Amendment 3: Why lose half your representation? Why create at large offices that will only be won out West? Why have to bill for a civil rights law suit for reducing minority representation? Does anyone really believe at larger Commissioners care about other Districts? Why would anyone spend $100,000 for a job that pays $20,000 a year? Wouldn’t the at large seat be a full time job?

Amendment 4: The voter has the power, why give it to the Mayor? Why create a Mayor King? This is begging for a law suit to test the Jordan ruling, which is crap, and you have to pay the legal bills. What is the point? Why give up your right to vote?

It is blatantly obvious, to most. Barry, why not explain why it isn’t obvious to you?

Cathy, I’d rather teachers concentrate on teaching our children than also trying to represent their communities in political arenas. You should say ok to the rule because it’s the right thing to do.

Here’s some more opinion on this if anybody cares, lol.

You should vote against Charter Amendment 4 if only for that reason.

You should vote against Charter Amendment 3 because it is so unfair to the people in District One.

Why does this have to be done now in such a convoluted way? Let’s do it right in 2010.

And relatedly, what’s so inherently fragile about those positions that the chance of nepotistic appointments and approvals could so seriously damage their capability to do a good job?

Sounds like that could just as easily apply to any other hired/appointed position in the county. I think it’s up to the public to elect honest people to the posts we do elect, and if they screw up and start appointing their cronies that break the law, throw business to their friends, etc then we have to at least partly blame ourselves for not electing the most dependable people.

I can see someone who doesn’t support one half and does support the other deciding to vote NO but only for that reason. Not just because it’s worded awkwardly.

We have enough trouble in this county to worry about semantics when progress is on the table. I don’t really accept that as an excuse to note vote for it.

And I still don’t see the reasoning behind your NO on #4…

I agree that the unrelatedness of the two parts of #3 are a problem, but I happen to agree with them both and don’t think you should reject the question out of hand because you don’t like the way it’s constructed.

That said – reducing the # of commissioners reduces the likelihood of the # of people on the board who might tend to disrupt good flow of progress. It only takes a couple to slow down a process or to embarrass the county. Witness all that have happened with “Lumpy” and “Scooby” – will they be remembered for their good leadership or the press for their wild personalities? A commission of 19 gives a much better chance for 3-5 people like that, than a commission of 11. There are always going to be more helpful than unhelpful people, but sometimes there’s a tipping point where the press for the bad outweighs the good. I also believe having two possibly conflicting views in one district, while maybe making good exploration of issues, at this time in our history is not for the best. So one voice per district is a good idea.

The nepotism provision I believe is a good step to slice off that ugly side of local politics. While I don’t, in principle, believe school-teachers and other non-political county employees should necessarily be prevented from holding county office I think the door should be open for reinstating those positions as eligible in the future. But it’s not a deal-breaker – it’s an egg you break that later can be made back into an omelet. Ok, that was an odd analogy.

As for #4, I’ve help the position for a long, long, long time that those county offices had no business being elected positions. None of them are necessary for the electorate to have to decide on any more than us voting on who is the principal of the local high school or who runs the Knox County IT department. Let the Mayor do due diligence on the best qualified people for the job, hire/appoint them, let the Commission approve, and be done with it. They are skill positions, not leadership/decision-making positions that require the people’s will be answered. Register the Deeds, Clerk the County, Trustee and Law Direct us – we don’t have any business deciding ourselves who’s qualified or not qualified for those positions any more than the electorate has the wisdom to decide whether I’m qualified for my job.

Has the timeline and both Charter Amendments explained.