Laserfiche WebLink
ON COUNCIL. MS. GLEASDN FURTHER COMMENTED THAT BEFORE SHE WOULD <br />PROPOSE A CHANGE IN THE ELECTION SYSTEM FOR COUNCIL, SHE WOULD <br />NEED A VERY DECISIVE REQUEST FROM CITIZENS. Ms. GLEASON EXPRESSED <br />THAT NUMERICALLY THE VOTE DN NOVEMBER 3RD DID NOT REPRESENT AN <br />OVERWHELMING CITIZENS' REQUEST FOR CHANGE. MS. GLEASDN STATED SHE <br />SUPPDRTED HAVING THE ELECTION ON THE BALLOT IN MAY AND AGREED WITH <br />MR. CDNDVER'S SUGGESTION DF A TWD-THIRDS MAJORITY, BUT SUGGESTED <br />HAVING A MINIMUM NUMBER OF VOTES. <br /> <br /> DR. HALL COMMENTED DN THE HISTORY DF THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE <br />TO STUDY CDUNC!L CHANGES, HE FURTHER SUPPORTED MS. GLEASON'S <br />CDMMENT THAT THE VOTE DN THE REFERENDUM SHOULD HAVE BEEN MDRE <br />DECISIVE. DR. HALL FURTH:ER INDICATED THAT HE HAD BEEN QUOTED IN <br />THE NEWSPAPER ~S STATING HE WAS AGAINST THE MIXED WARD/AT LERGE <br /> <br /> PLAN, WHEN IN FACT, HE HAD STATED HE WOULD STUDY THE ISSUE. HE <br /> REITERATED THAT THE REFERENDUM WAS NDT A RACIAL DR INCOME-LEVEL <br /> ISSUE, BUT A CONCERN ABOUT UNFAIR REPRESENTATION. HE CONCLUDED <br /> <br /> HIS REMARKS BY STATING THAT THE REFERENDUM HAS BEEN BEFORE THE <br /> PUBLIC AND THE COUNCIL SHOUD MOVE FDRWARD. <br /> <br /> MR. ALBRO CDMMENDTED THAT COUNCILDRS SHOULD KEEP THEIR SEPARATE <br /> OPINIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY SHDULD HAVE A MIXED WARD/AT <br /> LARGE SYSTEM TD THEMSELVES, AND ASK INSTEAD, WHETHER THEY SHOULD <br /> MOVE ON THE MAJORITY OPINION EXPRESSED IN THE REFERNDUM VOTE. <br /> <br /> HE FURTHER COMMENTED, THAT COUNCIL RECOGNIZED THE NEED FOR THE REFER- <br /> ENDU. M AND THEREFDRE, SHOULD PAY ATTENTION TO THE RESULTS. MR. <br /> ALBRD STATED THAT HE WAS SURPRI'SED BY THE BROAD SUPPORT FOR THE <br /> REFERENDUM IN THE CITY. BASED ON THIS BROAD SUPPDRT., MR. ALBRD <br /> FELT THE ISSUE WAS SOMETHING THE PEDPLE WANTED AND COUNCIL SHOULD <br /> PUT IN EFFECT. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE CDUNClL WOULD NEVER HAVE <br /> A '' PERFECT REFERENDUM'' DN THIS ISSUE. MR. ALBRD CONCLUDED BY <br /> <br /> STATING HE IS STRONGLY OPPOSED TD PUTTING THE REFERNDUM ON THE MAY <br /> BALLOT, SINCE IT WOULD DVERSHADOW THE ELECTION AND BECDME THE MAJOR <br /> ISSUE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT HE WDULD VOTE AGAINST THE MOTION <br /> <br /> FOR ANDTHER REFERENDUM, SINCE IT WAS FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG TO PUT IT <br /> BFFORE THE VOTERS A SECOND TIME. <br /> <br /> MR. BUCK COMMENTED THAT IT IS IRONIC THAT SOME PEOPLE HAVE <br /> SUGGESTED THAT THERE IS A HIGH DEGREE OF POLITICAL MOTIVATION IN <br /> HIS AND OTHER COUNCILOR'S DECISIONS REGARDING THE REFERENDUM. HE <br /> INDICATED THAT IF IT WERE A MATTER DF APRTY POLITICS, OR POLITICAL <br /> AMBITION, AND NOT A MATTER OF BELIEVING WHAT IS BEST FOR THE COM- <br /> MUNITY, HE WOULD SUPPORT MR. ALBRD'S CONTENTIONS. MR. BUCK <br /> FURTHER STATED THAT THE CDUNCIL SHOULD REPRESENT THE ENTIRE COM- <br /> MUNITY AND NOT SPECIAL INTEREST, SPECIFIC WARDS OR SECTORS, WHICH <br /> ARE THE FUNDAMENTAL REASONS FOR HIS OPPDSITIDN TO THE MIXED WARD/ <br /> AT LARGE PLAN. MR. BUCK INDICATED THAT THE REFERENDUM MAY DOMINATE <br /> THE MAY ELECTION, BUT THAT IN HIS OPINION, NOTHING CDULD BE MORE <br /> IMPORTANT SINCE IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE. MR. BUCK ADDRESSED <br /> CONCERNS REGARDING THE $3,000 APPROPRIATION FOR THE BROCHURES <br /> AND EXPLAINED THAT HE FELT THE EXPENDITURE WOULD BE JUSTUFIED <br /> AGAIN FOR SUCH AN IMPDRTANT DECISION. HE FURTHER QUESTIDNED THE <br /> <br /> <br />