HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0088.044 1998-2000 O O
TESTIMONY OF JUDITH GRAHAM
March 5, 1999
Planning Committee
I would like to come again and express to the Council, as a
plaintiff familiar with this matter, an analysis of the
Court's order. I know that some Councilmembers are concerned
about whether to ratify the bill or whether to make some
changes in response to public input.
Actually, now that the Council is beginning with draft four
you have no choice except to ratify. Let's look at the Court
order to see why:
RECEIVED "Bill 250 (Draft 4) shall be referred back to the County
Council for ratification. Bill 250 (Draft 4) shall be
B A1° BY "form" atted in the Ramsayer format to show changes from
Dote 3154 County Counci existing code. Bill 250 shall become void on
l
p_pc, September 1, 1999, unless ratified.
This bill is referred back only for ratification purposes.
The Corporation Counsel had requested such an option in
their legal papers. The Court didn't refer Bill 250 back to
do anything else except ratify.
However, obviously ratification would not take eight months
from the December 1998 decision. And the Court allowed until
September 1999 for the Council to handle the matter. So, the
Court was creating another option, too. That option was
spelled out in court at a clarification hearing on January
6, 1999.
I believe the County Council has not been provided with the
transcript of that hearing. But here are some excerpts of
the judge's words:
the Court clarifies then that Draft 4, forward, should
be ratified or - -if this is to be considered a
clarification too. Pursuant to your rules of procedure
and the Sunshine Law, the Council may just start with
Draft 8 [see below].
So I'm saying if you want to continue the process, then
you begin with Draft 4, forward, or whatever the
process would be but there's no prohibition, to clarify
my ruling, the Council starting beginning with Draft 8,
and a new Council are going through that new process in
adopting a bill.
.Certainly, as another process, couldn't the Council
just now introduce Draft 8 as a first Bill for an Act- -
just start from Draft 8. O @. 419 Comm. No. Q O 7
File No. µcc /Zm
Presented p c.
Ref. To:
Ref. DatetR tat E
0 0
...But all I'm asking you is if the County can state- -
rather than ratify from Draft 4, we'll just move to
have draft 8 introduced as a new bill. And it will
start the process basically with Draft 8, but that not
being the ratifying process.
This Order does not prohibit as a separate ordinance,
that an ordinance such as draft - -a bill such as Draft 8
be introduced in the Council and the Council start anew
on that bill as a new bill; not as ratification....1
say "new," following the proper procedure in enacting a
bill.
.But isn't that how a bill originates though, Mr.
Rothstein? That they had the foresight to start off
with Draft 8. then Draft 8 would be open to public
hearing at the outset?
I just want to make clear though, this Order does not
preclude the County Council from adopting any other
ordinance. And that's what I want to make clear.
The Court has also left the current zoning code in place
until September to avoid disruption to the community.
Certainly, I thought of that, frankly, and my decision
to allow the Council until September 1st to ratify, I
took into consideration that until September 1st as my
order points out, Counsel [Wurdeman], that it is not
void. It becomes void September 1st.
I hope this clarifies the matter for youeand h att-t'l°d