You need to put your thinking cap on. I have a brain tease for you. Below is language from the Rowlett Charter defining a "term" when one is elected to serve in office.
"After an individual vacates an office, if fifty percent (50%) or less
remains of the individual's term, the term shall be considered a full
term for reasons of calculating term limits."
Read the above carefully. Again. It is a very poorly written passage. However, it means something important. You need to use logic to determine what it means.
Here's the way I read it. If someone vacates an office (resigns), and he/she served over 50% of the time of their term......then, the time he/she served constitutes a full term. Therefore, the remaining time served by his/her replacement would not be considered a full term. It doesn't seem possible to have two people with both serving full terms within the same time frame. It is reasonable to assume that the new occupant, if serving less than 50% remaining in the term, would be as in the Charter example above and would not be serving a full term.
So, what happened when John Harper resigned as mayor? He resigned after serving one year of a three year term. Therefore, he served 33% of his term, and his time in office would not be considered a full term. It is reasonable to conclude that Harper's replacement, serving 67% of the term, did in fact, by definition above, serve a "full term."
Some will say the replacement's term is not addressed by the charter. That is technically correct, but that is an error of omission. Sensible people can deduce that somebody had to serve a term. The taxpayer was certainly paying a salary to someone for serving.
The definition contained in the Charter clearly defines that Harper did not serve a full term when only serving 33% of the term. Logic tells me that the replacement, Todd Gottel, fulfilled a full term by serving 67% of the term. To say that neither Harper or Gottel served a term is simply stupid.
Now, I'm not saying that everyone that opines different than me is stupid. Of course, that's not true. However, some people just seem to have a lot of bad luck when they think.
A picture is now beginning to evolve about why the urgency for extending or eliminating term limits has come along just two years after it was denied.
I will try to get clarification from the Attorney General's office.
"After an individual vacates an office, if fifty percent (50%) or less
remains of the individual's term, the term shall be considered a full
term for reasons of calculating term limits."
Read the above carefully. Again. It is a very poorly written passage. However, it means something important. You need to use logic to determine what it means.
Here's the way I read it. If someone vacates an office (resigns), and he/she served over 50% of the time of their term......then, the time he/she served constitutes a full term. Therefore, the remaining time served by his/her replacement would not be considered a full term. It doesn't seem possible to have two people with both serving full terms within the same time frame. It is reasonable to assume that the new occupant, if serving less than 50% remaining in the term, would be as in the Charter example above and would not be serving a full term.
So, what happened when John Harper resigned as mayor? He resigned after serving one year of a three year term. Therefore, he served 33% of his term, and his time in office would not be considered a full term. It is reasonable to conclude that Harper's replacement, serving 67% of the term, did in fact, by definition above, serve a "full term."
Some will say the replacement's term is not addressed by the charter. That is technically correct, but that is an error of omission. Sensible people can deduce that somebody had to serve a term. The taxpayer was certainly paying a salary to someone for serving.
The definition contained in the Charter clearly defines that Harper did not serve a full term when only serving 33% of the term. Logic tells me that the replacement, Todd Gottel, fulfilled a full term by serving 67% of the term. To say that neither Harper or Gottel served a term is simply stupid.
Now, I'm not saying that everyone that opines different than me is stupid. Of course, that's not true. However, some people just seem to have a lot of bad luck when they think.
A picture is now beginning to evolve about why the urgency for extending or eliminating term limits has come along just two years after it was denied.
I will try to get clarification from the Attorney General's office.
RSS Feed
