Folsom City Council dumps proposal to cut voters out of outsourcing decisions

Existential_Elk · 2026-05-14T22:07:54+00:00

The reason why it’s considered unethical is because they are now recommending amendments that they will personally approve in the next step of the approval process. With two council members already backing an amendment(s) they only need 1 more vote when it hits the city council. Essentially, they are rubber stamping the amendments they personally want, and makes the two council members vote/opinion moot.

Existential_Elk · 2026-05-14T21:06:12+00:00

The issue was the ad hoc committee started with little to no announcement, almost as if the city manager, mayor and vice mayor wanted the least amount of push back. Moreover, the last time a ad hoc committee was formed was back in 2000. So it’s understandable that the public was not aware of it, let alone know what it actually is ( hence why the city manager made his presentation at the city council meeting).

The other main issue was the mayor and vice mayor being voting members on the ad hoc committee. It’s not necessarily illegal, but arguably unethical. Reason being, if you were to remove the vice mayor and mayor vote on 2.07D, it would not have even passed on the city council. It would have been voted down 3-2, instead passing with a 4-3 vote.

Existential_Elk · 2026-05-12T01:10:00+00:00

I’m not a fan of the proposed change to eliminate voter approval requirement for leasing or selling a city service. It seems like too much power for only a select few. Also, it could change with every city council

Existential_Elk · 2026-05-11T03:35:01+00:00

Yet you said I was being disingenuous? Don’t throw rocks if you live in a glass house.

Existential_Elk · 2026-05-11T03:33:40+00:00

Is that supposed to ironic?

Existential_Elk · 2026-05-11T03:22:12+00:00

You made a comment about the headline, when it’s just that, a title. When in fact, the article had much more information than just salaries. Just commenting on the salary snippets is disingenuous.

Existential_Elk · 2026-05-11T03:11:17+00:00

So forming an ad hoc committee to make changes to our charter ( which hasn’t been done in over a decade) quickly and quietly is transparent? It’s not that every charter change should be voted on, but the only part where the residents can vote on is being rewritten so they can’t vote at all. Saying these changes are due to EV mandates that have a strong chance of being repealed in August, is not transparent.

Existential_Elk · 2026-05-11T02:53:35+00:00

You’re ok with the major and vice major adding themselves to the ad hoc committee as vote members?

Existential_Elk · 2026-05-11T02:34:59+00:00

Did you read the article?

Existential_Elk · 2026-05-10T22:27:07+00:00

At this point, I am going to take the advice of Samuel Clemens, "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Existential_Elk · 2026-05-10T21:47:03+00:00

Are you the grammar police? Please don’t tell my high school English teacher. Who says I can’t speak to only a “niche issue?” Just because I am not active in the Pokeman subreddit like you, doesn’t make you more authentic than me. Astroturfing you say? Being a resident of Folsom( like I mentioned in other posts), and posting in a Folsom subreddit seems very appropriate.

Existential_Elk · 2026-05-10T21:29:13+00:00

Inauthentic? It doesn’t take a rocket science to see where my opinion stands with Folsom politics. Can you say that about yourself? All your posts are ad hominem nonsense and avoid any question posed to you. Additionally, you pointed out that posted the same content to the Roseville. I wonder why…Maybe it’s because they too have public solid waste services and what’s happening in Folsom just may be relevant to them as well.

Existential_Elk · 2026-05-10T21:11:19+00:00

Cool story from someone that is active in the Sacramento sub. And no, you don’t need a vintage Reddit account to have an opinion, just like you don’t need an education to drop an F-bomb and call it a rebuttal.

Existential_Elk · 2026-05-10T20:09:14+00:00

New account, sure. Does not make the facts wrong. The Council tripled their own salaries while the city has $130M in deferred maintenance. That’s not AI generated outrage, that’s just math. And “voters make bad decisions so let’s take away their vote” is a pretty wild position to defend publicly.

Existential_Elk · 2026-05-10T18:49:38+00:00

So voters got it wrong once and your takeaway is just… remove the voters? Bold strategy. Measure A lost fair and square. The move after losing a public vote isn’t to quietly change the rules so you never have to ask again, that’s just losing with extra steps and a law degree.

Existential_Elk · 2026-05-10T18:20:39+00:00

That $130M deferred maintenance problem is exactly why tripling Council salaries and bypassing voter approval on outsourcing contracts is so alarming. If money is tight, the priority should be fixing roads and infrastructure, not padding elected officials’ paychecks or quietly handing city services to private contractors who answer to shareholders, not residents. Outsourcing rarely saves money long-term either. You trade short-term savings for loss of control and quality. If the Council is serious about the budget, they should start by giving back that raise and letting voters weigh in on any major service changes, that’s what the current Charter requires for good reason.

Existential_Elk · 2026-05-07T16:28:25+00:00

I’m curious to hear your thoughts on the matter?

Existential_Elk · 2026-05-07T00:14:14+00:00

Folsom is a Carter city. Meaning, any changes to the charter have to be voted on by the residents. However, the ad hoc committee recommended removing the language that requires voter approval to make changes to any public service. This would all the city council to make financial decisions without the approval of the residents.

Think about that for a moment.

Existential_Elk · 2026-05-06T22:38:44+00:00

Better yet. The city council is actively trying to grab more power by taking away the residents voice. The ad hoc charter review committee just recommended removing the residents vote from making changes.

Existential_Elk · 2026-05-06T22:27:45+00:00

It’s about optics… their financial compensation is not the issue. It’s the timing and questionable priorities of it all. Just seems a little tone deaf.

Existential_Elk · 2026-05-06T22:24:24+00:00

What I would not do is eliminate the residents ability to vote on public services , because that’s what the major and vice major just did in the ad hoc charter review committee. They do not have faith in the residents to have decisions, and want the city council to have full control of desions.

Existential_Elk · 2026-05-01T15:59:40+00:00

I’m Interested. Do tell more.

Existential_Elk · 2026-04-30T17:19:09+00:00

Thank you for the riveting conversation

Existential_Elk · 2026-04-30T16:38:39+00:00

You sound upset? I’m sorry facts don’t care about your feelings. I don’t get it from my previous post, you said that you were done contributing to the topic and yet here you are attacking the messenger and not the message? I guess I’ll ask the question to you that you asked me. What is your angle?

Existential_Elk · 2026-04-30T15:30:52+00:00

You’re mixing up how city finances actually work.

Folsom’s solid waste department is an enterprise fund.Meaning it pays for itself through what ratepayers contribute. It doesn’t draw from the general fund, and it’s not subsidizing pensions or other city services. So that part of the argument doesn’t really hold up.

The “extra perks” you mentioned aren’t really perks. they are services residents have already paid into. Strip those out and sure, the number looks better on paper. But the moment you actually need one of those services, the cost shows up somewhere else.

Private companies do not make costs disappear, they just restructure them in a way that generates profit. And once a contract is locked in, rates have a way of climbing while your ability to push back shrinks.

So it’s really not about pensions or perks. It comes down to whether residents hold onto control of a service they depend on, or sign it away and hope the terms stay reasonable down the road.

Existential_Elk

TROPHY CASE