Skip to main content

To Be or Not to Be, Part 2: Resolution

I continue my analysis of R-576-18, picking up here I left off yesterday. Luckily I don't have nearly as much to say today.




The resolution, the real push and shove of this whole dog and pony show seems to come from this portion of the document. "BE IT RESOLVED" And they resolve that the matter in the recitals and Mayor's memorandum and attached exhibits incorporated with the resolution. Whatever that means.
Then suddenly the matter goes in a very odd direction,
Don't worry if this didn't make any sense to you, it didn't make much sense to me.
For the time being I have to roll past section 3, despite it seeming important because its written in a very strange way.


Section four in a very convoluted way reiterates the call for the special election, specifically to coincide with the general election on November 6, 2018.
Section five specifies the "election is called in reliance upon the representations of the NEMAC contained in the MAC report, as well as agreement to conditions for incorporation recommended by the Mayor."
The first part of the statement suggests the BCC can blame the NEMAC report if the budget doesn't look anything like that report.
The second part reiterates the constant crack of the county debt whip, specifically the Mayor's personal demand for financial mitigation.


As I showed a few posts ago, Section eight lays out the actual ballot language. It seems absurd to ask resident electors in such a direct manner to approve or reject what I've spent the last two days trying to explain to myself! And I haven't even gotten to exhibit B!

Section nine and ten like a few others seem mostly like legal housekeeping, but I wanted to point out language in nine that really stuck out to me. Aside from that you can find the entire document below, the resolution starting on page 46.
"Those qualified electors desiring to reject or disapprove the question shall be instructed to select "NO" as set forth in general law."
This speaks to me because as much as I like the idea of incorporation I don't like the terms of the question. Perhaps as I discover more information about the details I will find myself at greater ease. It almost seems unfair to simplify the terms of the agreement so much in asking the public at the polls.








Comments