By Margie Doyle
San Juan County Council members Rich Peterson and Marc Forlenza have introduced the first draft of a proposed Ordinance and two draft Propositions that would modify the Charter if approved by the voters in an election this November, 2013.
In documents provided to the Council, the legislators wrote: ” This action is in response to Council approval of this effort and our assignment to it during our meeting of February 26, 2013.”
If approved through Council processes, the Ordinance would place two Propositions before the voters. “The first would increase the residency districts from three to five, and the second, contingent upon the approval of the first, would change the residency districts to voting districts, and change the election process for Council members from Countywide to by district,” according to the draft ordinance presented.
It reads:
Proposition No. 1 (amendment no. 5)
Shall the County Charter be amended to increase the County Council from three (3) members, each residing in a separate Residency District and nominated and elected countywide to five (5) members, each residing in a separate Residency District and nominated and elected countywide?
Proposition No 2 (amendment no. 6)
Shall the County Charter be further amended to change the method of election for the five (5) members (conditional upon the approval of Proposition No. 1) to be elected by voters from within their district rather than countywide, and shall Charter references to “Residency Districts” other than in an historical context be changed to “Districts”?
“To move forward, these drafts would need to be reviewed by the Prosecuting Attorney’s office, modified if necessary, scheduled for the required first two touches and a public hearing on or before May 7, 2013. ”
Background
Contained in the draft ordinance is this background:
- On November 8, 2005, San Juan County voters approved the basic Home Rule Charter submitted by the elected Board of Freeholders, and
- On November 8, 2005, San Juan County voters also approved the First Amendment to the Charter, which created six voting districts, and
- On November 6, 2012, San Juan County voters approved the Second Amendment to the Charter which reduced the number of districts to three, made them Residency Districts, reduced the number of Council members to three, changed voting to countywide rather than by district, established “full time” salaries for Council members, and provided for a transition plan and other modifications, and
- On November 6, 2012, San Juan County voters also approved the Third Amendment to the Charter, which changed the status of the County Administrator to County Manager and provided for executive authority to rest with the County Council, and
- On November 6, 2012, San Juan County voters also approved the Fourth Amendment to the Charter which insured County Council adherence to the Open Public Meetings Act requirements, and
- During Charter Review Commission deliberations in 2012 regarding changing the number of districts, the number five was mentioned but given little consideration, and was not brought forward for voter consideration, and
- During Charter Review Commission deliberations regarding changing the voting method of County Council members from by district to countywide, little consideration was given to recommending continuing to have the voters elect the County Council members by district, as had been provided for in the Second Amendment to the Charter, and this option was not brought forward for voter consideration, and
- Following the approval of the Second Amendment to the Charter on November 6, 2012, a legal challenge was filed to question the Constitutional legality of the Amendment and that challenge is now in the appeal process, and
- The County Council conducted a duly advertised public hearing and has received public testimony.
If, after the process, the Council agrees to the ordinance, the proposed charter amendments will then be put before the voters to decide in the election of November 2013.
The ordinance authors acknowledge that “The Propositions will need to provide all of the information necessary in order to meet legal requirements, provide for a transition plan, and provide a clear explanation of what results would be achieved by voter approval.” In further documentation to the Council, they provided that information.
Peterson and Forlenza requested that draft propositions be placed on the Council’s March 26th agenda for a first touch, and the Council did so.
Unbelievable. First they campaigned against the 2012 Charter Proposals in conflict with their oath of office to uphold the charter and its review process. Then they participate in a law suit against the county, attempting to throw out the vote of the citizens and have the court invalidate the 2012 Charter Proposals. Now they are going to spend even more public money to propose two more proposals to change the Charter yet again and create unequal voting districts. What is this… I ask, Who is served by making these proposals and keeping the county leadership in turmoil for yet another year?????
It sounds like an embittered “winter council” is poised to deliver a parting shot to the voters of San Juan County. Next Tuesday’s council deliberations should be interesting indeed.
I agree – I am APPALLED by this measure. Note that the two council members who proposed this are not running for election!!! At the very least, let’s give it some time and revisit this when the next charter review comes around…
Wow. Don’t these guys get it? We already had a very public process, reviewed by the courts even, and a voter approved charter change. This is democracy. Just because these guys can waste Council time and taxpayer money, just because the outcome was something they don’t like, doesn’t mean they should.
Oh, dear. How stupid of me. I thought the voters had already looked into this at length. Somehow I had gotten the mistaken impression that I had voted on this already.
You either lost big or didn’t run. Finish up your terms of office and go home. Lame ducks making foolish quacking noises.
Outrageous! Very disrespecful of the voters’ decision. Like Bill Watson, I was on the CRC and I endorsed the recent changes. We went through a very meticulous process and considered 5 equal districts, which we rejected because they would lump together parts of the county which were too dissimilar.
Please do not lump “them” all together. I believe that Rich Peterson and Marc Forlenza introduced the proposal. The other four council members have not yet indicated whether they favor or oppose the change. Also, changes to the Charter must be approved by the voters. This could go on indefinitely, wasting time and money.
There’s an old saying, “When you don’t like the game, change the rules.” It sounds like that’s what Peterson and Florenza are up too. Given that they’re both about to lose their seats on Council, they now are more
intrested in their own job security, rather than honoring the will of the people that spoke in our November election. Not to mention the cost and burden this puts on our county. Ugghh!