I agree on 1, 2 & 4. You many want to rethink your vote on 3 & 5.

#3 Many important elections are decided in the primary election when the candidate gets over 50% of the vote. That clears the deck for the voters to direct their attention to other important races like President/VP, Federal and State Senators and Representatives along with State Constitutional Amendments. It’s been proven that when too many voting decisions appear on a ballot, people get worn-out while casting their votes and just leave too many races blank. Those might be very important local government positions. For what it’s worth, I’ll be voting NO on #3.

#5 Requiring a Charter Amendment to change or refine the role of the Inspector General could get messy and very time consuming. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I assume this would be part of the City Charter. If so, after the IG’s role is defined, that role could not be changed for at least 10 years if Charter Amendment #4 passes as I hope it will. If the Inspector General’s role is not very, very, very carefully defined the city has to live with that charter for 10 years before mistakes or modifications could be made. On the other hand, making a change to the IG’s role by ordinance would be rather quick and easy and does not require a 10 year waiting-period. Again for what it’s worth, I’ll be voting NO on #4.

If I’m mistaken on any of this, please feel free to pull me from the “sea of ignorance.”