New Petition part 2

[oldetowne]

I see your point but have two comments. First, the charter has a pretty short fuse for these referenda. Second, after all of the whining by the pro-lights people about how much the WTXA referendum is costing, it would be difficult to turn around and incur the same expense again when it could be avoided. But, having said that, I guess the current Council hasn't really been killing itself trying to save taxpayer dollars now, has it.

[standish]

I'll have to check the timeline, but, I think they could wait 'til the November election and still comply with the Charter. If so, they'd avoid the additional expense and not confuse the issues.

[tooold]

Is this the "dumbing down" that has been spoken about? What is the concern with reading the referendum question(s) and voting on them?

The current one is stated improperly, as most agree, and the one proposed should not be delayed due to this.

[oldetowne]

The charter in 312 says that the Council can send it to a referendum not more than 90 days after certification, provided that if a general election is already scheduled to occur within 6 months of certification (but not less than 60 days), they can put it on that ballot.

That's why the WTXA petitions last year could have been put on the November 2004 ballot at no expense.

That's also why this petition, if it goes to referendum, could NOT be postponed until November 2005 (6 months from certification expires in late September).

If the Council enacts the ordinance and there is a challenge petition, then THAT referendum has to be within between 30 and 45 days as well, unless a regular election is scheduled for between 60 and 120 days (and it's not).

But since you were on Charter Revision, I'd defer to your interpretation - I am just trying to read the words.

[standish]

Six months from the March certification puts it into September. You're right. The only way to avoid additional expense is to piggyback with the May referendum. Believe it or not, I haven't memorized the Charter. I remembered that there was a provision for a regularly scheduled election, but, did not remember the six month limitation. Perhaps the next Charter Revision Commission will consider extending that timeline to "within the current Calendar Year", given the evolving expense for a referendum.

[oldetowne]

Referenda generated by the public will likely be few and far between. I think the current system is fine - it would be obnoxious to the public to postpone until November a referendum on a petition certified in January. I think the issue of when a referendum can be held (and regarding what subject matter - e.g., the budget or not) is considerably more important than whether it's 30, 60, 90 or 120 days later.

[standish]

I guess if we can save $20,000 (today's dollars) by going 11 months at the extreme, instead of 6, I'd be in favor. In this particular instance, we'd extend the referendum to 8 rather than 6...

[oldetowne]

True. There is also the alternative of having the referendum be held at one location - frankly it's a crime to have 8 to 10 people sitting out at 10 different polling places for 16 hours - at taxpayer expense - like we did last summer for the 1500+/- people who voted. That worked out to about $10 per vote.

[standish]

I thought last summer's referendum was only held in one location, the Pitkin Community Center at Greenfield School, in order to save money?

[Dr.Ken Sokolowski]

oldetowne and leigh, you guys seem to be the Charter experts here (even if you haven't memorized it yet).

Regardless, I would like some help in understanding some finer points of the Charter.

Considering the ways in which the PZC-bypass petition may be handled by Council (adoption, on 4/4/2005, or denial with deferral to the public in referendum) how could the particulars of the Charter Sec.309 and Sec.312 be applied by those taking opposing positions in each scenario (acceptance -v- denial/referendum)?

For example, if the Council adopts the ordinance embodied in the petition, will the opposition (those for the restoration of the Town's adherance to the Zoning Reg's) have only 10 days to respond (with its own, countering petition drive) as if this had been an action initiated by the Council?

Or, for example, if (due to Council's denial of the ordinance embodied in the petition - to bypass the the Zoning Reg's) the resulting referendum is passed by the requisite majority (10% of electors), is there any comparable limitation (e.g. 10 days) during which the opposition must offer a counterbalancing ordinance in a new, good petition?

Sec. 309 speaks of overriding an ordinance adopted by Council as requiring a majority of 5% of the electors, whereas, Sec. 312 speaks of 10% being required to override an initiative of electors. Are these compatible or contradictory?

[oldetowne]

As usual, Leigh, you are correct. I was actually thinking about a different election. Wonder what the actual cost of the one-polling place option is?

Syzygy - interesting and on-point.

[oldetowne]

Dr. Ken asked: For example, if the Council adopts the ordinance embodied in the petition, will the opposition (those for the restoration of the Town's adherance to the Zoning Reg's) have only 10 days to respond (with its own, countering petition drive) as if this had been an action initiated by the Council? I think it's now 12 days, but, yes, Section 309 would allow voters to circulate petitions to force a referendum because the ordinance would have been adopted by the Town Council. Remember the Elite Beverage tax abatement?

Or, for example, if (due to Council's denial of the ordinance embodied in the petition - to bypass the the Zoning Reg's) the resulting referendum is passed by the requisite majority (10% of electors), is there any comparable limitation (e.g. 10 days) during which the opposition must offer a counterbalancing ordinance in a new, good petition? No time limit. I would say that the way to "undo" that ordinance if approved by more than 10% of the voters at a referendum would be to use Section 312 and petition for the Council to adopt an ordinance repealing the one which had just been approved. Section 312 says that ordinances adopted as a result of the initiative petition may only be amended or repealed by a referendum.

Sec. 309 speaks of overriding an ordinance adopted by Council as requiring a majority of 5% of the electors, whereas, Sec. 312 speaks of 10% being required to override an initiative of electors. Are these compatible or contradictory? They are contradictory.

[LouS]

For the sake of arguement, please orate upon the actual impact that this 2nd referendum question may have, as it gives council the power to circumvent ZBA on town property. Again, to my knowledge there would still be town engineering and safety, P&Z input and inland wetland jurisdiction.

No one has spoken about these items, but everyone is stating that the sky will fall. Again, has anyone that is against this looked to Newington, as they apparently have been under these assumptions for a bit?

After 10 years of trying to use a process that is non-conducive to this initiative, the outcome we are looking for is Lights on Cottone.

Any input into what this would unleash would help this discussion greatly.

[oldetowne]

I think the answer is simple. The Town Council will be able to take P&Z and ZBA out of the loop. The zoning regulations will not apply to town property. Wetlands jurisdiction cannot be eliminated in the same way, so that commission's approval will continue to be required.

But as to your assertion, or at least what I think your tortured language and sentence structure (I am reminded of one of the characters in that old show "In Living Color") is getting at, is that "someone" has been trying to get lights on Cottone Field for ten years and the "process" has prevented that.

Has any application ever been made to P&Z or ZBA? Has an actual lighting plan ever been submitted to the Council, the Board of Ed, P&Z or ZBA? Has an application for a variance from the existing regulations been submitted to the ZBA? Has a proposed amendment to the new zoning regulations been drafted for review by town staff and P&Z? Has the Council asked the manager to add the lights to her capital improvement budget for the next year? Has any single identifiable concrete step been taken to get this beyond the talking stage and into the "process" which you claim has failed so miserably?

I don't think ANY of those things has occurred. Instead, high school kids and kind hearted friends of John Miller circulated petitions, telling voters that "it's for the lights". It may well be "for the lights", but it shows yet another example of working outside of the processes and procedures that everyone else - citizen and business alike - has to follow so that a quick fix can be achieved without regard to the consequences.

[LouS]

I guess the time has come for everyone to make their position known.

I do not see the dire predictions that some state and I look forward to the next part of the process to unfold.