Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 3- Time lines. The Clerk told us that we could collect signatures a 3rd time during the time the <br /> clerk was counting the second set of signatures. We instructed volunteers to collect <br /> signatures for an additional 10 days. Corporation counsel told us that the Clerk could not <br /> accept more signatures, because it was not stated in the Charter that signatures could be <br /> collected a 3rd time. We collected almost 1,700 signatures during this time which were not <br /> added to the final count., These extra signatures were crucial to the citizens' effort because <br /> so many signatures had been invalidated. We did not understand the criteria for signature <br /> verification until after we received the results of the first count. <br /> <br /> 4- The criteria for verifying signatures. We included optional information on the petitions, such <br /> as the birthdate and last four digits of the social security numbers to help qualify voter's <br /> signatures. 2,078 signatures were found invalid because electors did not know their <br /> residence address or their residence address did not match the general register. 508 <br /> signatures were invalidated because the year, 2006 was omitted, according to the <br /> Certificate of Insufficiency, "Persons who did not provide the date of signing, or provided an <br /> incomplete date, had their signatures invalidated." See attached-Results from the Certificate <br /> of Sufficiency. <br /> <br /> 5- Confusion over when notices occurred. <br /> <br /> 6- Dispute over the ballot summary- The Petitioner's committee submitted an argument in <br /> favor, which was rejected because it was not unbiased. <br /> <br /> 7- Dispute over the ballot question and ballot title- The Petitioner's committee submitted our <br /> preferred language, which was rejected. On the day that the ballot language was due at <br /> 5:00 pm to meet State for the ballot deadline, we received the ballot language and ballot <br /> title, which deleted the "purpose clause" of the ordinance at 4:30 pm and did not use 2% in <br /> the title. This would mean that 2% of property taxes could be directed for any purpose. <br /> There was no recourse or we would have missed the ballot deadline. <br /> <br /> 8- The Clerk found that the signatures were insufficient. The committee needed 4,846 <br /> signatures, we collected 8,782 signatures, of which 4, 728 were found to be invalid and <br /> 3,982 were valid. The Council was asked to grant a certificate of sufficiency, which they did. <br /> Council Chair introduced a Bill to set aside 2% of the property taxes, but it was unclear what <br /> would happen if the bill failed or was vetoed by the Mayor. The Petitioner's committee <br /> decided that the matter should go on the ballot, to let the votes decide. <br /> 9- The council asked the Save Our Lands Committee and the League of Women Voters to <br /> look at the charter. <br /> <br /> The League of Women Voters has included a Dispute Resolution panel in their version of the <br /> Charter. The Save Our Lands Citizen's Committee asks that you include the Dispute Resolution <br /> Panel in the legislation. This will ensure that the both the County and the Petitioner's committee <br /> have equal consideration with this watchdog entity. If you would like documentation of the above <br /> issues, please contact: Debbie Hecht 989-3222 or hecht.deb(c)gmail.com <br /> <br /> League Committee members: Sue Dursin, Marian Wilkins and Debbie Hecht <br />