[Peace-discuss] hb5505 - twp meetings

[E. Wayne Johnson]

I called up Representative Ramey (R) and Representative Fortner (R) who 
were sponsor and co-sponsor of HR5505.  I discussed with each of them 
separately on different phone calls the implication and application of 
this bill and its intent, and I asked specifically how this bill would 
have modified recent action at Champaign and at Urbana.   They were both 
kind and polite and seemed to be sincerely interested in helping me to 
understand the intent and function of the bill.  (I am offering the 
information here verbatim as best I can without commentary as much as 
possible, neither defending not attacking---and it seems that Carl 
Estabrook is right [again!] in perceiving correctly that this bill 
HR5505 was directed at least in part at activist groups seeking township 
advisory referenda on national issues, although other purposes were 
expressed).

The intent/purpose of the bill seems to be fourfold (as I was told and 
understand):
1) to make sure that agenda items are placed well in advance of the 
meeting so that the public is aware of them and the populace is prepared 
to turn out to the township meeting.
2) to limit the placement of agenda items calling for referenda that are 
not relevant to township activities (Referenda on the War in Iraq was 
mentioned specifically by both representatives).
3) to limit the placement of meaningless "fluff" referenda that use up 
the maximum of three referenda per election and thereby block other 
possible referenda with greater utility/applicability.
4) to ensure that agenda items proposed by the people do get on the 
agenda of the annual meeting or at a special meeting.

This legislative action was requested by the TOI (Township Officials of 
Illinois?) according to Ramey. 

*****
The sponsors of the bill do view this legislation as being modifying to 
the referendum power of the electors such that the wording of the bill 
could be used to eliminate or restrict anti-war (and anti-torture) 
referenda, since it can be argued that such national issue items are not 
under the local purveu of the townships.  However both Ramey and 
particularly Fortner expressed an opinion that there could be some legal 
and local interpretation and it might not necessarily keep national 
issue advisory referenda off of township ballots in all cases.  They 
both suggested review by an attorney.

I discussed with them the 3 specific advisory referenda proposed for 
Urbana.  Ramey was particularly interested in the fact that Mayor 
Prussing, the city council and the local Demos were opposed to the 
Transparency referendum, while in Champaign, this referendum was 
successfully placed on the ballot for the consideration of the voters 
with the support of the mayor and some council members.  I briefly 
discussed the IRV and Water Municipalization referenda with both of them 
as well.  Both of them affirmed that under the intent and language of 
HR5505, if those agenda items were properly filed, the request for those 
agenda items could not be subject to denial of placement as agenda 
items.  The agenda items could of course be voted down, but they could 
not be refused from the agenda of an annual or a special meeting if they 
were properly filed (15 signatures on the letter of request and filed in 
a timely manner...).

***
My interpretation is that this bill is positive overall relative to the 
goals of participatory grassroots government at the local level,
even though some national issue referenda may be at least somewhat limited.

The power of the people to call special meetings and to place agenda 
items for meetings is increased.
Ramey emphasized that it should be easier to get special meetings called 
as a result of this bill (if it passes the Senate).

The events of last week's meeting would have been different. 
At least in Urbana, all 3 items could have been placed on the agenda for 
discussion,
but any opposition would have had more time to garner their forces 
accordingly which seems fair enough. 

The unfairness of denying all discussion in the meeting would be abrogated,
but there would be a trade-off of allowing enough time for all sides to 
bring their vote power to the meeting, which indeed seems fair enough.

In the case of advisory referenda, the opponents to asking a question of 
the voters will still have to bear all of the
stigma and embarrassment of their disregard for free expression for the 
voice of the people.

And for those who oppose Transparency in Government, the question -- 
"What have you got to hide?" still hangs out there.

- EWJ