According to the occasionally accurate but rarely complete Coeur d’Alene Press, a motion to put the McEuen Field renovation project to a public advisory vote will be offered and seconded, then discussed, at the January 17 Coeur d’Alene City Council meeting.
Do you believe there should be a public advisory vote on this issue? If so, who should write the ballot wording, and why? Who should administer the vote, and why? Who should be allowed to vote?
This would not be a statutorily required general or special election, so Idaho’s election laws would not necessarily control the conduct of the election.
Here’s another question: If a public vote were held and if it indicated the voters did not favor the project, would that outcome be interpreted as a vote of “no confidence” in the Mayor and those still on the Council who supported the project and did not want a public vote?
I think the question puts the cart before the horse. Unless Kennedy reverses his position, which is doubtful because apparently it was ‘agreed’ he would be the council president because he supports the Mayor’s position on the park, why worry about the wording of a vote on the park? If Kennedy does change his vote, as he should given the recent election results, and the motion to hold a vote passes I am ‘sure’ that the city’s attorney will be able to come up with appropriate wording. Certainly the type of wording used in the advisory vote(s) previously submitted to the citizens would lend direction and guidance in drafting the wording. If Kennedy does not change his vote, there should be an election anyway. It should be a recall election. The wording for a recall election should be easy to draft. The vote on the recall would determine whether or not there was a ‘vote of no confidence.’
Comment by Joe Six-Pack — January 6, 2012 @ 1:47 pm
I think this will be a benchmark discussion for the Mayor and Council members who did not face the election process last fall. It was clear before the last election that this elected body felt that McEuen was a non issue and at their discretion. It is clear after the election that they were wrong. Yes, I know the Mayor says otherwise. If she is really that dumb then she deserves any outcome. What I hope for is some serious consideration of the project as opposed to only deciding whether or not a non binding public referendum is needed. Essentially the last election was a quasi vote to rethink this idea. They have their de facto McEuen answer already. How much hubris remains in this tight knit group of insiders is the only question. As to the particulars, you know full well if a ballot gets written it will be written in the friendliest possible terms pro-McEuen. They’ll probably pay someone $50K to write it.
Comment by Wallypog — January 6, 2012 @ 1:47 pm
Sheeez louise, hows about thes, Ill due it four $25K and thems can putt the shavings in the park kittie.
Comment by Joe Six-Pack — January 6, 2012 @ 2:30 pm
It should be the responsibility of the proponents of the motion to present the proposed ballot question to the council. Councilman Gookin is probably best qualified to be the wordsmith and he should present the ballot language during the discussion that will ensue following the motion for an advisory vote.
The city clerk should be directed to administer the process, exclusively. The city attorney should be directed to keep away from the process.
The ballot question should be presented to the public at the May Primary or on a special date set by the council.
The city council should appoint two non city employees in addition to themselves to count and certify the results.
The results should be presented to the council at the next regular meeting for acceptance or rejection by the council.
All meetings and discussions must be in accordance with the Idaho Open Meeting Law.
Comment by Gary Ingram — January 6, 2012 @ 3:09 pm
As A footnote to my recommendations, the City is free to formulate the process for an advisory vote. As it is non binding, state election statutes do not apply. My suggestion to have the city clerk be the exclusive agent for the council, excluding the legal dept, is to ensure the wagon will roll unimpeded. Legals like to put spokes into wheels and so the buck passing begins as to why something can or cannot be done.
Comment by Gary Ingram — January 6, 2012 @ 3:21 pm
Please re-read my September post titled Be Careful What You Ask For!
Comment by Bill — January 6, 2012 @ 3:34 pm
The question of who votes needs attention. We’ve been told time and time again that this will not go against the property tax payer. So, while that is arguable, and so taxpayers should vote, so should any other person who wants to offer their advice or advisory. After all, some of these other users pay boat launch fees, parking fees, and boat license fees. So should there be any restriction on who votes?
Comment by Gary Ingram — January 6, 2012 @ 4:03 pm
Gary,
If there is no restriction on who votes, meaning it would not be limited to registered voters, then there will be no safeguards on the voting. If the costly safeguards that are imposed by state election laws are unnecessary to safeguard the integrity of statutorily required elections, then they should be abandoned in those elections. Having seen the bungling and worse by the County in the 2009 City election, I certainly would not advocate abandoning safeguards. So, if the proposed advisory vote is to have any veracity at all, it must be administered with the same care.
Comment by Bill — January 6, 2012 @ 5:10 pm
Glad to read your view on voter eligibility. My point with this series of posts is that Ron, Dan and Steve should have a total package ready to deliver once it is up for discussion. If Ron makes the motion and Dan or Steve provides the second and then the discussion comes down to a lot of speculation, what ifs, could we or should we, there is little motivation for any wavering council member to change their mind and the project moves along unimpeded.
My spin; I could be wrong on all points, but obviously, I don’t think so.
Comment by Gary Ingram — January 6, 2012 @ 7:58 pm
I think wording should be checked, double checked, cross checked and then checked again so we do not wind up with a twist like with the school levy fiasco. I also believe that the “city attorney” should NOT be the one to write it since he is obviously one sided and we all know his side is NOT that of those that actually pay his salary.
Comment by concerned citizen — January 8, 2012 @ 7:10 am
An interesting read: Urban-Development Legends – Grand theories do little to revive cities – http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_4_urban-development.html
Comment by Pariah — January 9, 2012 @ 1:10 pm