2004-07-19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

17 ORDINANCE: "AN ORDINANCE DECLARING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2210 NORTH BERKSHIRE ROAD TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE" (carried over) PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE: MOVING COUNCIL ELECTIONS TO NOVEMBER (2nd reading) The public hearing was opened. Mr. Charles Weber, 601 Locust Avenue, spoke against moving the elections to November of 2005. He said the decision should be delayed until the findings of the Elections Study Task Force have been released. He said if Council does act now, the elections should be moved to 2007. He said summer public hearings are poorly attended. He said he is alarmed at the budget trends and has lost confidence in the Democrats' ability to rein in taxes. He said delaying the move until 2007 gets Mr. Schilling through a another budget cycle. Ms. Anne Reinicke, 917 Rockcreek Road, said she hopes the positive tone of the new Council continues. She said she supports moving Council elections to November beginning in 2007. She said moving the elections in 2005 will be looked on as forcing out the lone Republican. She said Council should not do this to someone who does not want it to happen to them. Mr. Peter Kleeman, 407 Hedge Street, opposed moving the elections to November because he believes it will diminish community involvement. He said if increasing voter turnout is the goal, the elections should be moved to coincide with national elections. Mr. Kleeman said that having a great number of people participate in the elections will be detrimental to the people who follow Council issues. He said to have more meaningful Council elections more contact with the public, such as through forums, should be held. Mr. Dave Phillips asked Council not to move the elections to November at this time. He said it may be a good efficient move in the future, but Council should not move too quickly. He said there may be a more comprehensive solution with the Elections Study Task Force. Ms. Cheri Lewis said she served on the Electoral Board for nine years and is pleased Council is taking up this issue. She said she feels there are three issues in moving the elections: 1) What is lost - focus on city only issues and shortening of terms of two Councilors who were not aware of this when they ran for office. She suggested the move be effective in November of 2007 2) What is conserved - a savings of at least $32,000, and the effort and general energy of election officials. She noted that fall is generally regarded by the public as election time. 3) What is gained - more interest and participation, increased voter turnout, and a more politically and culturally diverse voter population. As there were no further speakers, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Craig Brown, City Attorney, explained that what is before Council is an ordinance which would move the Council elections to November in 2005. He said under this ordinance, the terms of all five Councilors would be shortened by six months. He said once an ordinance is approved, it must be submitted to the Justice Department, with final review by the Attorney General. Responding to a question from Mr. Caravati, Mr. Brown said that the Attorney General has 60 days to make a determination, but this may be extended if questions are raised. Responding to a question from Ms. Hamilton, Mr. Brown said that Council has the discretion to move the elections to November of 2007 which would result in there being one more election in May of 2006. In that situation, he said that the terms of only the three Councilors elected in May of 2004 would have their terms shortened by six months.