Chair Doty Correspondence - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 3 Secondly, it would make more sense to seperate by subdivisions the procedure for 365 days or less than 365 days. Thus , the second to the last sentence in subdivision 1 would be removed from this section, or this subdivision. Subdivision 2 should then read in a case of vacancy whether it remains less than 365 days in the unexpired term, the Council shall by majority vote appoint a successor to serve for the remainder of the set term. If the new language is substituted for the present subdivision 2, then the present subdivision 2 is unnecessary since it is covered by the new language. Apparently the intent is to have subdivision 3 which would talk about a vacancy occurring within 45 days of a regular election. If that occurred one of two things makes more sense for the City Council . One is to implement subdivision 2 and encourage somebody to file for office as provided for under section 4.02, since there will be sufficient time for a person to apply for vacancy. The language as it exists know would be an expensive process for the City to get involved with and thus some other strategies should be considered by the Charter Commission. Chapter 5: INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, AND RECALL Section 5.01 : The opening sentence of this section maybe misleading to the public. Better language is used in the Model Charter and I think it would be in the best interest of the community to utilize that language. Section 5.02: In reading the League's Model Charter it appears that a deletion has been made on the signer's right to withdraw his name from a petition. It would be in the best interest of the public and of the Charter to provide that language or similiar language. o, 4/ Section 5.03: There is some confusion over what is exactly meant in the first sentence. It would be my understanding in reading the League's document that the petition should be complete at the time of filing. It appears in the Commission's Initial Draft that there is an additional 30 days provided to the petitioners to complete the document. Secondly, the five day period maybe insufficient time to evaluate and verify the petition signatures depending on the length and thus a longer time period should be provided. The percentages for initiative and referendum should be increased to that of the percentage of the recall . In reading the League 's comments on this section it would seem that the process as you provide for would be much similiar for the public to do then what is really intented. The next problem within this section that the Clerk is allowed five additional days to report to the City Council on the sufficiency of the petition. This is confusing if the requirement is to have that done that in the first place in the initial time allotment. It doesn't appear to be a need for these additional days. Finally, in the Charter Commission's Draft it says the Council has 14 days upon which to act or determine the sufficiency of the petition. Under the League's they have a requirement to do that immediately. The question that would be raised is , "What is the reason for the additional 14 days". Section 5.04: Is consistent with League's language.