During that first meeting, the “mayoress” announced she would not appoint a city marshal because “the salary for that official was an unnecessary expense.” That move alone saved the city $57 a month (the equivalent of $1,220 a month in 2015).
I'd vote for that candidate! Somehow I doubt that a crime wave followed this decision.
>Probably not but the costs of keeping the peace were externalized as extra burden on the county sheriff.
isn't it is kind of at the heart of the city charter contract - you gotta keep the real estate taxes, you gotta maintain various services like law enforcement, fire, etc...?
It would seem that in a hundred years we have not made much progress compared to that moment in time! Especially sad was the following quote, i thought:
“Umatilla residents elected more than a dozen women to City Council in the last century” — out of how many?
Is it? Some things that could change how that should be interpreted:
What's the term of a mayor?
Is that 12 different women, or twelve elections?
If the term was always four years, 12 of the probable 25 elections in a century is not bad. If that doesn't count re-elections, that almost definitely means the seat was filled more than half the time by a woman, assuming the usual success of incumbents.
Edit: Some of the "current info" I had originally was for Umatilla in Florida, so it doesn't apply. I haven't found anything on the terms in Umatilla, OR, and I'm not sure if mayoral terms are set by the town charter, county or state.
lesson learned - now pretty much anywhere in the world your voting is only a choosing among very carefully pre-selected candidates thus allowing to avoid mishaps like that of Umatilla.
I'd vote for that candidate! Somehow I doubt that a crime wave followed this decision.