Citizens tried to speak out against the DESTRUCTION or RECONSTRUCTION (take your pick) of Millington’s new proposed Charter! Blame DECONSTRUCTION on my meds LOL…if you only knew what I have to take now you will forgive me when I make mistakes on my posts.

Twenty-eight days to change the constitution for Millington that will affect Millington for years to come is wrong. I appealed to the board at the beginning of the last work session. The revamping of Millington’s Charter deserves more than 28 days of governing laws that will affect this City for many years to come. It did not take long for ME, I cannot speak for others to know I was wasting my time; therefore I left after an hour into the meeting. To do what they said from the beginning, insert the language for a City Manager and from a full-time mayor to a part time Mayor. It is insulting and disappointing how the BMA are during this process. Looks like CONTROVERSY is going to be around in Millington until the newly elected Mayor and Board of Aldermen are seated January 13, 2013. Knowing politics were being played during the appointment of an Interim Mayor, I was optimistic anyway when Mayor Carter was selected to fulfill Hodges term. What was I thinking to hope things were going to be different in Millington? However, I am an optimist and I DO BELIEVE Millington will progress as people who remained silent continue to speak up and get involved. My voice does not register with the BMA and there are two reasons why. I am sure most of the readers know what those two reasons are. More of the readers in Millington are letting me know who they are and thanking me for creating LIM, because of local and surrounding readers of this site, LIM has surpassed its 5000 monthly hits. I THANK YOU for understanding this site was not created to hurt the City of Millington, this site is where I can be heard how it is for ME living in Millington and promote civic involvement. Regardless of the opinions in the comment section, this site is open to YOU. I have no problem agreeing to disagree on the opinions I express on LIM.

Incumbents usually have the advantage over challengers in an election and I believe this is what driving this Board to quickly change the power of Millington from a strong “mayor-run” controlled government to a strong “alderman and city manager” controlled government. This incumbent Board was not interested to have districts or term limits. Why is that? NO to term limits according to one Aldermen who been around, it is about legacy and the fear of an entire new board at one time. (Here is a thought to that explanation, that scenario can happen in Millington’s 2012 election) NO to districts, ironically the reason by an Aldermen who  been around for a while also used representation for the few families who resides on the Naval Base as an excuse. (If discussion was opened to districts, it can be done) Hmmm, worried about representation for the families who live on the Base, ump it would be sooo nice if other taxpayers and I were given that kind of concern and consideration. What is the difference in having the opportunity to implement staggered elections and not consider term limits? There was no problem for the BMA to say YES to add language that later by Ordinance staggered elections that could extent one or more Aldermen term according to the latest update on the Charter.

I refuse to waste my energy instead I harness the disappointment how the BMA represents me as Millington resident and seek to do something about it. The current BMA is doing what they THINK is best for ALL citizens in Millington and I MUST DO what I think is best for me as a taxpayer in Millington.

It is unfortunate to a population in Millington the BMA REFUSE to consider representation by districting.  In addition if the BMA have option to do staggered terms they should have alo considered setting term limits. The following in the proposed Charter are just a few problems I view troublesome. Maybe the BMA will or maybe the BMA will not, fix these and other areas.  Regardless, if the BMA which it is looking like they will approve the proposed Charter, the official proposed Charter Mayor Carter send to Rep. Lollar should be made available as the final approved proposed Charter Changes on the City’s website for viewing.

SECTION 4.01. COMPOSITION, ELECTION, TERM OF OFFICE, RE-ELECTION, AND RUNOFFS.

The governing body of the City shall consist of a mayor and seven (7) aldermen to be known officially as the “Board of Mayor and Aldermen”, in which is vested all corporate, legislative and other powers of the City, except as otherwise provided in this charter. The Board of Mayor and Aldermen shall hereinafter be referred to as the “Board”. The terms of the Board members shall be for four (4) years. However, at the option of the Board, an ordinance may be adopted by five (5) of the seven (7) members of the Board prescribing and fixing staggered terms for members of the Board. The ordinance may extend one or more of the terms of office of the then-serving aldermen for the sole purpose of establishing staggered terms, but otherwise, terms off office shall continue to be four (4) years. The mayor and any alderman shall be eligible for re-election.

What is the definition of adequate notice to the public when it comes to the meetings that are in this proposed Charter? Adequate notice to the public is throughout this proposed Charter, if it is not stated in days adequate notice could be the day of a few hours before the meeting.  Where will adequate notice be given is unknown in this proposed Charter.

If it is written it is so, if it is not written it is not so. It was discussed during one of the charter work session the new elected Board in August will sit in on reviewing applicants for the City Manager Position and the hiring of a City Manager would take place by the new elected board January2013. Why are the qualifications broad now instead of what was discussed during a work session? Could it possibly be because an Alderman stated during a work session there was NO NEED for detailed specifics when an Alderman requested language-insuring Millington SHALL have its own police department?  Once again, there is a reason WHY sections in a Charter need to be specific because if it is not written in the Charter it is not so.

CITY MANAGER

SECTION 5.01. APPOINTMENT, SALARY, AND REMOVAL.

The Board shall appoint a chief administrative officer of the city with the title of City Manager who shall serve at the pleasure of the Board for an indefinite term. The City Manager shall be selected on the basis of training, experience and other administrative qualifications for the office without regard to such person’s political or religious preference or such person’s place of residence at the time of the appointment. No Board member shall be eligible for the position of City Manager within two (2) years after expiration or other termination of the Board member’s latest term of office.

How is a temporary absence defined, there is no definition of a qualified officer? For reader who do not know when it comes to legislation “May” means if the Board DO NOT HAVE TO do what is stated in the charter to “Shall” means the Board HAS TO do what is stated in the charter.

SECTION 5.04. ABSENCE OF THE CITY MANAGER.

In the temporary absence or disability of the City Manager, the Board may designate a qualified officer of the city to assume the duties and authority of the manager.

How is a temporary absence defined?  What is the definition of a qualified officer according the BMA?  Why should the BMA have the power of may (do not have to designate) written in this section instead of shall (have to designate)

WOW, this is some absolute power! The Board can use residents’ tax dollars to establish or abolish without doing Resolution or Ordinance.

SECTION 8.01. DEPARTMENTS, OFFICES, AND AGENCIES. The Board may establish city departments, offices or agencies in addition to those created by this charter and may prescribe the functions of all departments, offices and agencies not in conflict with this charter. Departments, offices and agencies created by the Board may be abolished or combined by the Board.

Amending Millington’s Charter to insert language for a City Manager and the change from a full-time Mayor to a part-time Mayor was never the problem. The problem has always been about timing of a major change instead of an amendment and the time spent to approve a drastic undertaking of Millington’s Charter. The BMA is giving every indication regardless of concerns from citizens they are moving to vote approval of the proposed Charter Changes and send off to Nashville.  I know it is wishful thinking the majority of the Board will go with their conscience and not give in to political pressure and vote NO to the proposed Charter Changes.  If the shoe was on the other foot, (a Board that was not comprise of them) there is no doubt a majority of this Board would have a problem with 28 days given to change Millington’s Charter. The BMA have the power stop this major overhaul of Millington’s Charter and do what they said they were going to do from the beginning.

Say it is not so Alderman Ford.  Did you really say what was reported by Fox News?  “They are not required to pass it this year, but if they don’t they would have to wait four years.” I looked all through MTAS and TCA on Private Act Charters and I could not find that a Private Act Charter can only be amended every four years. If any readers of this site knows and have documentation that was a true statement please share it with LIM and LIM will make the necessary corrections.  Until LIM is notified Ford’s statement reported by Fox13 was true or not; I have no choice, but to believe that his statement is an untruth along with the untruths on what was going to be in the proposed Charter Changes during work sessions that are not in the last proposed Charter update as of February 26.  Timing is everything.  The “IF” Charter train is leaving Millington and is on its way to Nashville as soon as the Board approves it Tuesday evening.  Mayor Carter made it clear during a work session the urgency to why the vote must take place February 28,  because of timing the proposed Charter changes must be immediately forward to Rep. Lollar that evening after the vote so Lollar can do his fast track part in Nashville.  One can only hope Nashville put the brakes on Millington’s proposed Charter Changes out of consideration of Millington’s residents because more than twenty eight days should have been given to a major overhaul on not just Millington, but any community City’s Charter

Millington Goes Forward with Revamped Government: MyFoxMEMPHIS.com

 It is amusing the BMA will have public input an hour before the 7pm vote Tuesday. I am only interested to witness which Aldermen has the courage to vote NO. I am just a mere citizen along with the other citizens that had concerns on Millington’s proposed Charter that was a nuisance to the BMA because others and I voiced our concerns. The BMA is doing what they feel they must do. I cannot speak for others, but I too am going to do what I feel I must do as a tax-paying resident without representation in Millington.

Finally, Mayor Carter plugged information from other Shelby County suburbans she thought was best for the changes that should go into Millington’s proposed NEW Charter.  She also mentioned more than once during the Charter work session Millington’s City Attorney and Rick Whitehead were the two people she consulted as she prepared and presented the language in Millington’s proposed Charter on behalf and to the Board. It was wise to do that, however, that does not make Millington’s proposed Charter Changes constitutional.

I found the following excerpts from MTAS  Getting to Know Maybe Love Your Municipal Charter worth mentioning:

Don’t get private act charters and general law charters mixed up. If you have a private act charter, none of the general law charters we are about to discuss apply to your municipality. For some reason this is difficult even for some city attorneys to understand. Your private act charter may provide for the mayor-aldermanic form of government, but the general law mayor aldermanic charter has nothing to do with your city. Period!

Likewise as to the relationship between private act city manager forms of government and the two general law city manager charters. There isn’t any! There are general laws throughout Tennessee Code Annotated that apply to both private act and general law municipalities, but the general law charters apply only to municipalities that have those particular general law charters. The private act municipality is like water, and the general law charter municipality is like oil — they don’t mix. We beat that subject to death, but it needs it.

AmendingaPrivateActCharter

Surely, someone will catch a non-syndical amendment before it passes, right? Not likely.

Is the charter change legal? Remember, the charter can’t conflict with the U.S. or Tennessee Constitution or with general law. Making sure your amendments don’t have conflicts isn’t always an easy job. If you have doubts, it’s a good idea to check with your city attorney or MTAS. This can prevent the rarely fatal (but often embarrassing) condition known as egg-on-the-face.

Who should be involved in drafting the charter amendment?

 Private act charter amendments must be approved locally, either by a two-thirds vote of the governing body or by the voters in a referendum. Whether the amendment wins local approval often depends on who had a part in what it says. The people involved in drafting the charter amendment depend on several related factors:

• Whether the amendment makes a small or large change in how your municipality does something or in who does it;

• How many and which people, both inside and outside the municipal government, the amendment affects;

• What the end effect will cost the public;

• The complexity of the amendment;

• The political situation; and

 • The required method of local approval of the amendment.

 A general rule of thumb is that unless the charter amendment is one that will require approval by referendum, it should be drafted under the direction of the municipal governing body.  However, the governing body should seek help from qualified advisers who can contribute to the drafting process, preferably including an attorney to do the actual writing and legal review of the amendment. This applies even when substantial revisions of the charter are being drafted. MTAS also can help with this process.

This isn’t an endorsement of charter amendment done in closed, smoke-filled rooms. Either of the two methods required for local approval of charter amendments involves an open process.

 The Tennessee Open Meetings Law (T.C.A.,

Title 8, Chapter 44) and the Tennessee Open Records Law (T.C.A., §§ 10-7-503 — 10-7-505) apply to the charter amendment process. In addition, if there’s something in the proposed changes that looks, smells, or feels like a mackerel left lying in the July sun for three days, someone on the municipal governing body or elsewhere in the municipal government will relay the news to the public. In fact, these days the best way for the government to make sure that the public knows what it is doing is to do it behind closed doors.

The principle behind the general rule of thumb is the conservation of time and energy. Both are scarce resources. Municipal committees made up of private citizens generally consume a lot of time and energy of those citizens who serve on them, not to mention the time and energy of the municipal governing bodies that form them and have to keep them moving toward their goals. Charter committees are no exception. It’s unwise to call upon such scarce resources except when necessary. While all charter changes are important, most of them don’t justify appointing a committee of 500 or even five citizens to analyze and draft them. Appoint too many committees for routine charter changes and the pool of private citizens with a high public interest from which such committees are picked will dry up.

 However, the municipal governing body should consider appointing a charter committee if the method of local approval will be by referendum, especially if the proposed changes are expected to cause considerable public confusion or controversy. Charter committees can provide valuable service in such cases for two reasons. First, like juries in civil and criminal cases, they have an astonishing collective ability to thoroughly consider issues before them. Dedicated committees may grind slowly, but they can grind exceedingly fine. Second, their charter work may be more acceptable to the public than the work of the municipal governing body. The public is often suspicious of officials and change unless it’s thoroughly convinced the change is both needed and good. Therefore, an amendment drafted by a committee of private citizens may have more public support and confidence than one drafted by the municipal governing body.

The proposed Charter Changes is a power grab…time will tell who this power move will benefit.  However, residents need to remember your voice is your vote when all else fail…NEVER FORGET POWER LEFT UNCHECKED IS DANGEROUS POWER! 

See some of ya Tuesday, February 28 until I leave you with this good thought.