3 ms·
The person on the other end of the phone has near complete discretion and the process is still not auditable or verifiable to you. They could make whatever the
by potato3732842 2y ago
The person on the other end of the phone has near complete discretion and the process is still not auditable or verifiable to you. They could make whatever they want up and you wouldn't know.
You probably got lucky and called in a month when budgets weren't tight and they weren't trying hard to squeeze out every penny so they just waved it instead of giving you the runaround.
- doctorpangloss 2y ago> The person on the other end of the phone has near complete discretion and the process is still not auditable or verifiable to you. Does every administrative process have to go to a plebiscite or a Judge to be valid? Where do you draw the line?
- potato3732842 2y agoThere needs to be some mechanism by which the people can check the process. An elected official would likely suffice.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> elected official would likely suffice For adjudicating traffic tolls? Why do you think election is going to produce a good outcome? Some jurisdictions would collect zero revenue while others would refuse any appeal on principle.
- Schiendelman 2y agoYou're thinking one step on the line. If a jurisdiction refused appeals regularly, the elected official doing that would become more likely to get replaced.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> the elected official doing that would become more likely to get replaced I’m saying there are jurisdictions where this would be desirable to voters. Any area where most tickets are issued to non-locals, for example. If I were running in those races, I’d advertise my zero clemency attitude towards outsiders tearing up our streets or whatever.