I asked you on Friday of last week why Holguin and friends didn't put the city manager form of government on the Charter Amendment ballot for May. None of you got the right answer.
Here's a little background and some answers to your questions.
First of all, there's no doubt that Acosta, Holguin and Robinson hate the city manager form of government. They have all made it clear that they would want to rid the city of it the first chance they can get. They also dislike Joyce Wilson, but that's beside the point because if she was gone, her replacement would operate in a non political manner as well and that wouldn't solve their problem.
The gang of three could have easily gotten the item onto the charter ballot because Byrd and Ortega are too full of bravado coming off the bond issue and HOT increase win and would have thrown it out there as a once and for all decision on the issue. Voters in a May election - especially this May election - would easily overturn their earlier decision and the days of strong mayor form of government would return.
So why didn't they do it?
It's pretty simple - Mayor Steve Ortega. Holguin knows that Ortega is going to be the next mayor of El Paso. There's not a single doubt in anyone's mind about that. The last thing Holguin wants is to turn over all the power to a political enemy. Holguin knows what a nightmare strong mayor form of government is for the minority voting bloc. A strong mayor form of government can basically eliminate any action by council on any issue. A strong mayor can fire the entire management staff and hire all of his or her buddies and then have them completely ignore members of council they don't like. The list goes on and on and it feels more and more like North Korea as you go. Strong mayor form of government is as close to a dictatorship as you can get in modern American government.
The best argument for city manager form of government is Holguin's absolute fear of living in a Steve Ortega era of stronger mayor government. The city manager form of government protects the minority, gives voice to dissenters and holds the basic structure of city management in place. With city manager form of government, the power exists with council members on Tuesdays, not at the administrative level where one person can control every outcome.
Recently, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was in a similar situation as Holguin with the issue of filibusters. Reid was threatening to use the "nuclear option" that would make just about every vote a contest of simple majority. This would mean that Republicans would lose every single vote without fail until they won back control of the senate. If Reid was to make the change in rules, it would have forever crossed a line never crossed by the senate before. Once Reid changed the rules for this congress - they'd likely stay that way forever.
Reid didn't use the "nuclear option" on the Republicans and instead made some minor reforms that really don't change much of how the senate works. In the end Reid was fearful of how the rule change would be used against his party if they were to find themselves in the minority - something that's very likely to happen in 2014.
Holguin understands Reid's predicament all too well with the situation he finds himself in now. He knows he's got a minimum of four years of Ortega coming up, does he really want to give him the ultimate power for his reign? No. And thus the best argument for city manager form of government is made by its biggest opponent.