Mayans and the Veto
Wichita
OK, so no one invited me to the WIBA Mayoral Debates yesterday; too bad...it sounds like I missed one heck of an arguement....or hissy fit fight or something.
I'm personally of the opinion that any debate between these two candidates is going to be virtually worthless. None of the objectives of a typical debate are going to be met because Mayans and Brewer are ALREADY at each others throats in the Clash of the City Council (and Mayor).
Yesterday's debate was nothing more than a bunch of name calling and finger pointing...much like a Wichita City Council Meeting! One thing I did find interesting was Mayans call for Veto Power in the Mayoral office. Something that I have personally supported for a while now. The government is setup to work as a three-part system. If one of those parts doesn't have the appropriate level of power, it's inpotent. What if our city courts could pass sentence...but couldn't really ENFORCE that sentence?
"Eh...you're sentenced to 50 years in prison....please?"
Judiciary, Legislative, and Executive branches are there for a reason; balance. Whether or not you're for the current administration, the position of Mayor is supposed to be one of Leadership. The guy (or gal) leading the City in the right direction.
What do you think?
~Dubya
I like the veto power but I also think a super majority vote could/should override that veto.
I agree that the Mayor should be a leader, however I think that the council are also leaders and SHOULD work together as a team. I also think that certain ideas need to be thought out before opening ones mouth and saying it. (WSU Football - it's the schools decision not the city's)
Brewer seems to be pretending that his ONE vote will mean more if Mayor is in front of his name. I disagree with much that Mayans stand for. So, I feel between a rock and a hard place.
The decision I've come to (for me) is to vote for Brewer ONLY because if Brewer is elected this gets rid of one of them who is already part of the problem. It takes another election cycle to address the other one who is part of the current problem. Wich it didn't take so long, but looks like progress to me.
I also wish it all weren't such a crap shoot. They tell us what they want us to know. There is an unbelievable amount of money and influence changing hands. We the citizens aren't anywhere near the topof their lists of why or when or why.
Brewer is more progressive. Do I completely trust him? No. But he will get my vote because it will then be necessary to replace his council position which will hopefully be filled with another progressive. Two for the price of one, as it were.
As to the mayoral veto, as ddub couched his post in terms of three branches of government, what is his proposal for override? I say this with sincerity, as IMHO should our city once again have as dysfunctional a mayor/city council relationship as we do now, I can crystal ball gaze to see veto after veto for personal spite reasons; and the same issue being brought up again and again by the council, in some cases for the same reasons. While at times government inaction is better than government action, generally this isn't what I believe should happen, and stalemates based upon pique should be avoided.
I don't believe that angst would be there if the relationship was seen as equal. The Mayor is bitter because he lacks positional power, the Council is bitter because they have this little fly buzzing around them complaining all the time...sure the fly is annoying, but he can't really DO anything.
~Dubya
Loading....