Comments on: VOTE NO ON EXTENDING THE TERM OF OFFICE FOR THE KENT TOWN SUPERVISOR http://www.planputnam.org/ntm/2009/10/vote-no-on-extending-the-term-of-office-for-the-kent-town-supervisor/ Brought to you by PlanPutnam.Org Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:40:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Paul S http://www.planputnam.org/ntm/2009/10/vote-no-on-extending-the-term-of-office-for-the-kent-town-supervisor/comment-page-1/#comment-473 Paul S Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:44:05 +0000 http://www.planputnam.org/ntm/?p=2168#comment-473 I wonder if the Supervisor would have sought "continuity" while Nordstrum or Tulipane were in office.  A two year term for the supervisor's position keeps the balance of power in check since the majority of the town board is up for election every two years.  It gives the people the chance to oust a bad team if it sees fit.  A four year term has little to do with efficiency.  The fact that Supervisor Doherty has put this forth this retroactive referendum with a re-election bid speaks loudly to me. For a law to take effect before it is passed is ludicrous.  For it to have any credibility, it should take effect 1/1/10, in which case it would be law for the NEXT election, not this election, which is being held in 2009.  So on the surface,  it certainly does appear to be a grab for power. I wonder if the Supervisor would have sought “continuity” while Nordstrum or Tulipane were in office.  A two year term for the supervisor’s position keeps the balance of power in check since the majority of the town board is up for election every two years.  It gives the people the chance to oust a bad team if it sees fit.  A four year term has little to do with efficiency.  The fact that Supervisor Doherty has put this forth this retroactive referendum with a re-election bid speaks loudly to me.

For a law to take effect before it is passed is ludicrous.  For it to have any credibility, it should take effect 1/1/10, in which case it would be law for the NEXT election, not this election, which is being held in 2009.  So on the surface,  it certainly does appear to be a grab for power.

]]> By: JDKJJK http://www.planputnam.org/ntm/2009/10/vote-no-on-extending-the-term-of-office-for-the-kent-town-supervisor/comment-page-1/#comment-472 JDKJJK Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:41:38 +0000 http://www.planputnam.org/ntm/?p=2168#comment-472 According to you the issue is one of efficiency?  What does changing the implementation date of the proposed law have to do with efficiency?  The proposed change will be no more or no less less efficient two years from now.   I, for one, believe the change will reward inefficiency.    As things stand now an efficient Supervisor will be rewarded with an addditional two years through the vote. If the referendum issue is passed an inefficient Supervisor Supervisor will be rewarded with an additional two years in office.     According to you the issue is one of efficiency?  What does changing the implementation date of the proposed law have to do with efficiency?  The proposed change will be no more or no less less efficient two years from now.  
I, for one, believe the change will reward inefficiency.    As things stand now an efficient Supervisor will be rewarded with an addditional two years through the vote. If the referendum issue is passed an inefficient Supervisor Supervisor will be rewarded with an additional two years in office.  
 

]]> By: Jeff http://www.planputnam.org/ntm/2009/10/vote-no-on-extending-the-term-of-office-for-the-kent-town-supervisor/comment-page-1/#comment-470 Jeff Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:10:23 +0000 http://www.planputnam.org/ntm/?p=2168#comment-470 <p>Come now! The world is simply not that clean cut. I haven't taken any position on the issue and I may not. As I've said often enough, there are explanations and reasons on both sides of the argument - with each being equally valid - once you remove politics from the equation.</p> <p>But, since you came for an argument which I will not give you, I will leave you with something in exchange: The question would be a lot easier to figure out if the referendum did not take effect on January 1st and waited, instead, for the next round of elections.</p> <p>J</p> Come now! The world is simply not that clean cut. I haven’t taken any position on the issue and I may not. As I’ve said often enough, there are explanations and reasons on both sides of the argument – with each being equally valid – once you remove politics from the equation.

But, since you came for an argument which I will not give you, I will leave you with something in exchange: The question would be a lot easier to figure out if the referendum did not take effect on January 1st and waited, instead, for the next round of elections.

J

]]> By: JDKJJK http://www.planputnam.org/ntm/2009/10/vote-no-on-extending-the-term-of-office-for-the-kent-town-supervisor/comment-page-1/#comment-468 JDKJJK Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:51:41 +0000 http://www.planputnam.org/ntm/?p=2168#comment-468 Since efficiency is the argument advanced by proponents of the two-year extension can I take it that you support the measure.  Since efficiency is the argument advanced by proponents of the two-year extension can I take it that you support the measure. 

]]> By: Jeff http://www.planputnam.org/ntm/2009/10/vote-no-on-extending-the-term-of-office-for-the-kent-town-supervisor/comment-page-1/#comment-467 Jeff Wed, 21 Oct 2009 02:19:21 +0000 http://www.planputnam.org/ntm/?p=2168#comment-467 <p>JDKJJK engages in some interesting hyperbole I prefer not to entertain on my board. No one is losing their right to vote, that's patently ridiculous. The question is one of efficiency, not of Democracy.</p> JDKJJK engages in some interesting hyperbole I prefer not to entertain on my board. No one is losing their right to vote, that’s patently ridiculous. The question is one of efficiency, not of Democracy.

]]>