2006-12-07-Mins-Charter (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Charter Study Committee December 7, 2006 Page 2 they expressed concern that the voters might be confused by the proposition or be suspicious that such provisions were really obsolete. All four attorneys believed it would be legal to place a single proposition on the ballot with regard to common topic subjects. Mr. Akers gave the example of "Shall the Charter be amended to clarify that election of council members shall be by plurality vote, so that the candidate receiving the most votes is elected, by replacing the word majority with plurality?" Each of the attorneys were uncomfortable with regard to common subjects being placed on the ballot under one proposition, such as"Shall the Charter be amended to eliminate all sections that are in conflict with state law?" Charles Waldrum stated he thought they were taking the wrong approach and that they should address all of the issues. He further stated that they needed to let the people know how badly the Charter needed to be updated. Marva Joe, Charles Richards, and David Hamilton agreed with Charles Waldrum. David Hamilton said it was their job to be straightforward. Chairperson Philip Cecil asked for a motion to place all of the issues on the ballot, if that was the consensus of the Committee. A Motion that the Committee make all necessary corrections as deemed workable to City Charterwas made by Charles Waldrum and seconded by Charles Richards. Motion carried, 8 ayes - 0 nays. 4. Discussion of and possible action on amendments to the City Charter. Charles Waldrum said they may need to look at other amendments in addition to the issues outlined in the Charter Amendment Issues. Chairperson Philip Cecil suggested that be done after reviewing the issues at hand. The Committee began working through the Charter Amendment Issues as outlined below: (6) Sections 16 (Number, selection, term) and 97 (Election of councilmen by majority). Charles Richards suggested changing the way candidates are elected, in that a candidate should receive more than 50%. Charles Waldrum stated that as it stands now, if you have six or seven candidates you could end up with a candidate that the majority does not want. Ozie Battle agreed. A Motion to retain Section 16 as is and to change Section 97 to reflect majority was made by David Nabors and seconded by David Hamilton. Motion carried 8, ayes - 0 nays. (7) Section 16 (Number, selection, term). The Committee decided that if a council member is appointed to fill an unexpired term, that the council member is eligible to serve