[Peace-discuss] Legislature is suppressing advisory referenda

[John W.]

At 11:12 PM 4/12/2008, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

>Yes, it does force us to get the approval of the elected officials -- and 
>they are thus the judges of what is "relevant to powers granted to 
>electors under the Township Code." I can't imagine any board will 
>determine that an anti-war referendum -- or advice on that subject to our 
>federal representatives -- is "relevant to powers granted to electors 
>under the Township Code."
>
>It seems clear that the bill removes the judgment of the content of any 
>proposed advisory referendum from those present at the annual town meeting 
>and gives it instead to the town board.
>
>I agree that "much of the actions by the Democratic elected officials 
>[Republicans too] was to show us who was in control: it's their township, 
>city, county, not ours."  This bill is more of the same.  --CGE


So who exactly is the "town board"??  The city council of Champaign or Urbana?



>Tom Abram wrote:
>
>>The part that changed my interpretation is:
>>
>>"The agenda published by the township board *shall* include any such 
>>request made by voters..."
>>
>>I think we have to make sure that advisory referenda are indeed "relevant 
>>to powers granted to electors under the Township Code" and that the 
>>township board can't just decide that they're not relevant because they 
>>don't like them.
>>Regardless, it does force us to get the approval of the elected officials 
>>(even if we do determine it's required) rather than from the people.  I 
>>believe much of the actions by the Democratic elected officials was to 
>>show us who was in control.  It's their township, city, county, not ours.
>>
>>Tom
>>
>>
>>
>>On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 10:32 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu 
>><mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>     Tom--
>>
>>     I think you're wrong about this, but I agree that we should make
>>     sure that we have the correct interpretation of this legislation.
>>     It seems clear that the legislation will make it impossible -- not
>>     easier -- for us to do what we've been doing, in form or content.
>>
>>     Even on advance written request, no item may be added to the agenda
>>     without the agreement of the township board -- and even then "only
>>     objects relevant to powers granted to electors may be set forth" (as
>>     the bill repeats obsessively): electors do not determine relevance.
>>
>>     The following is from the text of the bill as passed by the House:
>>            ....(b) Agenda. Not less than 10 days before the annual
>>            meeting, the township board shall adopt an agenda for the
>>            annual meeting. Any 15 or more registered voters in the
>>            township may request an agenda item for consideration by the
>>            electors at the annual meeting by giving written notice of a
>>            specific request to the township clerk no later than March 1
>>            prior to the annual meeting. The agenda published by the
>>            township board shall include any such request made by voters if
>>            the request is relevant to powers granted to electors under the
>>            Township Code.
>>                (c) Additional agenda items. Any matter or proposal not set
>>            forth in the published agenda shall not be considered at the
>>            annual meeting other than advising that the matter may be
>>            considered at a special meeting of the electors at a later
>>            date...
>>                Sec. 35-5. Special township meeting. Special township
>>            meetings shall be held when the township board (or at least 15
>>            voters of the township) file in the office of the township
>>            clerk a written statement that a special meeting is necessary
>>            for the interests of the township. The statement also shall set
>>            forth the objects of the meeting, which must be relevant to
>>            powers granted to electors under this Code...
>>                Sec. 35-10. Notice of special meeting; business at meeting.
>>                (a) Notice of a special township meeting shall be given in
>>            the same manner and for the same length of time as for regular
>>            township meetings.
>>                (b) The notice shall set forth the object of the meeting as
>>            contained in the statement filed with the township clerk, which
>>            must be relevant to powers granted to electors under this Code.
>>            No business shall be done at a special meeting except the
>>            business that is embraced in the statement and notice...
>>
>>
>>     Tom Abram wrote:
>>
>>         I was very outraged when I first read about this legislation.
>>         After contacting Frerichs about this and several other
>>         anti-democracy measures (the return of straight-ticket voting
>>         and the effective elimination of slating, which would hurt the
>>         Greens and help incumbents), I re-examined it and came to a
>>         different conclusion.  As I now read it, it would take 15
>>         signatures to get an agenda item added, and they would be
>>         required to place that item on the agenda.  I believe adding
>>         referendum measures is part of the powers granted to the
>>         electors, regardless of their "relevance".  If this is the
>>         correct interpretation and it was in place last week, it may
>>         have been easier to at least place our proposals on the agenda.
>>
>>         We should make sure that we have the correct interpretation of
>>         this legislation.
>>
>>         Tom Abram