I have carefully read Sunday's transcript at http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2476 and considered the points raised in support of the proposed constitutional amendment as well as the counter-arguments raised by Jamie. At the 14 June RA meeting http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2462 I voted in favor of a constitutional amendment proposed by Jamie to ensure that future mergers would be easier to implement, with complete clarity about which branch of government had authority to do what. That amendment was opposed by the two CSDF representatives and eventually defeated when Sonja, representing DPU, exercised her 7-day vote opposing the amendment. i was disappointed at the time, but Sonja took the time to clearly explain her opposition to the amendment on the forum: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... 432#p13432 . When Pat re-introduced a new version of the the same legislation, I got to thinking about the question "What problem will it solve?" and came to realize that Sonja had the correct answer: any legislation of this type would not solve any problem that I could clearly identify. That led me to the conclusion that she was correct in thinking that we do not need this constitutional amendment.
Yesterday the CSDF representatives and the DPU representatives, including Sonja, voted in favor of a constitutional amendment that is substantially similar to the one they opposed on June 14. I do not know why Sonja changed her mind about the necessity of an amendment to enable mergers between 14 June and 28 June. But her discussion supporting her 14 June vote were persuasive to me, and I have not changed my mind: there was nothing in the transcript of the discussion at the RA meeting on 28 June to persuade me that a constitutional amendment is required to address any existing or foreseeable problem with developing and executing community mergers.
In the spirit of the Simplicity Party faction, believing that it is important to clearly identify problems before creating "solutions," I do not support the proposed constitutional amendment. Please record my official vote on this matter as "NAY."
Cindy