http://www.freep.com/article/2009091...l-by-districts
Printable View
Gee I wonder why.....
Shocking, truly...
Doesn't every member other than KC live within 3 blocks of one another in Rosedale Park? I remember reading this somewhere...
There's no need to wonder. The reason is in the article. The law department and RAD found the language "fatally flawed."Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroit Stylin
Page 2 of this document shows where the 2009 council candidates live. I believe the orange people are the incumbents [[though I see only 5. Didn't 6 run?)
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/assets/PDF/CD66250724.PDF
One more reason I'm thankful I'm a Detroit resident for only 11 more days!
Why do people try this stuff without getting legal review?
From 3-6 tomorrow afternoon there will be a panel discussion at Wayne State on the pros/cons of the current system and it's possible replacement.
http://events.wayne.edu/law/view/181.../?mv=1&dv=&wv=
I so sick of this city council ! When Engler tried this a few years back Council sued because it didn't come from city residents. Now city residents put it on the ballot and they reject it again !
They claim to be looking out for residents best interests, then they pull this crap !
Changing how City Council is elected would result in changes to other sections of the City Charter. That makes it a revision, not just an amendment, as the language of the petition stated. There were a few other problems as well. It's kind of disappointing that a three term state representative put together such sloppy language.
That being said, Mike Cox will probably clear the langauge. Not clearing the language would be an admission that his office did a half assed job in its first review.
1. Detroiters for City Council by Districts has a legal team that has done a thorough review.
2. There are no other sections of the Charter are being changed by this proposal. I doubt you could do a good job explaining your position, but please try.
3. The Charter Commission would immediately be able to rewrite this language. Essentially Proposal D if just a vote up or down on districts to give the Charter Commission a direction regarding this issue.
Freep quoted that lawyers with the city Law Department and the council’s Research and Analysis Department balked, calling the proposal “fatally flawed,” said David Whitaker, RAD director.
First, Dennis Mazurek, assistant corporation counsel, said the proposal to elect the council by district required a charter revision not a charter amendment, because it affects so many other parts of the charter.
Second, Whitaker said, the proposal’s provision to have the city Election Commission draw the districts is illegal, according to state Home Rule City Act. Only the City Council can draw districts for the council.
If approved by voters, the council by districts proposal would take effect in time for the 2013 election cycle. Under the proposal, seven members would be elected by districts and two others would be elected at-large.
Advocates of the district system turned in more than 38,000 signatures to the City Clerk’s Office in August. Mildred Madison, Detroit League of Women Voters president, and Vince Keenan, executive director of Publius, decried the opinion.
“I am 83 years old. I don’t need anything on my résumé,” Madison said, tearing up. “I really feel that this is really what is going to turn Detroit around and give the citizens access to government.”
The council by districts group is unsure if they will legally challenge the Law Department’s opinion.
The council approved a resolution proposed by Councilwoman Sheila Cockrel to send the proposed language back to the Attorney General’s Office for review.
YES! that statement is true in that city charter. Therefore having proposal D in the November ballot is rediculous. Even if proposal D was in the ballot people would vote HELL NO! bring Detroit into a upside down ward system which it would be 10 times more corrupt then the recent city council by people of Detroit.
WORD FROM THE STREET PROPHET
That is the part on the reason that the Detroit city council got rid of the ward system over 100 years ago. The More laws we make, the more corruption we get.
In Memoriam: Neda Soltani
Maybe they're balking at it because they might have to earn their keep???
Response 1. All parties, even the group turning in petitions, are in agreement that City Council would have to change the language, in order to phrase it properly so that it may be placed on the ballot. So much for a thorough review.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharmaal
Response 2. Section 4-103. Selection of the Council President would have to be changed to reflect the changes because it would effect How the President and President Pro tempore are selected.
Section 4-104. Duties of the Council President. Would more than likely have to change to reflect the responsibilities that would now be given to Council Members as individuals.
Sections 4-109. Investigation and 4-110 Investigative Powers. Would more than likely have to be changed in order to give the individual Council members the ability to investigate and issue subpoenas as individuals as opposed to having to act entirely through the body.
Section 3-101. City Elections. Would need to be changed to address how Council vacancies would now be changed based on the district, as well as, at large.
At least two sections, possibly more than four, would have to be changed. That's not an amendment, that's a revision.
Response 3. If voted on by the public, it can't be amended or repealed for a period of twelve months. So theoretically, if a vacancy occurs on City Council within that time period, there would be mass confusion as to how the vote would take place for a district that has not been established.
The good thing is that it forced the COD attorneys to state exactly what must be done to change to a district system.
Response 2. Section 4-103. Selection of the Council President would have to be changed to reflect the changes because it would effect How the President and President Pro tempore are selected.
WRONG: The Council President and Pro-Tem are currently the top two at-large vote getters. This doesn't change as there are still two at-large council members. The proposal was drafted specifically to not touch those two roles, because as you said, it could get dicey.
The reason this proposal has two at-large seats is to not mess with any other language in the charter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharmaal
Sigh, Here's the whole section.
Sec. 4-103. Selection of council president.
The member of the city council receiving the highest number of votes at the regular city general election shall be president of the city council for the ensuing four [[4) year term, and the member of the city council receiving the next highest number of votes at such election shall be president pro tempore of the city council; and in the absence for any reason of the president and president pro tempore of the city council, or in case either of such offices shall become vacant for any reason, the member of the city council who received the next highest number of votes at such election to such absentee or to the person who held such vacated office, shall be the president or president pro tempore of the city council, as the circumstances of the case may require.
As you can see, the charter language calls for the member of city council receiving the highest number of votes. Depending upon how the districts are drawn, [[Remember, according to state law,the districts have to be drawn by the City Council and not the Election Commission. Yet, another big mistake that was made by the drafters of the proposal.) there is a possibility that one of the members that are being voted in by district could have more votes than the members being voted in at large. A slight possibility, but still a possibility if the candidates running for the at large seats don't generate a lot of interest. After all, there's nothing forcing the voters to vote for every single race on a ballot.
Additionally, the current language also calls for ascension to fill the vacancy of the President and President Pro-Tempore based upon the which members received the most votes. You can't have that with a district system. For one, the districts will have to be drawn based on the census count population, not the population of registered voters. Therefore, there's no fair way of determining who should ascend. Secondly, there has to be a reasonable expectation that the voting public would want an at large candidate to fill an at large vacancy.
None of that is addressed in Prop D. Furthermore, I cited four sections. I noticed that you were silent on the other three.
Just my thoughts, but is it possible to use percentages rather than the actual number of votes.
I'm not aware of any cases where that's ever been done. But, you would still have to change the charter language to reflect that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikki Pooh