--- In KnowingNewport@yahoogroups.com, bobby <Bobbyo1967@a...> wrote:

> Unfortunately, this proposal makes the local government even more
non-descript than it was. Although Government is all about
compromise, governments usually do better when either everybody is at
large or everybody is district centered.
----------------------------------------

Bobby

I served on the charter review commission that suggested this change
so let me explain why I supported it:

1) The council needed a more city-wide perspective. One example is
spurious stop signs would be voted in the old 'you scratch my
back...' maneuver. The inverse of this factor would lead to
paralysis on matters good for the city but bad for one ward or
another.

2) Suggesting a wholesale change to at-large [or all wards] would
have been a waste of time. Big changes don't happen here, or at
least they don't happen voluntarily. Nixon could take the Navy, but
our system and customs make bold moves impossible. And truth be
told, that's not always a bad thing.

3) This provided an additional candidate for Mayor.

The 'non-descriptness' of the system was not a consideration. Nobody
said 'lets create a sexy new government with ... <gasp> FOUR at-
large!'

We tried to re-examine the charter paragraph by paragraph and
determine what could be improved. The potential value of a change
was always carefully weighed against the cost of implementation, the
effort to get it adopted, and the liklihood of acceptance by the
council in their chamber and the public at the polls. Lots
of 'tweaks' that sounded useful at first blush were ultimately set
aside by one or another of these criteria after substantial, often
vigorous debate.

And - by the way - on what do you base you statemnt about
governments 'doing better' when they are all at-large or by
district? What do you mean by 'better'?

Regards

John Spohn