For John, BLUF: Sometimes our "short hand" obscures the basic reading of the rules.
Yesterday Kad Barma challenged me about the need to have a registered Republican and a registered Democrat, each, on the City's License Commission. The consensus amongst the three of us at lunch was that it was to ensure diversity, but why those parties by name.
Turns out, the law (Part I, Title X, Chapter 138, Section 4) doesn't mention parties by name.
One member shall be appointed from each of the two leading political parties and the third member may also be appointed from one of said parties.If say the Libertarians began to outpoll the Republicans, then the City Manager would need to ensure there was a Libertarian on the License Commission, although some might ask if that was a contradiction in terms. :-)
Hat tip to a current member of the License Commission for the citation in the law.
Regards — Cliff
2 comments:
Better than worst case, but I'd prefer to word things such that no party could occupy a majority of the seats, and eliminate the mandate to seat any of the parties at all. "No majority" would better ensure against partisanship, as well as save us from coddling a second-place party by guaranteeing them a seat to the exclusion of other citizens who ought to be just as entitled to serve their community, though aren't by the party-partisan bias inherent in the current law.
Perhaps, but with so many voters declining to state a party affiliation, except at Primary time, a more affirmative effort seems in order. Three "Unenrolled" business men, all Democrats (or Libertainians) in their heart does not provide much diversity.
For me the question is how do we provide voices to a larger number of views without fracturing our party system into what exists in France, Italy or Israel?
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment