Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 04/11/2005SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL 11 APRIL 2005 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Monday, 11 April 2005, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: J. Condos, Chair; C. Smith, S. Magowan, D. O'Rourke Also Present: C. Hafter, City Manager; T. Eustace, City Attorney; A. Crady, A. Goldman, A. Clift, J. Lees, K. Frank, S. Dooley, J. Oskie, other public(about 20 individuals) 1. Consideration of approval of Warning for annual meeting on 17 May 2005: Mr. Hafter gave members several differently worded warnings from which to make a decision. He noted that the city had expected 2 petitions for advisory items for the ballot; however, one petition did not have enough signatures. Mr. Condos explained that the City Council has never put an advisory item on a ballot if it did not relate directly to city business. He then asked the City Attorney to explain to the Council what its options are in this instance. Mr. Eustace began by stating that are three tests a petition needs to meet in order to be put on the city's ballot. The first is whether it has the required number of signatures. The second is whether it relates to subject matter about which the voters have a right to decide. The third criterion is whether the subject matter is something about which city government has the right to decide. An item can be added to the ballot at the city's option. If it does not relate to city business, the Council can accept or reject the item. Mr. Eustace noted the City Charter speaks directly to the issue of "city business." Mr. Eustace then explained that the issue of "parental notification" is an area over which the city has no control. He then read information available on the website of the Secretary of State relative to this issue. This information states that it is within the Council's discretion to accept or reject such articles, but it must be an item that the voters have the right to decide on. Mr. Condos then asked for audience comment relative to the process, not the issue. Ms. Clift said she had been told they could submit a petition but had been discouraged from doing so. She did not understand the concept that "citizens can't decide." She also noted that there was nothing specific in the City Charter about advisory articles. She then read from State law relative to citizens' right to petition to have an advisory item on a ballot. Mr. Magowan said the people who should be petitioned in this instance are the State Representatives and State Senators who have the right to decide relative to this issue. Ms. Clift said they did this before and weren't listened to. Mr. Smith said if that was the case, why would the Legislature listen to the Council. Mr. Goldman, organizer of the petition that did not receive enough signatures, said he supports the idea of extending voter involvement. He felt it was powerful when people can vote on things like this, even though he realized no one was bound by such votes. Ms. Crady said her concern is promoting the democratic process, and she felt this would give people a chance to have something to say. Mr. Lees said he feels a single person can make a big difference and cited the seatbelt issue as an example. He felt it could also make a difference when people get out and vote such as in the November election when 47 towns had advisory items regarding the Iraq war. He said he would personally vote against the proposed advisory item, but he still felt it should have a place on the ballot. Another audience members noted the petition asks the City Council to "advise" the Legislators, which is something the Council does all the time. She also felt the Council is charged with protecting the health and safety of citizens and the present law could be a danger to the health of young people. She felt it was important for the city to be involved in this issue. Ms. Frank felt that unless an issue was something that could be directly affected by an action taken by the City, the Council should be very careful because it could open a "Pandora's box." Ms. Dooley said she would support the City Council exercising discretion and judgment. She felt there are lots of ways for citizens to be heard, such as finding candidates who are like-minded and registering people to vote. Another audience members said putting the item on the ballot would let Legislators know how South Burlington is leaning and would then know how to vote. Mr. Smith said he wasn't sure a vote of 500-450 either way would tell anybody much of anything. Mr. Magowan then moved to approve the Warning with no referendums. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Mr. Magowan said although the petition has the required number of signatures, he would not want to start a precedent of putting things on the ballot over which the city has no control. He did not feel this was an issue of "democracy." He noted there were many candidates for State Legislature in November and only one city race was unopposed. He did not feel the City Council should be forced to say anything to the Legislature and noted that when the Council does speak to Legislators it is about transportation and budget issues. Mr. Magowan also stressed that the South Burlington City Council is a non-partisan body that manages the city. He felt that to get in the middle of this issue would cause destruction of how business is done in the City. Mr. Smith said he didn't want to squash efforts of citizens, but he also had the same concerns expressed by Mr. Magowan. He noted that no Council members run as members of a political party, and he was concerned that this might start to create a partisan atmosphere. He also didn't feel that a vote by the 1000 people who usually vote in City elections would make a significant statement about anything. Mr. O'Rourke said he felt that handing a petition to a State Legislator can make a difference and that one voice can make a difference. He added that he wanted to proceed as the Council has always proceeded, in a non-partisan way. He indicated that the people he had spoken with wanted him to address issues of the City. In the vote that followed the motion passed 3-1 with Mr. Smith voting against. 2. Review Minutes of 28 February 2005: Mr. Magowan moved to approve the Minutes of 28 February as written. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed 3-0 with Mr. Smith abstaining. 3. Liquor Control Board: Mr. Magowan moved the Council adjourn and reconvene as Liquor Control Board. Mr. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hafter presented the following liquor license renewals and noted that all had been reviewed by appropriate parties: Waterfront Catering Group Kwan's Restaurant Magic Hat Brewing Co. Pizza Putt Airport Mobil Jolley (Williston Road) Spillane's Servicenters Mr. Smith moved to approve the Liquor License renewals as presented. Mr. Magowan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.