Loading...
CHM 01/14/1975 • L ' /1 CHARTER COMMISSION January 14, 1975 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ray Sheridan, Clifford Ash, Herb Bacon, Ole Bjerkesett, Edythe Collins, Harry Crowder, Elaine Knoff, Roy McPherson, Robert O'Neill, and Jerry Ratcliffe MEMBERS ABSENT: Francis Casey, Jackie Johnson, Jack Kirkham, Peg McChesney, and Donald Wegler OTHERS PRESENT: Ken Sporre, Ken Brennen, Les Norden, and Barbara Hughes Chairman Sheridan opened the meeting at 7:43 p.m. MOTION BY OLE LJERKESETT TO ACCEPT TIE NOVEMBER 19, 1974 MINUTES. Seconded by Robert O'Neill. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Sheridan read aloud the memo he sent to City Council on January 6,_ relating what took place at the December 30 meeting with the Charter Commission officers and the Committee of Petitioners. Mr. Sheridan stated the purpose of the joint meeting tonight was to work out an acceptable agreement between the Committee and Charter Commission members. n Mr. Sheridan said it was his interpretation that the Petitioners wanted the official elected, they would not like Council to have the option to appoint. The Charter Commission's proposal was to appoint within a certain length of time or set up a special election. Mr. Crowder asked where the petition stands at the present time? Mr. Sheridan said the petition was submitted at the January 6, 1975 Council meeting. Mr. Sheridan stated that unless the petition was found insufficient, it would have to go to a special election in its present form, which is not the intent of the Charter Commission. Mr. Sheridan said it could not be withdrawn by the Committee of Petitioners unless found insufficient for signatures or something that would make it invalid. Mr. Sheridan said if it cannot be wait_hdrawn, it was his hope that if a special election had to be called, the Charter Commission could propose all the changes at once, and those not adopted by Ordinance could be put up at the special election at the same time, so there would not be the expenditure of two special elections. Elaine Knoff asked what Mr. Herrick's original statement was on the petition. Ray Sheridan said Mr. Herrick said it was not in compliance with the statutes as the right procedure was not followed because it was not originally presented to the Charter Commission. Mr. Sheridan said a special meeting was not called and the discussion on the petition took place at the November meeting. He said there is nothing in the statutes that require the Charter Commission to act within a certain time limit, the time element begins once the petition is received by Council, and it was not received until January 6. Mr. Sheridan •••■ said the original ruling would not hold presently. A memo was sent to Council from Virgil Herrick with regard to the Charter Commission's amendments. Ken Brennen presented a history of the petition before the Charter Commission. This was received by the Charter Commission. Mr. Sporre said he was in attendance at the January 6, 1975 Council meeting, and the petition was received at that meeting. • Page 2 It was tabled till the forthcoming (January 20) Council meeting in hopes that tonight the Charter Commission and Committee of Petitioners could work out a compromise that would be acceptable to both so there would be no special election if an agreement was made. The Council would then accept it and it would be adopted by Ordinance. Mr. Bjerkesett questioned Mr. Sporre if he received an opinion from the city attorney on this matter. Mr. Sporre stated that he had not, but had spoken with Mr. Gallagher of the Attorney General's office pertaining to the legality of compromise or the withdrawal of petition. He said the petition cannot be amended and cannot be withdrawn. There are no court cases that show this. Mr. Sporre said he asked Mr. Gallagher if they were to put an amendment to the petition and the Charter Commission accepted it, what would be the status? Mr. Gallagher's feeling was that if nobody protested or called for an election on the original, this would be possible, but if any one signer of the petition would object to the revision of the changes, it would have to go on a special election in the original form. Mr. Sporre said notice of special election would have to be posted four weeks prior to the elections four times before the election would be held. Mr. Sporre pointed out that if the Charter Commission sends their recommendations to City Council and City Council adopts it, there is no need for a special election. If the Charter Commission does not recommend the adoption there will automatically be an election. The Council cannot take action on it unless the Charter Commission gives it approval for adoption. This would eliminate only this particular item for a special election. If there are other sections Council does not adopt, a special election could be called. Mr. Sporre said the alternative for the Charter Commission would be to take the amendment the way it is now and recommend it for adoption, and make a clause to it, presenting the original plus the Charter Commission's recommendation to Council, making the entire package. Both proposals were brought before the group, and Mr. Sheridan suggested trying to make an amendment-or agreement between the two. Mr. Bjerkesett asked for clarification of what the Committee wanted the Charter Commission to do. Mr. Sheridan said it would be to approve the adoption of the petition with the amendment to correct the deficiencies within the petition to make it acceptable to the Committee of Petitioners and the Commission. Discussion was held on the formation of the ballot, if a special election was to be called. Mr. O'Neill said regardless of-Section 2.05, a special election will probably be called. There could be two choices, the Charter Commission amendment and the Petitioner's amendment, a citizenry choice between the two. It could also be presented as a package with one issue, either in favor or opposing a revised Charter. Elaine Knoff opposed to the idea of this format, she felt a voter should be entitled to vote on each separate issue because you, may favor some but not all. Mr. Bjerkesett said this could depend on how many issues you have, it could be a lengthy voting process. Mr. Sporre said if the amendment was accepted, and there was but one change not adopted by Council, it could probably be held over till the general election. • Mr. Sporre said it was the Committee's amendment to state that "there will be no need for a special election six months prior to the general election. It could also be stated that if nobody files then an appointment is in order and if one person files it should be handled the same way regular elections are held now." Page 3 MOTION BY OLE BJEREESETT TO TABLE ANY ACTION ON THE PETITION INDEFINITELY UNTIL TIE CHARTER COMMISSION FEELS READY TO DEAL WITH THIS AT SOME SUBSEQUENT MEETING. Seconded by Edythe Collins for 'discussion. A lengthy discussion n followed. There was much controversy concerning the petition. Harry Crowder felt there must be some merit to the petition. He felt communication should be sent to concerned individuals and organizations stating there is a controversy in Section 2.05 and would like their feelings as to what they thought best. Mr. Sheridan said he agreed with Mr. Crowder, and felt the Commission members should have a chance to hear the pros and cons before the petition is changed again. Mr. Sheridan said there is a time limit on the Council once the petition is received. Mr. Sheridan said the Committee of Petitioners would like to see the possible deficiencies in their petition corrected in the proposal from the Charter Commission. Mr. Sporre said they were willing to compromise. Mr. Sheridan asked the Committee if they would be willing to change the phraseology to read, "the appointment would have to made within 30 days or a special election held within 60 days." Mr. Sporre said they could only agree with the change in their wording, because they were opposed to the appointive process. Mr. Crowder said he would like to have the Commission have a session with the City Council to find out whe .her they like or dislike the appointive process and why. Barbara Hughes, representing no organization in the City, commented that the cost of an election and then running again six months later isreturned..over_ whelmingly. by the advantage to the incumbent because he has a better knowledge of what is going on. Mr. Sheridan presented the alternatives, either withdraw Section 2.05 and if the Committee of Petitioners proposal is voted upon and carries by the electorate and becomes a part of the Charter, the Charter Commission could make the necessary �, amendments to correct the deficiencies in it, or incorporate .the Committee's change in the Charter Commission's proposal along with the additions to make it more compatible. Mr. Sheridan voiced his opinion, and said he prefered the chance to appoint, because he felt there were times when the council needed five members rather than four. Mr. Sheridan said Mr. Sporre's comment that, if it is less than six months, a.special election not be held, would be acceptable to him because it would be mandatory that Council appoint someone before the election. • Mr. Sheridan asked for a roll call vote on the question to table any action. on the petition. UPON A VOICE VOTE, FOUR VOTING YES, FOUR VOTING NO, THE MOTION WAS NOT CARRIED. Mr. Sheridan indicated the Commission could not approve the petition as presented, so the normal procedure would follow and a special election will be called. Mr. Sheridan said the proposed amendments would be sent back to Council and they would be asked to review the: and act upon them. MOTION BY HERB BACON THAT COUNCIL CONSIDER EACH INDIVIDUAL AAENDMENT AS A MERIT, ONE AT A TIME, i VOTED UPON SINGLY, AND THOSE THEY CANNOT VOTE UPON, BRING BACK TO THE CHARTER COMMISSION WITH THE REASONS WHY. Seconded by Elaine Knoff. Mr. Brennen and Mr. Sporre agreed that the elective process was the way honest government should go. Mr. Sporre said since no action was taken for the January 20 Council meeting, it is mandatory to hold a special election. Mr. Sporre stated that if it passes and the Charter Commission amends it, the amendment could be defeated.. Further discussion was held on the election process. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Ole Bjerkesett to adjourn the meeting�.� Seconded by Elaine Knoff. Motion carried and the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. The next meeting is Tuesday, February 18. Respectfully, 1