08/16/2010 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Regular Council Meeting Minutes 8-16-10 Page 8 Mayor Rinker responded, if I can, just on the one point, we were very attentive and checked with legal counsel before we put up any poster for it. What we put on there was "vote", we didn't tell people how to vote in any publication that we made. I did write an article in the VOV explaining that this was something that was important and clearly I cast it in language that was promoting the rationale for it, but we were very attentive on how we used the taxpayer's dollars in any kind of advertising about the issue itself. It may seem like a subtle distinction, but we were careful not to say vote for and promote it. What I tried to do is promote the facts of it. I think it's still a question of whether the Council representatives feel that it's incumbent upon them individually to be able to comment and I think that was the rationale that underlay the ordinance that apparently is going to get a First Reading tonight that was suggesting a modification of what the Charter Review people had come up with, that there is a difference of opinion. So as a forum I fllink it's probably an appropriate location but in terms of what we were publishing, we tried to be very careful about that. Mr. Davis continued, using the same approach, which stayed witlun the boundaries of what was acceptable, I would urge the Council members individually or collectively and the Mayor's office to express their opinions on this as well. Mayor Rinker replied, I have. And what I've tried to explain to everyone is, and in fact when Charter Review had asked me my opinion about it, and I said this in our last meeting, as I look at it, it is more or less a rules change. We can work with it either way. We have done it either way. In fact, in an e-mail that I sent today in response to some e-mail dialogue with other people, referencing the Shemo case and referendum voting, I made a point of saying that in two prior instances in Mayfield Village, in fact to my knowledge it was the very first time that there was a referendum zoning issue in Mayfield Village, where voters exercised that vote, ultimately the Courts have struck down the outcome. My focus has always been that the real issue in any zoning matter is the substantive issue. Process is always important, but people often will interlwine the process, the right of referendum as a mechanism and intertwine that with the viability of referendum as a superior way far people to vote. I think there are arguments to be made in both ways. We have utilized the referendum mechanism with mixed results. I am neutral on the issue. If people want to have referendum voting and keep it, and I frankly would suspect that most voters will react as many here. the other night have reacted, they don't want to lose that opportunity to be able to weigh in on a particular issue. Typically people when they hear that there's a referendum right they want to be able to retain that right of referendum. But in terms of how that affects our decision-making on zoning, how we approach rezoning issues, it wouldn't change. We've gone out in cases where we felt the rezoning made sense and we've promoted it. There've been other instances where people have approached the Village and I have indicated to them you're going to have to go through a referendum and this is an issue and unless you show us something differently, we're not going to be supportive. A lot of times those don't see the light of day. So, for people who are proponents of the referendum mechanism, I can say anecdotally there are instances where our ability to say we have a referendum system, it can be a deterrent. But I'm not so