"a conflict of interest provision in the measure would require elected officials to disclose contributions of more than $50 from people who stand to gain from policy decisions by that official. Anyone with such a conflict would need to recuse themselves."


But whatevs, they're not gonna get 30k signatures. It's a pipedream
I would sign such an initiative petition. I fail to see why the backers "cannot" get the signatures they need. Mr Woolley, for one, has quite a bit of experience running signature-gathering campaigns; the last one for the PGP ballot status, as I recall, and successfully I might add.
Graham can underestimate our organizing chops if he wants to, but in our core we have volunteer assets that have run and helped run campaigns of this scale before (statewide petitions in fact, which are three or four times larger). This IS getting on the ballot.

The conflict of interest provisions only apply to water issues, not other issues. Basically you won't even see a bad proposal offered if everybody has to recuse themselves. It prevents corruption. If they cannot do the job because they have too many conflicts of interest and cannot establish a quorum, they are free to resign or be recalled. This wouldn't apply to past donations (it couldn't reach backwards ex post facto), but people who are currently bought and paid for are instantly freed from the binds of the corrupting influence of dirty campaign cash and can operate without conflicted interests, since the fact that the provision exists changes where their future interests lie: with the people. You shouldn't thus see a rash of quorum issues. But you will see an immediate change in approach from the city regarding being loyal trustees of our natural watersheds and ecosystems.
God your paper is such a douchebag, you always try to shred anybody that stands
up to anyone, that hasn't got their sweet lips wrapped around a tasty piece of corporate cock. Where yours will always remain, cos that's what ya do...
YES! Confuse the masses so both efforts fail. YESSS, keep it up, water crazies!
I think it likely a lot of people will sign both. People who have been watching the stonewalling and last-minute, no-bid, emergency crony-enriching are sooooo frustrated. Even though the bureau will think they are going to roll us the way Randy thought he was going to do with fluoride, I think it unlikely they can keep funneling money to big bonders and big concrete.
Where's the measure to add hemp to the water supply? I hear it's a good alternative to fluoride.
George Hayduke? Of the Monkey Wrench Gang!!? Oh ya, I bet he was a big fan of fluoridated water.
ahem, fight EPA LT2 -- ahem, keep our open reservoirs -- ahem, no privatization -- ahem, no regionalization -- ahem, no blending -- AHEM!
What's the opposite of water crazies ... water willfully ignorants? Water don't-give-a-shits? Water I don't even know what the hell you people are talking about nor do I care to learn?

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.