City Elections

[kb5ykj]

Folks there needs to be some Candidates file to run for the offices in Marble Falls.
There seems to be lots of folks that are unhappy with the way things are headed.
The only way to make a change is to make the commitment and file to run for the offices and then at the May Election go and cast your Ballot to make the changes that you are looking for.
The deadline to run for office is rapidly approaching

I have filed already.

Chuck Dear

[Caretaker]

Wow. Didnt you just recently state you were not going to run.?.Not harping on you just curious as to why the change of heart...

Its great that you are stepping up to the plate. And i would be more then happy to cast a vote for you. But there needs to be 3 more sign up for it to actually be an election of choice and not just a swearing in ceremony.Or a situation where they appoint anyone they choose..

Folks should see NEW faces and Not the bringing back of the old guard. Which you will most likely see during the last week to file.I am predicting at least two past members to come back and reclaim their prospective seats.. Lets Hope I am wrong in that prediction.

[kb5ykj]

Caretaker if you are speaking of the post on Feb. 04 under Burnet County, this is what was stated:

" I have not decided to run at this time. I want to test the waters so to speak to see if there is the support and if people are still happy with the decisions they made last year and the year before."

I have had many folks that have contacted me directly and asked me to run for council.

I agree with you completely that more folks need to step up and let their voices be heard. As you have stated:

"But there needs to be 3 more sign up for it to actually be an election of choice and not just a swearing in ceremony. Or a situation where they appoint anyone they choose."

There are 3 seats open. I don't believe that any of the Incumbents have filed and I am not sure if they are at the end of their term limits.
I urge more folks to make the commitment and file to run.

[Caretaker]

chuck. The 3 currently in office are at the end of their term limits.. I was not refering to them as they cannot run again.By past council members I mean those who were at their limits last year or those who may have stepped down..

Are those wanting you to run Happy with the desicions made in the past.??

[kb5ykj]

Thank you Caretaker I was not sure if they were at term limits or not.
Mainly neighbors, friends, and just local people were the ones asking me to run after I ran for Mayor last year not any of the former or present council.
Some of the folks are happy with the way things are going some not with present and past.

[countryboy]

I just looked at the citys website and only see Chucks name listed.. Its strange how last year they had more then enough to have a true election but this year they dont seem to have any interest..At this rate they will be appointing folks.I bet the turn out to cast votes will be lower this year too.645 is the count last year.You can probably cut that in half this go around.That is unless the voters who show up are those wanting the extra tax exemption or to ammend the charter so council members can serve longer..

[kb5ykj]

Country Boy I wonder who they will appoint? This can become a scary deal. It could be a big business person who has an agenda for them self. This person could even become the Mayor Pro Tem. Or someone that wants to build a subdivision or a strip mall or business park and wants our tax dollars to be spent to assist them. Requirements are: Have to be a resident of the city for 1 year, be a registered voter, and of age. Their needs to be more people file the clock is ticking and only have till next Monday March 8th to file. There are lots of folks that seem to have complaints and concerns but don't seem to want to step up to the plate to work to make a change.

[Caretaker]

Well. I was right. A past council member has signed on to run for a spot.. There needs to be 2 more if there is actually going to be an election.Hopefully it will be a NEW face. This round robin stuff makes MFs look bad.

[Reapp]

I don't like the way this thread is headed...

[butchkemper]

Whether or not the person in the article is related to Mr. Norman, is not relevant to a discussion about Mr. Norman running for city council.

I think it is cowardly on your part to make a reference to the article and wonder about the relationship. If you have something to say, be man enough to come out and say it plainly.

Butch

[Caretaker]

chuck. The 3 currently in office are at the end of their term limits.. I was not refering to them as they cannot run again.By past council members I mean those who were at their limits last year or those who may have stepped down..




I missed quoted. 2 Incumbents can run.Bridges has filed to run again which would make it his last term.That is unless the charter gets amended to allow them to serve more terms... Pilley can run again but I dont see his name yet.. R. Norman served the council in 1999/2000..

[Webmaster]

Chuck ignored my previous deletion of his post and reposted the very link I deleted. He is therefore getting a timeout from the site.

[Caretaker]

Well folks. Now we have an actual Election. 10 names in The hat.They are as follows and this is my personal assement of each.Only my .02 so dont get offended or claim foul.

Charles Dear. Good guy fair choice overall.In tune with the VFD and city services.

Reed Norman. Good guy but has been on council before.So long ago many may not remember.I don,t know his voting record. I will research it before I cast my vote.

Chris Bridges. Incumbent.Great guy but dont forget he voted to Raised your taxes and authorized lots of spending.But hey he gave you the Hosiptal,so to speak.

Richard Maddern. Good guy.Honest Democrat. I have a feeling he might have this town looking like San Antonio though.Definately not affraid to raise your taxes.

RicHard Lewis. Very likeable guy. Enviromentally in tune with the hill country. My personal favorite of these six.Would be a good fresh face.

Patrick Carter.Have not had a chance to meet this guy.Hope others have and can give some good insight.

Brady McAlister. Never met him.So cant give an op.

Micheal Goff. No info on him either.

Allan Garrett. Att.I have not met him.So cant op much.

John Packer; EDC board member. Buisnessman.

This has been caretakers political play by play.Now for half time show along with popcorn.

[countryboy]

Thats cool caretaker. TY for posting those who are running.. With that many maybe they could have a townhall meet-n-greet with these candidates and have a question and answer session. You know to see where they stand on the most common topics.

[Caretaker]

Seeing as there are 10 names in the hat running for the 3 seats.. It seems to me that a town hall meeter greeter would be good.. That would be a great thing for bringing the community closer together.

I wonder if there will any write in candidates. That would make it even ore interesting.

[countryboy]

How many folks attended the Candidate forum on thursday to meet those who are running for office?.I did not get to due to illness but I was told there were only about 30 to 40 in the audience..If that is true then the How in the world can anyone make an educated decision to who to vote for. And with 10 names in the hat, A Tax exemption vote and 5 charter amendments on the ballot folks Better be paying attention.

The elderly should show up to pass the exemption, thats almost a certainty..

Has anyone read about the charter amendments and what they mean?.One of them concerns the Term Limits for office. Currently it is 6 years even though last year they deemed it to be ambigous language..If this passes then some of the ones who Love raising taxes can sit on that council for up to 12 years.And we all Know term limits is hot topic up in the big leagues folks.But It should be a Hot topic here as well.

[ohcuriousone]

Country Boy,

I attended and the attending number could stretch to 50 if you counted the city employees, business owners that live in the county and have businesses in the city and one or two from Meadowlakes. The Highlander group ran a great debate but they can't drag folks into the chairs.

The Charter Amendments are quickly:
1. Section 3.01, this one is on term limits, I would personally vote against it as written.
2. Section 3.06, this one is suppose to clarify the special elections to fill a vacant seat. I believe that it only make the city's charter in line with new state law. IMHO it would be ok.
3. Section 4.01, this serves no one but the new city manager. I would walk to the poll to vote against it. He knew when he took the job he had to move to Marble Falls and pay these wonderful taxes.
4. Section 5.01 this one also puts in line the citys charter with statewide election dates. Should be ok.
5. Section 10.12, this deals with closing alleys and streets and again deals with aligning the city with state law.

Homestead tax exemption proposition. This will pass because we all know that the older section of town VOTES.

IMHO the front leaders after opening statements, 3 questions each and closing statements are by far
Richard Lewis, Richard Maddern and Allan Garrett. It's great that the voters have a choice this year but they really should thank the folks for running by showing up at the next forum on May 6th, 6pm at the Pavillion. Hope to see you there, it really was painless and cost only your time for a couple of hours.

[kb5ykj]

ohcuriousone,

Glad you could make the forum. I too believe that there were only around 50 there. This included everybody candidates, news folks, city employees, etc. Could not believe that they could not find but 8 folks that had questions for the candidates from the audience.
I have looked through the ballot and agree there are some things that are confusing.

Prop. 1. Wording just does not seem correct.
Prop. 2. Seems right.
Prop. 3. I don't see the part about (Having to move to the city) Although I believe that Department heads should be like Council members and have to live in the city. But it does change what it takes to remove the manager from a majority to 5 of the 7 members. Maybe I missed something here?
Prop. 4. Seems right.
Prop. 5. Seems right also.

I also believe that the Homestead Exemption will pass.

I don't however believe that with the small amount of time:
A 2 Minuet opening statement.
6 minuets total to answers the 3 questions.
A 2 minuet closing statement.
That you can really make a well informed decision as to the best candidates. The Newspaper will be releasing Biographies and information on the candidates in the near future with more information and then maybe folks can make a more educated decision from that information.
I believe that to pick 3 from the 10 folks running just from the amount of time at the forum is a little premature at this point.

The paper did allow for questions to be taken from the internet and this

[Caretaker]

If you want to know if questions were asked from those submitted via the internet/highlandernews web.Go to their websight and look at the ones that were shown and see for yourself if any were asked.. They made the forum rules and could remove any question they did not seem fit.. I hope the Tribune isnt affraid to ask the harder questions when they interview the candidates.

[kb5ykj]

Reguarding the previous post about prop. 3 you are correct. I have received an answer to that question and the hidden part is that it will change the requirements in the charter wording to say that the City Manager does not have to live in the city limits of Marble Falls in adddition to the change of the votes to remove from a majority to 5. There are many parts of this that does not seem correct.

[kb5ykj]

If you want to know if questions were asked from those submitted via the internet/highlandernews web.Go to their websight and look at the ones that were shown and see for yourself if any were asked.. They made the forum rules and could remove any question they did not seem fit.. I hope the Tribune isnt affraid to ask the harder questions when they interview the candidates.

I would hope that the Voters would not be afraid to ask them also when the Candidates are speaking with them.

[butchkemper]

Reguarding the previous post about prop. 3 you are correct. I have received an answer to that question and the hidden part is that it will change the requirements in the charter wording to say that the City Manager does not have to live in the city limits of Marble Falls in adddition to the change of the votes to remove from a majority to 5. There are many parts of this that does not seem correct.
I have read the proposed charter amendment #3. From what I can see, that amendment only changes Section 4.01, subsection C which deals is concerned with "Term and Removal".

Here is the exact wording of Proposition 3:Amend Subsection c), entitled “Term and Removal,” of Section 4.01, entitled “City Manager,” of the Charter, to clarify that the prohibition against appointing the City Manager for a “definitive term” is not intended to prevent the City and the City Manager from entering into an employment contract containing a term for which the contract is effective, and to increase the number of council votes necessary to remove the City Manager, so that the section shall hereafter read as follows:

c) Term and Removal:
The City Manager shall not be appointed for a definitive term but the City may contract with the City Manager for his or her employment for a term contained in the contract. The City Manager may be removed at the discretion of the Council by not less than five (5) affirmative votes. The action of the Council in suspending or removing the City Manager shall be final. It is the intention of this Charter to vest all authority and fix all responsibilities of such suspension or removal in the Council.”
Where is the hidden part? Where do you get the idea that the residency requirements for the City Manager are changed?

Butch

[Caretaker]

I think you are right butch. I have read it and re read it and still dont see anything that changes the manager having to live in the city.
It talks about the contract and votes. Thats what I see.

[butchkemper]

I think you are right butch. I have read it and re read it and still dont see anything that changes the manager having to live in the city.
It talks about the contract and votes. Thats what I see.
I got a copy of the City Charter and the requirement for the City Manager to reside within the city limits is contained in Section 4.01, subsection A.

That section of the Charter is not being modified.

Butch

[kb5ykj]

Butch the first place I saw this was on 3-29-10 from ohcuriousone.
I have had several ask this same thing since compaining.
So I went to the city and asked.
This is what I received back:

"You are right that the requirement for the city manager to live in the city will be removed if this proposition passes. There has been a trend lately in cities that have a number of suburban communities in close proximity to make this change, It started in the metroplex area. Ralph accepted the job with a stipulation that he would have to move to the city in 18 months or sooner. If this proposition passes, I would guess that he would want to amend his agreement."

[kb5ykj]

Sorry folks after the initial Email information I received I have now received a phone call and an Email from City Hall to the contrary now. Seems that the prop. does not make the change of Residency as I had been informed before. The City Manager can rent an Apartment and use that as a Residence in the city same as before with the previous City Manager.

[Caretaker]

Campaign signs. Do they conform to the State rules.Do You have a campaign packet.Use it.read it. Understand it.. You may want to DBl check the ones that are out. Just saying.

[kb5ykj]

Caretaker;
To what part of the packet are you referring about signs?
I have read my packet and have read it & do understand it.
All of my signs do have the required information on them.
I have noticed that some of the others out there do not and none of mine are on the City right of way Or the State right of way unless some have been moved from where they origionally were placed.
They have the Paid for information, and the Transportation code chpt's. 392 & 393 warning listed about having them on a Right of Way.
The signs were approved prior to installation and applied for permit as required and was told that they were not requiring them this year unlike last year.
If there are specific locations that are not in compliance please let me know.
Please E-mail specifics to my e-mail or call me.
kb5ykj@austin.rr.com
512 673-3732 cell

[Caretaker]

Are you saying there is No permit needed anymore or that the TC warning does not need to be there anymore?

[kb5ykj]

Are you saying there is No permit needed anymore or that the TC warning does not need to be there anymore?

1. I am saying that I applied for the required permit and the city offices told me they were not requiring them this year. Last year they required them but did not charge for it.

2. Yes the Texas Commission Notice is required. The Disclosure Statement that says who paid for the signs and the right of way notice must be on the signs according to section 255.007 of the election code and my signs do have that.
The Political Advertising flyer from the Ethics Commission stated "If you receive a written notice from the commission that your Political Advertisment does not comply with the law, that you should stop using them immediatly."