Senator Kirk Watson was one of the supporters of the repeal for Proposition 3. He stated that there is advancement in technology and it wasn’t a need for officials to physically be in the branch offices. Voicing that people are now able to “telework”. Another defender of this argument is Donna Campbell the proposition author. Her comment …show more content…
Both opposing and supporting arguments raised valid points, which have my thinking neutral on the decision made. Depending on the frequency of availability needed for the position in office could make the approval an unwise decision. Yes, I admit that people should live anywhere of their choice but not at the expense of others. Professional athletes can’t expect the league to pay for traveling expenses if they live in another further city from where they work. Although the league covers the travel expenses for players to games they don’t cover the commuting expenses from home to work. As these professional athletes have to make sacrifices for their career so should the statewide officials. They understand the initial requirements for the job and could decide before accepting the position if it fits their life. Supporters are frustrated at the fact that other states don’t have this requirement. If they want to live in a remote location from their job, then it’s the official’s responsibility to take care of their own traveling expenses. Even if another city is not as costly to live in, it could be an inconvenience to commute frequently to the branch office. If the position doesn’t require them to be present all the time, then I don’t see an issue in approving the bill. Change is always good but I don’t believe in changing job description just to fit the employee, when they are aware of what they are signing up