Tammy's views are her own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bill Eagle, his pastor, Tammy's neighbors, Earl Fisher, Betsy Johnson, Joe Corsiglia, Rita Bernhard, her grand kids, Tony Hyde, Pat Robertson,Debi Corsiglia's dog, or Claudia Eagle's Cat.
This Tammy's Take (with the exception of this disclaimer) is not paid for or written by, or reviewed by anyone but Tammy and she won't take crap off of anyone.

The people of St. Helens will be making a decision soon about adopting the new revised charter for their fair city. Hopefully the people of the city will read up on this ballot measure and make the decision to vote NO. The new charter will take away the right of the people to be actively involved in the workings of their government. The charter will totally hinder the city council's effectiveness. The council will not be able to speak out against any person's actions or decisions in city government with out the fear of removal by the rest of the council. If a council person openly takes a stand against an action or opinion of the mayor or his shill the city administrator it is almost certain that the council person will be voted out because the rest of the council will be afraid that their head will be the next one on the chopping block.

What has these individuals the people behind the new charter mayor Peterson, city administrator Chad Olsen formally from the City of Rainier, and recently retired and city council candidate Skip Baker, have in store for the people of the city? I would surmise complete control and dictatorship of a free society. A ballot measure that was skillfully crafted where as the voters will not be able to deduct what trouble awaits them if the measure passes. Most people do not understand the inter workings of this new charter proposal and what rules it entails, and how the power is shifted from a form of government that is citizen friendly to a form that simply takes away the opportunity for a citizen to have their day in front of their elected officials, and certainly stifles democracy.

For example: Lets say the city inspector has been hassling a certain individual and the citizen has been complying with the order the best they can, but the inspector is being hard nosed. The citizen goes to a city council person and complains, the council person calls the inspector on the carpet or makes comments against the inspector, this gives the council the right to be rid of a council person if they take the side of a citizen against a possible over bearing inspector. In other words the people will have little or no recourse against being targeted or hassled by anyone in their government. And will have a city council that is strictly  for appearances only.

I hope the people of the city have enough good sense to fail this measure; they need to keep the power spread out among the city council where the people can have a chance to defend them selves against unjust decisions and have a more open and direct recourse to air their grievances to their city council instead of being blocked by a city administrator and mayor who in my opinion resemble Adolph Hitler and his like.