16
JANET LEE SCOTT
imperative. Actually, the officers of many MACs have recently been serving for terms of longer than one year due to special events or circumstances (such as the recent District Board Elections) which have delayed the block elections. According to the District Office, the MAC chairmen were consulted before the new rule was enacted, to collect their opinions. These consultations were, however, informal ones carried out in the course of the regular visits paid to the committee by the staff of the District Office or collected during telephone conversations. There were no formal meetings called to discuss the proposed change.
What opinions do the officeholders have of this change? The chairmen I spoke to were overwhelmingly in favor of the two-year term of office; only two chairmen expressed any reservations. As one explained, "I think that two years is too long for a term and I want a shorter one. There are some residents of the block who are also well qualified and I want to give these people a chance to carry out the job of an officer." The second chairman, while generally agreeing with the change, cautioned, "The drawback with a longer term is that people may begin to criticize the chairman, for example, for misuse of power." A third chairman felt that it made no difference. One and two-year terms were the same to him, for although a two-year term allowed the officers to familiarize themselves with the households, a one-year term was too much for him because few people in his block were willing to help the committee.
Other chairmen had no reservations about the change. Their comments centered on three benefits (basically, the same ones as recognized by the District Office), namely: more time for the chairman to become acquainted with the block and its committee, more time for the officers to do their work, and avoiding too frequent elections. Speaking on the first point, one chairman told me:
"I think the two-year term of office is a good idea. This is because, in a one-year term, the officers might not get properly on track as they need to take some time to familiarize themselves with the work of the MAC. There is a risk that they might not be re-elected the next year and then the new
16
JANET LEE SCOTT
imperative. Actually, the officers of many MACs have recently been serving for terms of longer than one year due to special events or circumstances (such as the recent District Board Elections) which have delayed the block elections. According to the District Office, the MAC chairmen were consulted before the new rule was enacted, to collect their opinions. These consultations were, however, informal ones carried out in the course of the regular visits paid to the committee by the staff of the District Office or collected during telephone conversations. There were no formal meetings called to discuss the proposed change.
What opinions do the officeholders have of this change? The chairmen I spoke to were overwhelmingly in favor of the two- year term of office; only two chairmen expressed any reservations. As one explained, "I think that two years is too long for a term and I want a shorter one. There are some residents of the block who are also well qualified and I want to give these people a chance to carry out the job of an officer." The second chairman, while generally agreeing with the change, cautioned, "The draw- back with a longer term is that people may begin to criticize the chairman, for example, for misuse of power." A third chairman felt that it made no difference. One and two-year terms were the same to him, for although a two-year term allowed the officers to familiarize themselves with the households, a one-year term was too much for him because few people in his block were willing to help the committee.
Other chairmen had no reservations about the change. Their comments centered on three benefits (basically, the same ones as recognized by the District Office), namely: more time for the chairman to become acquainted with the block and its committee, more time for the officers to do their work, and avoiding too frequent elections. Speaking on the first point, one chairman told
me:
I think the two-year term of office is a good idea. This is because, in a one-year term, the officers might not get properly on track as they need to take some time to familiarize themselves with the work of the MAC. There is a risk that they might not be re-elected the next year and then the new
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.