Laserfiche WebLink
c. ✓o!,bLAJ-ca, <br />CenturyLink Webmail <br />Page 1 of <br />denali2010@q.com <br />+ Font Size - <br />i"\ <br />Charter amendmenrt <br />From : Caroline Dahl <denali2010@q.com> <br />Subject : Charter amendmenrt <br />To : Karen E. Marty <kmarty@martylawfirm.com> <br />Cc : Connie Sutherland <clsutherland@gmail.com>, Caroline Dahl <denali2010@q.com> <br />Dear Karen, <br />Fri, Jun 20, 2014 01:47 PM <br />Below are the concerns of the Commissioners for the Ward amendment that Chair Sutherland sent you on Wednesday: <br />Commission Craig Johnson: My concerns are based on time we are condensing this decision down to. We haven't done a great deal of <br />research other than Shawn and your efforts. While I indeed appreciate the efforts, all I heard from Shawn were the reasons for the change <br />to wards. <br />• How the question is posed on the ballot if we go through with this? It needs to be dearly not leaning either way in its <br />wording. No opinions or descriptive lead ins. <br />• <br />• Can we do a hybrid of 2 wards and 2 at- large? <br />• <br />• What if no one runs in an area? What's the fallback? <br />• Can we have all residents vote on all wards? Versus only vote for those in specific wards? <br />• <br />Are we "touching" on any legal issues or statutes with this amendment? Had anything changed in statutes since Blaine <br />and St Paul added theirs? <br />Commission Marg Penn suggested a situation where the ward rep could represent a ward yet have all voters outside the said <br />ward to be able to vote for them. <br />Commission Daryl Bartch: Have the amendment worded as it will appear on the ballot. <br />Discussion of suggested ballot wording to send to Council. <br />Caroline Dahl Pro Tem <br />http://webmail.q.com/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=143627 6/25/2C <br />