COMMUNITY COMMENTARY:Charter changes and the status quo

I strongly oppose a majority of the Charter Review Committee's recommended changes, as I believe these changes are nothing more than tools to help perpetuate the status quo.

They want take away our right to choose a replacement council member via a special election in the event of a vacancy, as well as taking away our right to elect our own city clerk and treasurer.

Why? So that they can control who sits in those seats. It seems the powers that be aren't happy that the people of Burbank chose David Gordon in our recent special election over their hand-picked candidate Bill Wiggins, so they want to take that away from us.

They also want to do away with the four-fifths vote required to approve our city budget. It seems they're scared of losing another seat at next year's election, which is why I suspect they want to change the four-fifth vote to a three-fifths vote. Charter Review Committee chair Carolyn Jackson says she trusts the voters.

Really? If that's the case, why on earth do you want to take away these very voters' rights to choose and give that power to the City Council and a city manager who's beholden to the council? This is not the first time Jackson's logic has been fatally flawed. The committee had an opportunity to address many issues that Burbank residents would like see on the ballot, such as term limits, but chose otherwise. Every conversation I've had in the community, regarding charter changes people would like to vote on, involved term limits. But that didn't make on their list of 12 changes.

That tells me we have a committee that, for the most part, is out of touch with the average Burbank resident.

One of the strategies discussed at the committee's last meeting was going into our local churches to campaign, or as City Atty. Dennis Barlow put it, educate the community. As a Christian, I am deeply offended by this. It makes me sick to my stomach when organizations try and use the church to push their political agendas, like the Republicans in D.C., who have used groups like the Christian Coalition and Focus on the Family for political campaigning.

In Mark 11, Jesus drives out the merchants and money changers from the temple courts with a whip, and declares: "My house will be a house of prayer." Churches are for worshipping God, for teaching people about God and fellowship, not for political campaigning. Furthermore, the Internal Revenue Service takes a very dim view of such activities and I would caution any church or charity from getting involved in any such political activities that might jeopardize their not-for-profit status. This is not a moral issue. The charter changes will likely appear on next year's ballot in April. When they do, vote no.