News

Subscribe

Charter review won't modify petition

Despite being poorly written, committee decides to leave it as is

  • Print
  • •
  • •
  • 3 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
  • •
  • Gabe Semenza •
  • Originally published January 23, 2009 at 10:42 a.m., updated January 23, 2009 at 10:42 a.m.

Victoria's city charter review committee decided Thursday to recommend the city council accept a resident petition as is.

The committee and members of Citizens for Responsible Government, the group that filed the petition, have tussled over the wording of eight proposed charter revisions.

Many on the committee say the proposed revisions are poorly worded, unfounded and troublesome.

Russell Pruitt, who speaks for the activist group, says leave well enough alone.

On Thursday, the committee did.

"What we decided is to use the exact words on the petition that was presented to us," said Mayor Will Armstrong, a charter committee member. "We examined adding modifiers to the text because it's so poorly worded. I'm against every single one of those issues on that petition."

Talks between both sides, though, only clouded efforts to find middle ground.

Pruitt couldn't be happier.

"We see nothing but good coming out of our charter amendments," said Pruitt, 65.

Next, city council will likely vote to place the ordinance on the May 9 ballot.

"Even though we disagree with it, that's the law in Texas," Armstrong said.

The resident group, in part, proposes:

Voters should decide whether tax dollars can pay for the legal defense of indicted city officials.

Council members should serve only two terms.

The city attorney should be elected, not appointed.

City Councilman Tom Halepaska, also a charter review committee member, said the petition worries him.

"We're not here to try to keep citizens from bringing petitions," he said. "My utmost belief is the voters are smart enough to see through it. I don't think it's a positive thing at all."



  • Print
  • •
  • •
  • 3 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

  • enjay enjay Report a ViolationReport a Violation Permalink  | 


    If an amendment is not written in the proper 'legalese' could it then be challenged as invalid?

    ponder, ponder, ponder.

    January 23, 2009 at 7:25 p.m.
  • rukidding rukidding Report a ViolationReport a Violation Permalink  | 

    when do we vote? Though, I have a feeling, regardless of the outcome, we'll still be watching Mr. Pruitt complain about something.

    January 23, 2009 at 5:52 p.m.
  • CitizenV CitizenV Report a ViolationReport a Violation Permalink  | 

    After going to council meeting over the last couple of months and watching them on channel 15, I have come to some conclusions:

    For the record I am not a member of the Citizen for Responsible Government. My interested was sparked when the current council elected to allocate money for the defense of Mayor Armstrong, Former City Attorney Smith, Police Chief Ure and Lt. Buentello. (The “feud” between the local law enforcement officers and the DA is an entirely different subject.)

    I can understand why the committee thinks the petition is poorly written: The mayor handpicked the group.

    I have observed the interaction between the council and the citizens group. The citizens group is constantly berated. For reasons unknown the current mayor does not want to recognize the autonomy of the group. I don’t know how many times I have heard “This is poorly written and I wish you would have had better legal counsel when you wrote this.” It is not his place to judge the validity nor the intent of a proposal if all the guidelines are met towards filing a petition then the citizens have a right to be heard. This is intended to be a democratic process not a dictatorship. At the council meeting during the citizen’s communication portion of the meeting, the citizens have a right to address the council. It really should not be an argument session but it seems to turn out that way whenever a member of the Citizen for Responsible Government addresses the council. Whether the city council agrees with the citizens group or not is neither here nor there. They have a right to be heard and bring before the voters the issues they feel are important, and let the voters decide the fate of those issues.

    January 23, 2009 at 2 p.m.