How does this statement:
"No such situation has taken place with the MAPS for Kids Trust, which has veto power."
...mesh with those challenging the constitutionality of a veto. Wouldn't the existence of a board with veto power, prove that such a board can exist?
Further, it is important to clearly layout what is being argued here. It is not a question of whether or not the MAPS3 Citizen Oversight Board should have the same authority to make decisions vested in the elected council, but whether they should have an structural authority at all. Nobody is arguing that the MAPS3 Citizen's Board should be able to autonomously make spending decisions, rather the argument is that the MAPS3 Citizen's Board should be asked to approve, by a majority vote, decisions made by the council. This is especially important, in the case of MAPS3, where the legal language of the ballot creates an opportunity for major expenditures not in keeping with the original promises made in the revocable council resolution.
At the end of the day, if the Mayor and Council cannot convince 5 out of 9 citizens - that they appointed - to approve their decisions relating to MAPS3, then it is clearly a decision that should be reconsidered.
--
Note: I originally posted most of this comment at OKCCentral.com, so it may not flow perfectly with this dialogue.
I say Yes to veto power for the oversight board, on the principle that more transparency and accountability is better than less.
Blair, in an earlier post in this thread, I said,
I'm not saying that the delegation of power would be unlawful, just that the question is raised and that I doubt that it was legally challenged by anyone in Maps for Kids.I can see both sides of the argument, as well. But big points lending favor to a Maps for Kids approach are what many of us have squawked about ... (1) the vague ballot, (2) lack of specifics even in the council resolution, and (3) holding council accountable for the projects identified in the original resolution. On the other hand, decision making does reside in the council and I'm not even sure that it would be legal for council to delegate power like was done in Maps for Kids ... which I assume was not legally challenged.
The historical vignettes which Steve has mentioned here are pretty persuasive that such a system (board with power) has been workable and even comparatively desirable.
AMEN!!!
checks and balances help..
don't we, as a whole, consist of a body of people more powerful than our elected officials?
I guess I'm trying to make a point as well. All of this was brought up before and dismissed as a non-issue. Which, suddenly, seems to be an issue, albeit a not so important one, for now..
Perhaps if the oversight commitee were given 2 votes on the city council, they would hold some power, but not veto power. It would take a supermajority to over rule them.
This may be a good alternative politicaly.
I'm torn. I would prefer the accountability of veto power for the Advisory Board, but who watches the Watchmen?
Don't Edmond My Downtown
My thoughts exactly. Who knows why kind of insight, taste, knowledge the people on the advisory committee might have? Actually, it frightens me to give this kind of decision making power to just about anyone. I was horrified when I read on Steve's blog that the City and Assistant Manager were ruling out streetlights for Project 180. What makes a City Manager an arbiter of taste? I've seen enough houses done badly by people with money to know that money doesn't necessarily guarantee taste either. What does a citizens advisory board know about siting the convention center or a potential route for a streetcar? Or, for that matter, do I want my city council people making those kinds of decision instead? Do I seriously think they've got the ability to make such huge decisions?
Then I thought, how about hiring a Jeff Speck type of person to tell us where things need to go. But, do we really even know if people like him know what they're talking about? A long-time walker, I wasn't so sure about some of his suggestions for Broadway. I ended up being paralyzed by indecision. I trust myself to make those decisions, but I'm not sure about the rest of you.
I want information, then I decide and it stands.
I hate indecisiveness, or flip flopping.
Dont be confused that with a lack of adaptability.
It comes down what questions you asked and the grade of information you're given.
The integrity of the people giving you the information and the questions being answered.
I think this is why I lean towards advising only. I would hope that it would be a good mix of people who know what they are talking about and some intelligent laymen citizens. But the actual decisions I think should come down to people that have the accountability of being elected by the people.
But I think a good compromise could be that the Board could veto the council's decisions with a supermajority--perhaps 7+ votes. This would keep them from pulling any major stunts like nixing an entire MAPS 3 project.
Don't Edmond My Downtown
while I agree that the Citizens Oversight Board should have veto power, I do not think they should have ABSOLUTE veto power.
the COB could veto certain things, such as design or timing or aesthetics or the like, but they should NOT have the power to veto projects or who builds them (that should be the city leaders).
Also, I think the city should develop a formula to override the COB's veto. Because ultimately, the city leaders are accountable and responsible to the city (through voting) and we might just end up with COB people who are not for the best interest of OKC.
how could the taxpayers of this city hold COB members accountable? ??? This is why I don't think they should have absolute veto power (but instead limited and specifically defined veto authority with majority vote).
Oklahoma City, the RENAISSANCE CITY!
Random thoughts...
Supposedly the COB is going to be appointed by the Council (1 person from each ward and 1 "at large"), similar to the Ford setup. Not sure what the make-up of the MAPS for Kids COB was/is. Know that the original MAPS COB was rather large (one article said they had a hard time minding meeting space large enough).
The COB essentially serves at the will of the Council, if someone raise too much stink, whomever appointed them can probably dismiss them and replace them with someone more to their liking.
The COB should have veto (as it does for MAPS 4 Kids) but should be subject to the Council's over ride. Since each council member makes an appointment, SHOULD be a fair mix BUT with so few people on the board, think it needs to be 3 or 4 each. Also presents a dilemma for 2 of the Council people as their wards voted against MAPS 3, yet they were for it...which type person do they appoint? One that supports their views or their constituents?
Also, a recent Oklahoman article mentioned a MAPS 3 TRUST(?) don't know if this was a misprint, but in one of these threads, someone suggested a trust be set up (as an answer to the vague ballot/ordinance language), the answer he got back from the City Manager was that a trust would be illegal (does that mean the MAPS 4 Kids trust is illegal too?)
Imagine that..we get 2 different answers from a City Official...imagine that
"Nominees Announced for MAPS 3 Citizens Advisory Board" Press Release link - TwitDoc.com - the EASY way to share your documents on Twitter
I recognize a lot of names on there.. some I don't. A lot of older folks on the Board. That seems to be a pretty shortsighted play considering how long MAPS III is supposed to take. I knew a lot of young and excited folks who had supported the MAPS initiatives who applied and I'm sorry to see the board comprised of the same 'ol names as usual.
Bummer.
What are the general backgrounds of the members? Does anyone know? Will that info be released to the public?
I don't recognize the name of the person from my ward. Who is Wayne Williams?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks