Open Government Austin

"The city government one"

Judge Yelenosky half-jokingly said yesterday that the City could just name the two propositions "the one about the springs" and the "the one about open government" in order to meet the legal standard of identifying the issue for the voters.

He might be joking, but I agree.

On Monday, I hope that we can just have very simple language for the voters so that they can identify the two propositions. What is wrong with "the open government one" or -- if even the use of the word "open" is too biased for Council -- "the city government one"? The voters only need to know which one, so why not keep it as simple as possible? The Chronicle thinks that our suggested language paints too prosaic of a picture, and that the city's (now illegal) version only paints death and destruction.

I think that our language was pretty reasonable, but even if, why not we just clear the playing field alltogether and just have a very short, very simple phrase stating which amendment is which.

The actual names of the amendments, Open Government Online and SOS, seem to be the simplest way to do it.

If you think so too, please follow this link to email the entire council and tell them just that.

posted by opengovaustin @ Friday, March 31, 2006