Yates moves the consent agenda EXCEPT for the rules around petition initatives. It would re-state the rules but not change anything for current campagns, who were mis-informed.
He wants to take it up later.
He wants to take it up later.
This is per Tom Carr, city attorney. I asked him if passing an ordinance that states that current campaigns aren't following the rules (bc staff told them different rules) would leave their issues open to legal challenges.
Maybe, he said.
Maybe, he said.
It depends on if someone files suit, he replied. But someone has already threatened: Steve Pomerance, Carr said in yesterday's scheduling meeting.
Also in this consent agenda but not being debated are potential emergency powers for council to amend the charter. (Petition stuff is among them.)
I'll cover those in detail at the second reading.
I'll cover those in detail at the second reading.
Brockett and Wallach both support moving the petition initiative rule changes to a later date.
Unanimous vote for that.
Some more details on those petitioning rules: It turns out that charter amendments DON'T have different requirements than initiative petitions. Same deadline, same number of signatures.
Some more details on those petitioning rules: It turns out that charter amendments DON'T have different requirements than initiative petitions. Same deadline, same number of signatures.
But staff misread the rules (according to packet) and advised campaigns they need more signatures but have a later deadline: Aug. 5
It wouldn't be fair to change the rules now, Carr said, so that deadline and signature threshold will stand for this year.
It wouldn't be fair to change the rules now, Carr said, so that deadline and signature threshold will stand for this year.
The ordinance (that didn't pass tonight) clarifies what the charter actually says.
OK, moving on. @threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you.
