• The more I think about the ballot wording of amendment #16 versus what it actually does, it smacks of malicious intent unless the prohibitions on "appointive officers" exist or are created elsewhere in the charter. This section could have been reworded to retain the restrictions on appointive officers while reclassifying them as the amendment claims to achieve. The amendment does more than "provide consistency in describing employees"; It creates an inconsistency in the ethical expectations of our committee/board members. Am I off base here?

    For anyone wanting to delve into these amendments:

    City Code for comparison:

    May 7, 2012 at 11:11 a.m.

  • vote 'no' across the board

    May 4, 2012 at 1:22 p.m.

  • No govermental entity has money, it is all taxpayer money, unless I missed that email.


    The amendment of the City Charter, Article III, Section 5 to replace the phrase “public moneys” with the phrase “City moneys” .

    May 4, 2012 at 12:13 p.m.

  • Ah, #14 brings back memories of two years ago:

    May 4, 2012 at 10:43 a.m.

  • When you consider the consequences of #16 and the obvious intent of #4, one can't help but ponder the destructive possibilities of the conflicts these amendments would create. Could we end up with a Council full of government employees (likely having even less regard for taxpayers) who'll appoint board/committee members who'll now have fewer restrictions on how they can benefit from that appointment? What's really going on here?

    May 4, 2012 at 10:34 a.m.

  • Regarding #16, there are only two sections referencing "appointive/appointed officer(s)" in the charter ( — one being addressed in #15 and the other dealing with city franchising, as follows:

    "Article XII, Section 8. - Prohibition against participation in franchises.permanent link to this piece of content
    Should the Mayor or any other member of the City Council, or any elective or *appointive officer* of the City be directly or indirectly, in the employ of any person, firm or corporation holding, or seeking to hold, any franchise from the City of Victoria, or the right to use the City's streets and alleys, or should such officer have received directly, or indirectly, any wage, commission, fee, favor, gift, or payment from such party, he or she shall publicly disclose such interest to the City Council, and the same shall be made a matter of record prior to any consideration or other action in regard to such matter. No elected or *appointed officer* or employee having any interest as set out above shall vote, render a decision or use his or her position, authority or influence to any degree in regard thereto. Failure to comply with the above shall be deemed malfeasance in office and cause for removal thereof. Violation of this section shall render the granting of such franchise, or right to use the City's streets and alleys, or any action taken in connection therewith, voidable by the City Council."

    Doesn't this make it easier for board/committee members to have conflicts of interest, or is there some other prohibition I've overlooked?

    May 4, 2012 at 10:17 a.m.