Laserfiche WebLink
442 <br /> <br />determine locations. He said it is expensive to keep the mall up. He said he would <br />support having those that were there first having the first say and increasing the cost for <br />cafes and vendors. He said this does create below market space, but not much. He said <br />the best spaces should cost more. <br /> <br />REPORT: INFORMATIONAL STATEMENT RE: ELECTED SCHOOL BOARD <br />REFERENDUM <br /> <br /> Mr. Brown said State law provides that Council may distribute and/or publish a <br />neutral statement about the upcoming referendum on whether to move to an elected <br />school board. He said four versions have been presented and he thinks all four are factual <br />and accurate. He said Alternatives A and B provide additional information. He asked <br />that Council also give direction about when to publish the statement. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said he has no problem with the original statement, and said that <br />Alternative B adds more. He said his preference would be the original statement, but he <br />could support Alternative B as well. <br /> <br />Ms. Hamilton said she thinks Alternative B is best in terms of explanation. <br /> <br /> Dr. Brown said the City is required by State law to move forward with an at large <br />school board. He said Council has the ability to request a legislative change that would <br />allow a ward or mixture of ward and at large. He said it is his intention, if the <br />referendum passes, to hold a public hearing and discussion and proceed, if desired, with a <br />legislative request for a mixed ward and at large board. He said he suggested Alternative <br />B, which adds that General Assembly approval would be needed for a school board by <br />ward. He said he supports Alternative B. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch made a motion to approve Alternative B and Ms. Hamilton seconded <br />the motion. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati advocated against Alternative B as he said it is absolutely clear and <br />factual that school board members would be elected at large in May if the referendum <br />passes and that this will have to be reviewed by the Department of Justice. He said <br />entertaining the issue of election by ward is confusing because it is not material and tries <br />to state a fact that is not a fact. He said the possibility that the Council will petition the <br />State legislature for this change is a big might. He said that when Council adopts an <br />ordinance do not include language that we could seek additional legislation in the future. <br />He said we all know we cannot have a change to a ward election made in time for the <br />May election. He said for those reasons he thinks we ought not mention at all facts that <br />are not facts and only cloud the issue <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling said that in actuality is not a fact that state law requires us to have at <br />large elections, not even close to being a fact. He said we had a discussion and it is his <br />opinion and the opinion of several other legal counsel whom he has consulted, including <br />one the City has hired, that the City could do one of three things. One, the City could go <br />forward with an at large system, which as we all know from reading the front page of the <br />Department of Justice web site is one of the things the Department of Justice does not <br />like very much because it is disenfranchising to minority voters. He said we have had a <br />system in this community for many years, since 1948, of geographic representation which <br />translates to racial representation that is important in this community which is why we <br />have done it for so long. Two, he said he thinks the choice we could make instead of <br />going forward and just saying this is our interpretation of state law, which was told to us <br />very clearly, is that we have the option to interpret it the other way and see where the <br />chips fall. He said we were told at the time that it is highly unlikely that someone would <br />challenge us, but if they did he thinks it would be very unlikely they would be successful. <br />Third, we could move forward at this point with the understanding that state law, as has <br />been referenced from this dais, however with the caveat that this Council finds at large <br />elections, as does the Department of Justice and all prosecutions under the voting rights <br />act in covered states in the south, to be exclusionary of some members of the population <br />and that is certainly not the direction or the message this Council wants to send to the <br />community, that we do not value you. He said he thinks that is exactly why this Council <br /> <br /> <br />