Thoughts On Referendums - And Response (2)

Thursday, November 28, 2013

Isn’t it a good thing that President Eisenhower didn’t ask the citizens of Little Rock, Arkansas to vote in a referendum on school segregation? 

Wasn’t it a good thing that President Reagan didn’t call for a referendum on whether or not he should fire the striking air traffic controllers?

Isn’t it a good thing LBJ didn’t poll the citizens of Alabama before calling up the Alabama National Guard to protect the marchers in Selma? 

Do we think the Supreme Court should call for a referendum every time it has a controversial decision?

I am one of those old fashioned Americans who believe that “yes,” it is a good thing that Presidents don’t call for referendums.  I think it’s an even better thing that the Supreme Court doesn’t call for referendums when they have decision to make.  We elect leaders to make decisions, once made, we have the right to not vote for those leaders if we do not like the decisions they made.  Like it or not we live in a Constitutional Republic not a Greek Democracy, taking every item to the people is a recipe for disaster.

Referendums are the reason California is in the financial mess it is in, and referendums are typically not even a fair reading of what most of the citizenry really think about a particular subject. There is a reason the Founding Fathers did not write them into our Constitution.  

Whether or not you agree with the Chattanooga City Councils’ vote on insurance benefits for domestic partners I strongly urge you not to sign the petition asking for a referendum on the subject.  

Granted Chattanooga’s Charter does allow for referendums on City Council votes, which frankly is silly.  It probably seemed like a great idea when the Charter was written, but the reality is something different – it is a mess.  The Citizens for Government Accountability and Transparency group is opening up a potential Pandora’s box of issues, with this petition drive and I am afraid they are too  politically inexperienced and single minded to realize it.

If this referendum is forced on the citizens of Chattanooga, I see others coming forth with their own referendums, which the Citizens for Government Accountability and Transparency, the Chattanooga Tea Party, and the affiliated church groups, may not be so excited about, and thanks to their support of this one, they will be in quite the pickle.

But, you see, consequences are not often thought about when one is embarking on a crusade. 

David Barto 

* * * 

Mr. Barton calls citizens down for being political inexperience.  Sadly, it is clear that Mr. Barto does not understand how the new charter revision was enacted, just this year.  Our community wanted the ability to petition under citizen initiative provisions of the charter, and that is why our elected officials and voters all agreed to change the charter this year. Of course Mr. Barto may not live Chattanooga and be aware of this. 

First and foremost we are a government, by the people and for the people, not a special interest that is in full play on the passage for the ordinance for the taxpayers to provide health insurance for  non-employee roommates of city workers. 

Earlier this year, the City Council legal committee headed by Council Peter Murphy drafted the “citizen initiative” on the City Council’s recommendation to amendment to the charter to allow citizens to have a voice in their voting actions. Then, the citizen initiative process was presented to city council and adopted not once, but twice voted  by ordinance, and then placed up the city ballot so the voter could vote for the citizen initiative in the charter.  The citizen intuitive has passed through elected approval and voter approval. It is law.  

Perhaps Mr. Barto may not live in Chattanooga, and was not involved in the public process prior to passage of the citizen initiative that allows we the people to vote on city business.  The city council and voters approved petitioning with specific constraints.  This is what the voters wanted, was a citizen intuitive.  

This is an issue for Chattanooga voters, only. 

April Eidson 

* * * 

Perhaps Mr. Barto should consider the four references he made dealt with civil rights issues, determinations on constitutionality and public sector workers striking to the detriment of the nation. These are not at all analogous to the domestic partner ordinance in Chattanooga. Sorry, but I am not at all convinced homosexuality rates the same consideration as gender or race discrimination - the major conditional issues of civil rights. 

The majority of those who will file for health benefits will be heterosexual couples who have made a choice not to get married. They have never been discriminated against in any way. They have always known all they had to do to get health benefits through the city was to get married. Simple.  

A majority of City Council allowed itself to be led by a member championing the desires of a small special interest group, of which he himself is a member. The constitution of Tennessee does not recognize same-sex or common law marriages. In 2006 Chattanooga, along with the rest of the state, passed a referendum specifically defining marriage by an 81 percent to 19 percent margin. In many parts of Chattanooga it passed by over 84 percent. I would argue this fact would seem to indicate the majority of taxpayers in the city would not favor elevating unmarried couples to the same status as those who are married, regardless of their sexual orientation.  

Furthermore, I believe a reasonable person might ascertain the majority voice of the citizens of Chattanooga was not truly represented by five members of the council. They voted they own personal opinion, choosing to ignore the local results of 2006 and the overwhelming socially conservative nature of Chattanoogans on this issue.  I firmly believe if Councilman Anderson had campaigned on the issue of this ordinance he would have never been elected. This is why there are legal remedies available for the voters to demand recourse against this ordinance.

It remains to be seen if enough Chattanoogans will rally against the ordinance and force it to be decided at the ballot box. 

Councilman Larry Grohn


Not Thrilled With The Parking Rate Increase

Mark your calendars for?? Sept. 1—the day the Chattanooga Parking Authority has?? announced it will raise parking rates around the city. In addition to the rate hikes, the Parking Authority will extend enforceable hours from 4:30-6 p.m.  and will include Saturdays as well.?? The Parking Authority has allowed for a learning curve, however, saying that during the month of ... (click for more)

Tell Congress To Protect AmeriCorps

In June, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees approved separate spending bills that would reduce opportunities for young people to serve their county, by cutting the AmeriCorps program, by as much as 34%.  These cuts mean half as many AmeriCorps members serving with local programs like Southeast Conservation Corps. These members build local trails, remove invasive ... (click for more)

City, County To Spend Up To $300,000 To Improve Moccasin Bend Police Firing Range

The city and county will spend up to $300,000 to upgrade the police firing range at Moccasin Bend. The city and county earlier had made plans for an indoor firing range on E. 11th Street that would have cost over $3 million, but the plug was later pulled on that idea. Officials said a new portable building will be transported to the Moccasin Bend site. The project also ... (click for more)

Hutcheson Medical Center Takes New Cost-Cutting Measures

Hutcheson Medical Center has announced new cost-cutting measures as it tries to stop ongoing losses. A trustee has asked that the Fort Oglethorpe hospital's bankruptcy process be dissolved, saying it has accumulated over $5 million in debt during the 10 months it has been in bankruptcy. The board of directors for Hutcheson Medical Center voted Wednesday evening to suspend ... (click for more)

Cleveland Hangs On To Beat East Hamilton, 18-15

Cleveland built an 18-0 lead – the third score came on Skyler Davis’ 91-yard interception return in the third quarter – and then had to hold on as East Hamilton mounted a comeback that fell just short in the Blue Raiders’ 18-15 victory Friday night at East Hamilton. Davis’ big defensive play gave the Blue Raiders the needed points to pull out the victory. “That was great,” ... (click for more)

Tyner Shocks Notre Dame In Overtime Thriller

Oh, what a difference a year makes. The Tyner Rams only won two football games a year ago and didn't make the playoffs for the first time in coach Wayne Turner's 24 years as their head coach. Now a season later, the Rams have equaled last year's win total, the latest being a 27-21 overtime victory over the Notre Dame Fighting Irish in a game where there were more momentum ... (click for more)