-
.
READ MORE: Council changes committee’s proposals, asks voters to co-sign
As early voting kicked off this week, voters are being asked to decide on several propositions to change the city charter but, what isn’t so glaringly obvious, is the political manipulation taking place on the ballot.
Between May and July of this year, a committee of experienced business professionals, entrepreneurs, a lawyer, an ex-city manager from another Texas community, and other diverse representatives met to discuss changes to the city’s charter including allowing the voters to decide whether terms for councilmembers and the mayor should be changed and whether term limits should be considered.
This was not a duty taken lightly, if you take the word of the city attorneys that provided oversight for the group.
After months of discussion, research and deliberation, the committee painstakingly worded and proposed two distinct and separate propositions: Proposition A would give voters the choice to increase the term of councilmembers and the mayor from two years to four years; Proposition B would give voters the choice to place term limits on the councilmembers and mayor of eight years. After either four two-year terms or two four-year terms, the councilmember and/or mayor would have to sit out one term before they could run for the same office again.
The Charter Review Committee had the forethought to separate these two options, however, the City Council chose to ignore the recommendation of the appointed committee chosen to represent the people and instead decided to combine the two separate amendments into one proposition, which has caused concern among many community members.
This move is an attempt to reduce accountability and limit the power of the voters. “How?” might you ask. Because maybe a voter did not want to extend terms from two to four years but would like to see term limits in place. Now, no one will ever know.
The committee’s recommendation made it possible for the voters to decide individually on two very separate issues, but the City Council decided to tell voters they couldn’t have one without the other.
As if the manipulation of combining the propositions was not enough, to add insult to injury, the council then decided to ignore the committee’s recommendation to allow voters to decide on term limits totaling eight years, and make it 12, as if no one would notice that they completely disregarded months of deliberation by the committee.
As citizens of a democracy, we must demand transparency and accountability from our elected officials.
By voting “NO” on Proposition A, we can send a message to the City Council of Beaumont that government must work for the people, not for their self-interest. It’s essential that our elected officials remain accountable to the people in short order. Representative government was initially designed to have local community members represent the will of their constituents. Our representatives were not supposed to be career politicians, but rather citizen representatives, who rotate the burden of representation to share the load.
Voting “NO” on Proposition A will allow us to send a strong message to the City Council of Beaumont that we will not allow them to undermine our democracy. Four-year terms are too long, and doubling each term will delay the ability of the people to correct a councilmember or mayor that does not hold true to their campaign promises.
Let us honor the principles of our forefathers and demand transparency and accountability from those who represent us. Together, we can ensure that our community thrives and that our democracy remains strong.