 names from the southern part of Victoria.

And Russell Pruitt, one of the group, told Advocate reporter David Tewes that his group was “talking about petitioning in cooler weather” (Advocate June 24). To gather the 3,000 names or so within Wyatt’s super district, and get that petition to the election administrator before he orders the November election means a deadline for the petition in late August. Matthews said he has to order 72 days before the election for Nov. 4.

Matthews added that such an election would be costly. “Roughly, an election like that would cost $15,000-$20,000.”

Why confound the turmoil the council is in with a recall election, especially when these council members in question will be up for election by the time a recall election would be set?

We think a recall election at this point is counterproductive, especially under the pretence to save taxpayers’ money.

Wait until election time, and then vote these council members out if that is what Victoria voters want.



  • Print
  • •
  • •
  • 2 Comments
  • •
  • Favorite
  • •
  • Report an error Report error
    • Thank you for your submission.
      Error report or correction
      Contact name (optional) Contact phone/e-mail (optional)  
      Sending report
    • Close
  • •

Comments

  • news2me news2me Report a ViolationReport a Violation Permalink  | 

    Council raises water rates on the same day they approve $200,000 of legal fees that they did not have budgeted.

    July 2, 2008 at 9 a.m.
  • Shinethelight Shinethelight Report a ViolationReport a Violation Permalink  | 

    This group, as your ediotiral wisely says, should indeed be taken seriously. Victoria voters are mad as hell about the actions of a runaway city council they feels doesn't listen to citizen's concerns and even when it does listen, fails to act accordingly. The $200,000 (and more) of tax dollars that the council has determined should be spent to pay for legal fees for indicted city and former city officials is simply the tip of the iceburg and the catylist for the consideration of a recall. The Advocate has not helped matters by editorializing that the actions of the council in regards to the legal fees was appropriate and that the council should "stand by it's men." The council should instead stand by it's citizens and do what is in their best interests and the best long-term interest of the city. The council (with the lone, brave exception of David Hagan)has brought these actions upon themselves. While I don't agree with this most recently discussed recall because the council members being targeted will be up for reelection at roughly the same time as the recall election will occur makes it redundant as you indicate. I do suggest that this group put all of its energies into filing a recall petition against just one member of the council in order to send a loud and clear message that the people of this city demand accountability. That recall should be directed at Mayor Armstrong whose term as Mayor continues for several more years. The Mayor is the symbolic head of the city and he should be the symbolic target of the recall. After all, he is the the person for whom his colleagues were willing to risk the wrath of voters by paying for his legal fees and all because he decided to go well beyond the scope of his duities and interfere with a law enforcement investigation. The citizens of our good city want to send a message to Armstrong. A recall election for just him seems a good way to send that message.

    July 2, 2008 at 8:51 a.m.