Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-03/31/1972-Special--- -- - -- - - --- - -- March 31,_ 1972 ------ -- MINUTES OF MEETING March 31, 1972 The City Council of the City of Fort Collins met in a special called session at 12:00 Noon in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building on Friday, March 21, 1972. Present: Councilmen Carson, Lopez, Councilwoman Preble, Councilmen Peterson and Fead. Also present: Mike Di Tullio, Assistant City Manager Arthur March, Jr., Assistant City Attorney Charles Liquin, Director of Public Works Mayor Carson presided. CALL FOR SPECIAL MEETING Members of the City Council City of Fort Collins Fort Collins, Colorado Gentlemen and Madam: Pursuant to the request of the Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Fort Collins is hereby called for 12:00 o'clock noon on Friday, March 31, 1972, in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins, City Hall, Fort Collins, Colorado, for the purpose of considering the petition requesting a special election on a proposed charter change heretofore presented to the City Council by Mr. William M. (Andy) Anderson. Very truly yours, /s/ Verna Lewis City Clerk Mayor Carson requested the opinion of the Assistant City Attorney on the rulling of the recent Colorado Supreme, Court case regarding the petitions presented, which was as follows: Gentlemen and Madam: Pursuant to.the request of Mayor Carson, we have reconsidered the questions posed by petitions recently filed by Mr. William M. (Andy) Anderson, requesting a special Charter Election. Particularly, we have considered in this connection, the recent Colorado Supreme Court case of Colorado Project Common Cause, et al. vs. Anderson, which was decided on March 27, 1972. This case is not completely in point in that it did not deal with the question of petitions for a Home -Rule Charter change. How- ever, the case did deal with the question of whether one must be registered to vote in order to be a "qualified elector". It was pointed out in the opinion previously rendered to you that there was a split of authority on this question and that some jurisdictions had held that it was not neces- sary to be registered in order to be a "qualified elector". Although the recent Colorado case above referred to can be distinguished, it does appear probable in view of this case that Colorado will adopt the position that one does not need to be registered in order to be a "qualified elector". Therefore, in view of this case, it is now the opinion of this office that it is not necessary that one be registered in order to.be a "qualified elector", as this term is used in Article XX of the constitution of the State of Colorado. If it is not necessary to be registered in order to be a "qualified elector" then the additional question arises as to how it can be determined that the parties signing a petition are "qualified electors". Several alter- natives would appear to be possible answers to this question, including the following: Requiring a statement on the petition that each signer meets the applicable requirements to be a "qualified elector" and enumerating these requirements; requiring a circulator's affidavit to the same effect; referring this.question to the Board of Elections for a determination which might include an independent investigation by said Board into each signers qualifications, or a combination of these alternatives. Any of these possibili- ties would require either new petitions or a considerable amount of time. At the conclusion of this opinion, it is.suggested that the City Council could submit this question to theelectorate despite.the possible invalidity of the petitions, and if the Council.chooses to do so, this would make this question moot. A secondary question has been raised in connection with this matter regarding whether or not it is possible to.supplement or add to a petition after the same has been filed with.the City Council. In the previous opinion, it was indicated that this would not be proper and it is still felt that the constitutional provision does not contemplate.this, and it would not be 238 March 31, 1972 As the City Council knows, there has been a considerable amount of confusion regarding this issue and because of this confusion, the Council may desire to submit this matter to.the electorate without the necessity of further petitions or further determinations. It does not appear that court action to determine these questions would be in the best interest of the City and it is therefor pointed out that Section 5 of Article XX of the State constitution provides that the City Council may, on its own initiative; submit any measure or Charter amendment to the electorate at any general or special state or municipal election. It would therefor be possible for the Council to:submit the question posed to the electorate if the Council determinedthat this is.desirable.` This could be done at a special election called not less than 30 days after the date of.the ordinance or resolution submitting such question. Respectfully submitted,, Arthur March, Jr. Assistant City Attorney Councilman Fead stated that in view of the cha n ge of the opinion of the City Attorney, the Council should reconsider its action of the last meeting and moved to reconsider this matter. This was seconded by Councilwoman Preble. Councilman Lopez said that if the Council reconsidersWe/do an unjustice to these people, that the City Attorney was instructed to give his opinion on the 18 year olds signing a petition, and he was asked by the petitioners to improve the working of the petition in order to make it more legal. That we would be going back on our word to the people who have been working on these petitions. Councilman Fead stated that this motion would not prevent the people circulating another petition, just a matter that in light of the court decision, we can accept the present petition. Mayor Carson said the Court rulling was handed down on Monday following our Councilmeeting on Thursday, and asked for a second on the motion. Councilwoman Preble seconded the motion. Andy Anderson said that according the RobertsRules of Order, the motion be killed. Mayor Carson again stated that the motion was before the Council. Andy Anderson stated that according to the Roberts Rules of Order this body operated under, the second motion was not legal. Mayor Carson stated 'that in order to clarify_ things, I would give second and the initiator of this motion an opportunity to withdraw and then would recognize Councilwoman Preble and Councilman Fead an opportunity to restate the motion. Andy Anderson said he thought this was out of order too, and asked the Council to refer to the Roberts Rules of Order. Mayor Carson said was advised by the City Attorney that the Council is not bound by the Roberts Rules of Order and therefore would give the second and first motion to withdraw and then recognize Councilman Fead, and asked if they would consider withdrawal of the motions. Both answered that they would. Councilman Fead moved that the Council reconsider its action of the last meeting with the understanding that nothing in this reconsideration would prevent Mr. Anderson and his petitioners from submitting further petitions, which they are currently circulating. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Preble. The roll. was called and was unanimously adopted. Andy Anderson stated that it was quite clear that this action is a direct violation of our constitutional rights under the first and 14th amendments of the United State-,; the right to petition the right to assemble and petition the Government of our grievances. Mayor Carson told Mr. Anderson, that the motion stated that it would not preclude the petitioners the right to pursue their petitions. Mr. Anderson said the action would prevent us from presenting the petitions now being cir- culated and I believe the City Attorney is well aware of this, that we, would have to start all over again on the part calling for a vote of confidence every four years. Mayor Carson said the City Attorney rules that this petition is your perogative and if it were so presented, it would be considered by the Council, if it were valid. Andy Anderson said he had asked the City Attorney and have broughtto the attention of the Mayor as to what the requirements are, what you have to have in order that we may petition - Calling for a special election and I have been given the runaround, here, there and that. Now we do not want an opinion, but a direct statement of what your requirements are, in ord€r that we may petition, the government on their, grievances. I think at the last meeting, You-0 dL,ected the City Attorney to give us this information, this he has not done, saying that he thinks that we will not need it after today. I might call attention again; it is quite evident that. you dont want to hear from the people, you do not want this vote of _ confidence, and do not want the people to be able to cast a vote of confidence, even though 239 March_3.1.,_19.72 in the opinion handed down from the Supreme Court to put the issues in their proper perspective a few general statements are in order. Under the Colorado Constitution, all political power is vested in the people and derives from them. Colorado Constitution'., Section 1, an aspect of that power is the inititive which is thepower reserved by the people to propose laws by petition and to enact or reject them at the poles independent of the legislative assembly. Colorado Constitutuion Article 5, Section 1, we point out again that t the initi- tiative provisions of the constitution must not be narrowly construed, but thaitbe liberally construed to effectuate their purpose and to facilitate the excercise by electors of this most important right reserved to them by the constitution. We ask that this motion be voted against, because it is quite clear that it is the direct intent to deprive us of our constitutional rights on this petition. I believe that the information was given out, unbeknown to us, yesterday morning that we were intending on submitting these petitions on the 6th, and it is amusing, but confusing, as to why this meeting was called today, on such a holy day as Good Friday, on this matter, when it just as well have waited until next Thursday and give us an opportunity to present these petitions, but you do not want these petitions. Mr. March does not even know the exact number of signatures required, which was so stated in the paper last night. A total of 620 absentee votes were cast in Larimer County, but the figure has not been isolated for just the City, according to Mrs. Dorothy Smity, Duputy County Clerk. You do not know the requirements, how many is needed, and how can you accept this last petition, not knowing if they are sufficient in number or not. Mr. March, Jr. stated he was a little confused because I do n't know whether or not there is an objection to accepting Mr. Anderson's petitition or not, but I father that is the objection. I can't see how that could possibly prevent the submission of any further petitions. The Constitution is there and permits what it per its. He.stated-that.' he had sat down with Mr. Anderson and went over my opinion wit underlined on the copy he had. He said the recent ruling by the Courts has changed my opinion to the -extent that you no longer have to be registered and I believe that is the main reason to this special Council meeting, because that is about as fast as it could be called after I got that opinion, 24 hours notice is required by charter and it was felt by my office that this was of sufficient importance to Mr. Anderson's group to warrant immediate attention, so I cannot see the basis for his objection now, when, if I understand it correctly, the intent is to reconsider these petitions, stating he had gone over his opinion with him relating to requirements for a qualified elector, and would point out that I do give advice to the Council and City, and to give advice to the individual citizense, I think would be::bad practice in this or any other decision. Mayor Carson asked Mr. March,if in his opinion, he gave Mr. Anderson the information the Council directed him. The Assistant City Attorney said as .far as he understood his question. Mr. Anderson : I asked for this on last Thursday, I asked that it be given to us in writing and the Chair so did direct the City Attorney to do so. Now, on this matter here on a future petition, Removal of City Manager, Charter Ammendment, Section IV, Article III of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins is amended to read as follows: Section IV - Removal of City Manager - The Council shall appoint the City Manager for an indefinite term and he may be removed by any of the following, methods. A. Majority vote of the Council members If removed by this method, at least 30 days before such removal shall take affect, the Council shall by maiority vote of its members adopt a resolution stating the reason for his removal which resolution may provide for his suspension upon such removal or suspension by this method the council shall cause to be Daid to the City Manager any unpaid balance of his salary for the current month and his salary for the next calendar month. B. Majority vote of the electors of the City of Fort Collins, an election which shall be hgld at the second general city election following his taking office and at the general city election every four years thereafter. Upon such removal by this method, the Council may, in its discretion,provide termination pay. C. Attainment of the age of 6S years by the City Manager effecting the incumbent City Manager at the time this Charter Ammendment is approved. Now, if you say that there is nothing that would prevent us from presenting this petition, will you put that in writing, Mr. Attorney, stating that there will be no objections to this item on this petition. The Assistant City Attorney said, if it pleased the Council, he could not ethically render an opinion to a private citizen involving Council or City business and represent the Council, that he could not unless so directed by the Council. Mayor Carson told Mr. Anderson that the motion before the Council is only to reconsider the 240 March 31, 1972 action of the Council. We have not made any determination of what the decision of the Council is going to be. Councilman Lopez asked if in reconsidering the acts of the last week's meeting, are we aiming ataccepting the petitions that were presented last week. Mayor Carson said the puipose of reconsidering is to determine, in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling, whether the petitions as presented are adequate, and if with this ruling, it might be well advised to call for a special election. Councilman Loppz asked that in reconsidering that particular petition, are we in any way keep- ing the people that are presently passing their petition from substituting the one they are passing at the present -for the one they presented at the Council meeting last week, since they in all honesty have been circulating this petition feeling that the other one was deficient. Assistant.City Attorney March, Jr. stated substitution, yes. I don't think anything prevents them from filing additional -.petition, but should be handled on the basis of whether they were qualified petitions or not., stating that if you did decide to submit the issue as it stands here, it would be submitted that way, but does not mean that other issues cannot be submitted at the same time. Mayor Carson said that there was no intent to circumvent or deter any petitions that are being circulated. The petitioners have the same opportunity to present petitions as they have ever had, stating that his concern was whether the Sppreme Court ruling did relate to this and what action the Council might take in the best interest of the City of Fort Collins to determine an issue which has been raised. The Assistant City Attorney said that there is a provision in the Constitution, that a questions submitted at a special election, cannot be submitted again at another special electionwithin two cyears after. Mayor Carson stated that he had no objection to either of these issues being on the ballot, that he felt that the interest of the City would best be served by accepting the petitions presently presented and proceed to set a special election. Councilman Lopez asked if we would confuse the issue by having the petitions presented last week that were turned down, accepted and then coming up next week with another petition, and will these people be given the opportunity to say this is the petition that we want to present before the voters and not the one that was turned down last week. He asked if they would withdraw the petitions from last week. Mr. March, Jr., said he would not think so, because it is not an individual petiton but the people who signed it, stating that the Coulncil is not bound to accept these petition,* only suggest theycould because the -number of signers required was given erroneously, but said he did not understand how it would be going against them to accept their present peti- tion. Mr. Ray Greer appeared and stated that Mr. Anderson appeared to be concerned about the confusion of the present petition accepted and the petition that is being circulated and to be presented next week., and suggested that the petition presented not be accepted and wait until the other - petition is submitted, The secondtheory is since the figure for necessary electors has been changed on several occasions, it might be changed again at the time of the submission of the petitions now being circulated . If that be the case, if it is determined that they again do not have enough signatures, they are right back where theystarted, that people can only be asked to sign petitions a limited number of times. They are not going to keep on signing when the City keeps changing the signatures necessary. The Assistant City Attorney said,�:AcLtnumber from the County Clerk's office, that he did not know what the County Clerk d �d to get this number of people who voted in the last Governor's election , and stated he did not know whether the absentee votes were included or not. There was some discussion concerning the certification of absentee ballots. Mayor Carson stated that the registration is the respondibility of the County Clerk. Because of the division of precincts, some of them are in the City and some are in the County, and there is no certification of where there are absentee ballots on this, and if necessary to clarify this point of required signatures, the Council could adopt that figure as the official figure which the Council would consider. Nick Massaro was present and asked the Council if they adopt the original petition, if that meant that on future petitions that additional figures could be submitted if there is not enough in the original submission. Mr. March, Jr., said he would say no, that in his opinion, the petitions are in a form which the Council is legally required to recognize, but if you desire to do so, that the Constitutuion gives the Council the power to submit.any issue to a special election at . its own initiative. Mayor Carson called for a vote on the motion to reconsider this matter. Ayes: Councilman Carson, Councilwoman Preble, Councilmen Peterson and Fead. Nayes: Councilman Lopez. The Mayor declared the motion adopted. Mayor Carson said he believed that the interest of the City would best be served by our accepting the petitions presently being presented and proceed to set a special election, that it is urgent to settle this issue at the earliest possible date, and recommended to the Council that a special election be set at the earliest possible date and include whatever other issues for consideration by the voters as seem appropriate and formally set the date and issues at the next regular session of this Council. Mr. Anderson recommended that this election be set for the middle of May and not later than the last week of May, in order that the students can vote on this question. Mayor Carson agreed stating that a special election be set up early enough in May that it will not interfer with the students activities, also to allow enough time for Mr. Anderson to get his other petition in and filed at least 30 days before the date of the election so that it would not ruled ineligible. Mr. Anderson requested anight meeting for the next Thursday meeting in order that the working people can attend. Mayor Carson said there was any deviation intention by the members of the Council to confuse the isue, that it was their intention in calling this special meeting because of the confusion that seems to exist, to bring this matter into focus so that we can proceed with the business of the City. We have spent a month now on this issue and thought it was settled, but because the SupremecopYtdid make another ruling which is important and very important that we operate by the ruling of the courts. Mr. Roy Thompson was present and stated he was not anty-Anderson, anti -manager Coffey, anti -Mayor or anti -City Counci] nor am I pro, but am intensely pro -honesty and pro -fairness in matters that relate to duly elected and delegated body such as the City Council as it relates to the citizens of Fort Collins, stating he was a home owner and a registered voted. He said he ha sat in as an observer and listener on the last three Council meetings and had been more tha nAittle chagrinned and ashamed as a citizen at much of the bantering, the incorrect. information given out pertaining to eligible voters and the manueverings o the City and that that the City Council cannot be labeled other than capricious, petty and juvenile like in its attitude and actions . He said the constituency, which has elected the members, had entrusted to you much of the responsibility of the well being of our fair City and into whose hands much of the tax money is entrusted and has a right to expect better things from this Council. He said he had attended meetings of city Councils in Europe, Asia, Canada and the U.S., in the role of a U.S. Army Chaplain, both in peace and war. He also stated he had served a term on the City Council at Portland, Oregon and two terms on the City Council at Saint Paul, Minnesota, and it was his opinion that this Council would better serve our City and community if it would cease it's petty and child -like manueverings and speak and act fairly and representatively. He stated he had good reason to feel most kindly toward the Mayor and City Manager.:and have had occasion at time within the past six months to call them on the telephone or go to their office regarding matters that concerned me and others in our neighborhood and in every instance, each of them heard me out with patience and under- standing and then acted with quick dispatch to my satisfaction. Mr. Anderson spoke concerning his findings in Greeley in interviewing the City officials there. Mayor Carson said he agreed with Mr. Thompson, that they had spent more time than we should on this issue and somehow have gotten a little sidetracked on a rather petty issue because of the insistence of it. Councilman Fead asked if we accept these petitions, have we got the power to see to it that the petitions Mr. Anderson is going to submit is the one that goes on the ballot and not .that both of them have to go on the ballot. Mr. March, Jr., stated that he felt that legally you cannot accept the previous petitions as a legally binding petition requiring a special election. That there is no way in which you can cut off any group of citizens from submitting any issue under the constitution and they can be on the same subject. Councilman Fead asked if we accept this petition now, then we get another one next week and we accept that, do both of those amendments have to appear on the special election ballot. The Assistant City Attorney said yes, if it is done that way. Councilman Fead moved that the Council not accept the petition, Councilman Lopez seconded the motion. Councilman Fead said the intent of his motion was to make the way clear so that the initiated amendment upon the election will be only that one which Mr. Anderson proposes to bring to the Council on Thursday. Mayor Carson asked if it would be possible in your ruling for the Council to agree to submit thia petition as it reads as one of the items on the special election. Mr. March, Jr. said they could submit any issue that the special ' called for under the Constitution 242 March 31, 1972 Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. Mr. Frank Johnson was present and stated he was in favor of continuing with the new petition. Mayor Carson said if the Council can adopt this as the petition that will be the statement that will be on the ballot, we could adopt that, next week set a date and get this issue on the way to getting settled. This would not necessitate any further effort on your part to get petitions. Mr. Johnson said we should not try to bring the old one back up again because this is con- fusing. Mayor Carson said that is this is the desire of the petitioners and the agreement of the Council, if we say today that we will.set a special election date next week that this is the issue that will be on the ballot. Mr. Anderson stated he received this with open arms. After further discussion, motion was made by Councilman Lopez, seconded by Councilwoman Preble, that the City Attorney draw up an amendment to the City Charter and state clearly -what should be said. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. bB Mayor Carson said it would difficult to attend night meetings, that the Council could not discuss any other items because it was a special meeting that this will require action at another meeting. Motion was made by Councilman Fead, seconded by Councilwoman Preble, that the Board adjourn until April 6, 1972, the next regular meeting. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative and the special meeting adjourned. ATTEST: City Clerk