False: “Proposition 1 is a small change in the Charter.”
True: This represents small change with enormous consequences effectively removing a prohibition on changing County Council districts by initiative. This restriction originally placed in the proposed Charter by the Freeholders, and passed by voters in 2005 was retained in the revised Charter proposed by the Charter Review Commission, and passed by voters in 2012 granting each citizen the right to vote for “all council positions.”
False: “Government of the people, by the people, for the people.”
True: The original Charter specifically excluded redistricting from the initiative process allowing greater transparency, and allowing citizens input throughout; from recognition of who the proponents were, to viewing the initial draft, and initiating changes throughout the public hearing process. This attempt brings the word “gerrymandering” to mind.
False: “Changes can only be made every 10 years.”
True: Contrary to the incomplete Pro Statement in the Voter’s Pamphlet that Charter Review Commissions can only be held every ten years the next one must be held in 2020, only 7 years from now, and can thereafter be called as often as every other year.
[Section 9.20 – Election Procedures and Period of Office
(1) The County Council shall cause an election of a CRC in 2020 and at least every ten (10) years thereafter provided that the CRC election is held in an even numbered year.]
The reason for this time-table was to prevent the election for CRC occurring in a low voter turn-out year enabling any group from packing the CRC with “their people.” The CRC discussed this. This provision is no accident. It’s very inception was to safeguard citizens from the kind of back-door special-interest politicking exhibited now.
False: “There is nothing more or less democratic, or secretive about an initiative than a Charter Commission.”
True: This was originally initiated by a small group of people in secret, and submitted in an effort to redistrict the county “their” way. This is in direct contrast with the CRC process which allows for full transparency.
Reject Proposition 1.
by Michael (MJ) Johnson
Your point about 9.20 needs some illumination. The original version (the 2005 version before the changes last year to both the verbiage and the Section number) read:
Section 8.20 – Election Procedures and Period of Office
(1) Five (5) years after adoption of this Charter and at least every ten (10) years thereafter, the Legislative Body shall cause an election of a CRC.
So without the 2012 changes we would already be in the period where CRCs could be called every other year.
As I recall the three charter admendments were: changing the council from six to three, changing the administrator to a manager, and reinforcing open meetings. I suspect very few voters knew about this other change to the charter, because the only way to have known was to read the actual charter line-by-line and not just the description in the voter pamphlet. It certainly wasn’t explained why this change was deemed necessary. Transparent?
Also, the “Gerrymandering” comment is highly inaccurate since that type of redistricting is not subject to a vote by the people, whereas Prop 1, if passed, would require a vote by the people.
The 2005 charter expressly prohibited the change of legislative districts by public initiative.
Section 5.21 – Initiative – Limitations
(1) No initiative shall contain more than one (1) issue.
(2) No initiative proposal requiring the expenditure of additional funds for an existing activity or of any funds for a new activity or purpose shall be filed unless provisions are specifically made therein for new or additional sources of revenue which may thereby be required.
(3) Redistricting of the Legislative districts shall not be subject to the initiative process.
The 2012 amendments left this restriction in place, but referred to districts as “residency districts” because that’s what the 2012 turned legislative districts into. The result is exactly the same.
So, from the start, the public never had the right to change legislative districts by initiative, even though under Article Eight, as you quote, any other provision could be amended by public initiative. And it’s still true: any other provision of the current Charter can be amended by public initiative.
Proposition 1 seeks to overturn the policy adopted by both the Freeholders in 2005 and the Charter Review Commission in 2012, Seeking to make it appear as though the Charter Review Commission had deleted a right created by the Freeholders is manifestly false.
When I read the old Section 8.20 and compare it to the new Section 9.20, it’s clear the we the voters lost the right to ask the legislative body (the County Council) to convene a review commission between 2014 and 2020. Without that right, the electorate is left with no option but to either accept the status quo or to vote to assume the authority to change every part of the charter itself.
You have the right to look at it any way you wish James.
The effect of the word-changes in the proposition would be to remove from the Charter a prohibition on changing County Council districts by initiative. This restriction was originally placed in the Charter proposed by the Freeholders and PASSED BY VOTERS in 2005. It was retained in the revised Charter proposed by the Charter Review Commission and PASSED BY THE VOTERS in 2012.
Which part of this do you not understand?
Under the prior 8.20 the districts could be changed by a review commission and vote well before 2020. That was lost by the change to the charter and the change was not explained to the voters. You can yell all you wish but it won’t change the clear differences in the language. The electorate lost the right, via commission and vote, to review and/or change the districting until 2020, so they have three options: wait until 2020, place and pass a charter amendment to restore the original language of 8.20 – which will have to wait until at least next year, or pass Prop 1 and assume that right themselves.
The bottom line is that any change would require the vote of the people of the County. What is wrong with that? Do we not trust our citizens?
Yes, I trust an informed electorate. That’s why I feel it’s valuable to have such venues as this so that the public can review the facts as presented. Understand (again) that the way the charter currently reads would also require a vote of the people on the subject too… again.
In regards to this issue I can’t remember being confused in either the vote of 05, or 2012. What is obvious, however, is that the issue now before us has been clouded with misrepresentation, and vague insinuation by the proponents since its inception in the early spring of this year.
The bottom line is that the free exchange of opinion helps to clarify, and ultimately increase wisdom on matters of great importance to us all. Please vote, and please reject Prop. 1.
I’m with Mr. Johnson here.
Both the CRC and public initiatives require a vote. But that isn’t the crucial aspect. Only the CRC allows open public discussion of what goes INTO the proposition. The so- called “public” initiative doesn’t start with the public, it starts with a small group and a private agenda, and the rest of the process is “take it or leave it.” To pretend that the word “public” as applied to the public at large, and “public” as applied to a self selected small group operating privately to generate a proposal mean the same thing is to attempt to dupe the public at large. Fortunately, the public can figure out this shell game, and vote against this misrepresented proposal.