Our City Online

Messageboard - Politics

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Clintonville Area Commission about to change who can be a commissioner

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Politics Clintonville Area Commission about to change who can be a commissioner

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #81187

    Mister MooCow
    Participant

    In case you missed it, the Clintonville Area Commission (CAC) is going to vote at their next meeting (May 2010) to change who is eligible to vote in CAC elections–this is above and beyond the “absentee ballot” controversy; it’s about who is considered a resident. Besides not publicizing a proposed bylaws change far enough in advance (I can’t find the current CAC bylaws to know what is required, but I would have expected that the proposal would be announced at one meeting, discussed at a second meeting, and voted on at a third –if not later– meeting), I’m alarmed that there’s been no official notice of said bylaws change.

    If you want to read more about it, check out this week’s Booster (http://www.snponline.com/articles/2010/04/12/the_booster/news/bocac%204-14_20100412_0429pm_4.txt).

    One kine, one vote!

    #361345

    ssnyder5
    Member

    This is incorrect. This is not a change to who is eligible to vote. All residents of Clintonville are eligible to vote.

    This is a proposal to clarify eligibility requirements for members of the commission. Commissioners are required to maintain residency in the district from which they were elected. There was some controversy last fall about whether Commissioner Paul Harris, who had moved to Virginia, was eligible to serve as a CAC commissioner. His house was for sale, and he was unable to attend meetings. When Chris Gawronski moved out-of-the-country, he resigned, although he still owns a house in Clintonville.

    The proper time was given for this clarification in the by-laws. CAC By-laws are available here: http://www.clintonvilleareacommission.org/Custom/custom.asp?id=1085&cmid=4723

    #361346
    crsimp01
    crsimp01
    Participant

    For the Clintonville residents who are intersted:

    The CAC districts will face elections on May 1:

    * District 3 — James Blazer, Nora Jones and Michael Butcher were certified as candidates in the District 3 race. District 3 voting will take place at Clinton Heights Lutheran Church, 15 Clinton Heights Ave.

    * District 6 race are Jennifer Kangas and Darlene Kura;

    * District 8 — John DeFourny was certified as the only candidate in the District 8 race. Voting for the District 6 and 8 races will take place at the Whetstone Community Recreation Center, 3923 N. High St., McClary said.

    Absentee balloting began at the Whetstone Library April 7 and will continue until 4 p.m. April 30.

    At the library..just go to the information desk, tell them you are there to vote, have information showing your Clintonville address and do your thing. Thanks.

    #361347

    Mister MooCow
    Participant

    ssnyder5 wrote >>
    This is incorrect. This is not a change to who is eligible to vote. All residents of Clintonville are eligible to vote.
    This is a proposal to clarify eligibility requirements for members of the commission.

    Sorry, my mistake– I was under the impression that the term “residency” was generically defined for the bylaws.

    My concern remains, though, that a bylaw change change be made in essentially a single month without any official communication from the CAC about said change prior to the vote. This is especially troublesome for those districts who aren’t regularly updated on the commission proceedings by the commissioner [allegedly] representing them. We often find out after the fact that a major decision was made.

    #361348

    ssnyder5
    Member

    Thank you. I have been concerned about a number of recent misstatements and inaccuracies related to the CAC elections. I hope that this issue has been clarified.

    I do encourage you to review the bylaws. The sections related to commissioner eligibily, election procedures, and amending the bylaws are all available on the CAC’s website.

    [b]IX. By-Law Amendments[/b]

    These by-laws may be amended at any regular meeting of the CAC by an affirmative vote of 2/3 of the Commission members provided that the amendments were submitted in writing at the previous regular meeting.

    In April, this item was submitted in writing to all members of the Commission, as well as to the media. Hence the article that appeared in the Booster.

    #361349

    Mister MooCow
    Participant

    ssnyder5 wrote >>
    In April, this item was submitted in writing to all members of the Commission, as well as to the media. Hence the article that appeared in the Booster.

    I get it that it’s “legal” to do something this quickly, but I think it highly unrepresentative to do so without taking steps beyond a press release to let constituents know (e.g., where’s the mention on the website? Where’s the distribution of the release via the same channels used to distribute meeting agendas?). It’s not like this particular issue is an emergency or that The Internets are down.

    And this isn’t the first time something like this that has happened with the CAC. There’s a pattern of negligence in keeping [at least certain] districts informed about issues in front of the CAC– a pattern that gives one pause when considering whether a pronouncement made by the CAC is truly representative of the views of Clintonville.


    It’s not a big truck. It’s a series of moos!

    #361350

    ssnyder5
    Member

    To be clear, we are discussing a one word change,

    A Commissioner shall maintain his or her residency in the District…

    to

    A Commissioner shall maintain his or her [b][i]legal[/b][/i] residency in the District…

    The facts are:
    – The proposed amendment was submitted in writing at the regular meeting per the bylaws.
    – The proposed amendment was discussed publically at the meeting.
    – Copies of the proposed amendment text were provided to the media so that it could be publicized.
    – The Booster published an article about the proposed amendment several weeks in advance of the next CAC meeting.
    – Anyone wishing to comment upon it, was welcome to during the public comments portion of the regular meeting.
    – At this time, there still remains two weeks in which you can consider and discuss the proposed amendment and contact the CAC Commissioners with your comments.

    Contact info for CAC Commissioner available here

    #361351

    Mister MooCow
    Participant

    ssnyder5 wrote >>

    – Anyone wishing to comment upon it, was welcome to during the public comments portion of the regular meeting.

    Indeed, if you knew in advance that the proposal was going to be presented at the meeting, you’d be able to comment. But since comment period is at the END of meetings, there’s going to be no chance to provide public input prior to the vote.

    And, it shouldn’t be a requirement to religiously read the Booster (which can be difficult given the irregular delivery patterns) in order to find out what’s going on with the CAC. Proactively communicating information about items in front of the CAC is what the CAC district representative is supposed to do.

    It’s a pattern of negligence that folks in district 3 have suffered under for years, despite pleading and cajoling our representative (we have a mailing list that was started by the previous representative– a mailing list that the current representative refused to use, until it started being a venue for folks to discuss her lack of communication). Unfortunately, the pattern is reinforced by the policy of waiting for two months to publish meeting minutes.

    This pattern undermines the credibility of the CAC as being representative of the views of Clintonville.

    #361352

    ssnyder5
    Member

    Again, it has been publicized and in a manner that will reach the most number of Clintonville residents both with and without internet access.

    You have ample time to provide your input anytime during the next two weeks.

    However, in all the time and energies you have devoted on this discussion, you have yet to make any comment directly on the proposed amendment itself. Your purpose seems to be to, in my estimation, unfairly malign the current District 3 representative.

    As this topic does not appear to be of interest to others on this messageboard, I suggest we move any further personal discussion to PM.

    #361353

    Mister MooCow
    Participant

    I’d like to have a chance to hear other members of the public weigh-in on the proposed amendment. My first reaction was that it has implications for who can vote. After discussing with others, I’ve heard the same sentiment– that a definition of residency for one implies a definition for the other. Plus, it doesn’t seem to really do anything to address the particular situations cited, as both of those folks still had/have “legal residence” at their Clintonville addresses (it’s where they’d vote from, it’s where they’d pay taxes, etc.). It’s also concerning that this change process is taking place RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ELECTION. All of these things beg for input from the City Attorney’s office, input that should then be distributed to the community using the web site, email, etc. well in advance of a vote.

    It the end, it seems like a solution looking for a problem, which makes me worried: what’s driving the urgency here?


    moo

    #361354

    Lakee911
    Participant

    Having attended the meeting where it was briefly discussed, I think it’s only a clarification with no intentional change in who can be selected. The point is, the CAC doesn’t want a commisioner from UA, for example.

    #361355

    Mister MooCow
    Participant

    Lakee911 wrote >>
    Having attended the meeting where it was briefly discussed, I think it’s only a clarification with no intentional change in who can be selected. The point is, the CAC doesn’t want a commisioner from UA, for example.

    That’s just it– I don’t see how the change (which I’m only guessing at, having seen no official pronouncement from the CAC) will affect that. The term “legal residence” is itself no less ambiguous than “residence”. For example: for the purposes of Ohio elections (at least the last time I had to check on this), you can live for 12 months in Antarctica and still be considered a legal resident of Ohio.

    There really needs to be a review by the City Attorney’s office.


    Bovinous ramblings do not constitute legal or financial advice; please consult with your own tax professional or election official about the implications of your paddock’s legal location

    #361356

    HeySquare
    Participant

    ssnyder5 wrote >>
    Again, it has been publicized and in a manner that will reach the most number of Clintonville residents both with and without internet access.
    You have ample time to provide your input anytime during the next two weeks.
    However, in all the time and energies you have devoted on this discussion, you have yet to make any comment directly on the proposed amendment itself. Your purpose seems to be to, in my estimation, unfairly malign the current District 3 representative.
    As this topic does not appear to be of interest to others on this messageboard, I suggest we move any further personal discussion to PM.

    I would support your contention, except for the fact that the bylaws change was not included in the agenda for the meeting. If the CAC knew in advance of the meeting that a bylaws chance was going to be discussed, then why not include that in the agenda?

    It seems to me that the proposed change is straightforward clarification, one that should not require a lot of discussion or public comment. However, by not including the text of the change in the agenda, it really does pose a problem in terms of public disclosure, and I could see that being an issue with Sunshine laws.

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)

The forum ‘Politics’ is closed to new topics and replies.

The Columbus Coffee Festival Returns with a “Curated Take Home Box Experience”

CLICK HERE TO PLACE YOUR ORDER