Crikey! What a Bunch of Cheapskates!

I was at the library, which is one of the early voting locations, and decided to get my civic duty over with.

There were seven or eight volunteers and poll watchers there to serve me, the lone voter (although I had seen other people going in and out earlier). The ID-checker-man said my signature on the electronic card reader thingy looked just like the one on my license which I'm not sure was a compliment but it did allow me to go and get my ballot.

I voted "Yes" on all the charter amendments except for lowering the veto requirements and lowering the referendum requirements. I also voted for the non-ideological, non-Tea Party candidates for council, at least as far as I could tell in a non-partisan, no-label election.

And I was shocked (shocked, I say!) to discover that the change in how elected city officials' pay would be determined means that the $36,600 and $32,600 salaries listed in the amendment will represent a 50% increase over what they're being paid now! Are you kidding me?! This is the tenth largest city in the state by population, almost 155,000 people, and we've been paying these guys between $19- and $23,000 a year to run the place?? It may have been a part-time job when the city was first incorporated but it sure ain't now.

Well, I did my part. Now we'll just have to wait until after the official election day, this Tuesday, to find out just what kind of tightwads the rest of the neighbors are. My hopes are not high.

Ignorance Under the Law

Confession time. When I moved to this city I never took the time to sit down and actually read the city charter. In fact, I never read the charter of Salt Lake City when I lived there, nor of any other place I've ever lived. Every incorporated municipality has one, right?

Has anyone read their city's charter or incorporating documents?

Ever?

And I don't count lawyers hired by or contracted to a city who must read it as part of their jobs, nor lawyers for people who might want legal recourse against a municipality. I'm referring to real people.

And yet, this fall, we, the voters who have never read our charter, are being asked to amend it in seven different places. Because we're the ones in charge, after all.

Most of the amendments seem sensible enough:

• Change the amount of severance pay due to city officers when they get fired from four months to four months or whatever is required by state law, whichever is less. (Yes, let's follow state law, please.)
• Change the mayor's and city council's salaries to a fixed amount instead of one based on the number of registered voters. (Who came up with that weird formula in the first place? And the mayor's salary will be only $36,600 a year? Council members, $32,600. For a city with a population just shy of 155,000 people? Really?)
• Change the charter to specify that emergency regulations must be enacted in accordance with state law. (There's the second reference to behaving according to state law. How were we doing it before?)
• Bring our anti-discrimination ordinances up to par by including color, religion sexual orientation, national origin, age, handicap, marital status and/or any class protected by state or federal law. (Yay! I don't have any idea how many of those were not covered before and I wish it were possible to just say "Don't discriminate," but since people in power apparently need to be told in detail this will do nicely for now. And again with the obeying state law thing.)

Two proposed amendments, I don't know what their effect will be or what the intent really is:

• Reduce the number of signatures needed to force a referendum from 15% to 10%. (There's a fine line between allowing citizens to bypass a recalcitrant council and encouraging cranks to petition for their every little hobby horse. If we cross that line it could be nigh impossible to claw back to it. Technically, each of these amendments constitutes its own referendum, already. Just based on the published letters to the editor, I'm inclined to believe we have enough Tea Partiers in town to really gum up the works if given the chance. I'm leaning towards, "No.")
• Reduce the number of members on future Charter Review Commissions (O.K., I guess these folks have read the charter. Don't know how many are lawyers, though.) from nine to seven with two alternates. (Seems like a housekeeping kind of thing. Perhaps they didn't all get along this time. I'll likely go for it.)

And one proposal is a no go from the start:

• Reduce the number of votes needed to override the mayor's line-item veto from two-thirds to a simply majority (but not less than four). (Sorry, no. This is a power grab by the council that will enable them to get their pet projects approved at the expense of the entire city using the good-ol'-boy, buddy-buddy, "I'll override yours if you override mine," system. Our council has too many goofballs (and developers/politicians in developers' pockets) on it to trust them. Perhaps we could get more competent people if we paid them more?)

So there we are. We are charged with changing the rules by which we govern ourselves. It's kind of inspiring although it does make me wonder what else we're still doing that isn't "in accordance with state law."

Not enough to go read the damned charter, though.

She Who Hesitates

Ours are indoor cats. Nevertheless, they like to go "out," out being the screened in foyer leading to the front door which has hidden gaps somewhere down in the corners that allow smallish lizards (and, once, a baby black snake) in. The cats know they can occasionally chase a lizard, although they haven't caught one in months.

Recently, Jasmine, the mom, has got it in her head that she is the one to go out first and if she is preempted for any reason will not go at all. She will saunter, trot and (very rarely) gallop to the door indicating her wish to visit the foyer. On having the door opened for her she then stops dead pondering the commitment required to choose here or there, in or out.

The kids, on the other hand, experience no such existential qualms. They hear the door open and come running. If Jasmine makes up her mind before they arrive they will happily follow her out. If she remains racked by indecision they will scamper on past as if this were their first invitation to an incredible adventure.

Which pisses her off to no end.

If she was standing, she'll sit. If sitting, she'll glare at them until we give up coaxing and close the door. Or sometimes she'll just look at us to say, "Good riddance to them, I didn't want to go out there anyway" and then walk away.

But she does care. Once in a while, when the kids are either entering or leaving, if they are in range, she give one or the other a hiss and a swipe of her paw. But she absolutely will not go out unless she's first.

The funny thing is: the deference she demands would be hers if she were just a bit more decisive.

In a couple of weeks it shouldn't matter anyway. As the temperatures cool down and the humidity drops we'll be able to turn off the air conditioning, throw up the windows and leave the door open while we're home.