To give this some context, Mr. Maller made it clear that he would not ultimately support an ordinance that extended his term. So, while he voted to pass this to the second reading next month, unless he changes his mind he won’t support it unless it is changed to not impact the 2010 election. This means that a May 2010 election is likely to happen (which to me means we have plenty of time to sort out this issue and there’s no pressing reason to pass anything this year).

Also, I think it was Mr. Maller who originally suggested modifying the title of the ordinance, not Mr. Sze, and there seemed to be discussion about whether it made sense to update the language in the ordinance itself or if tweaking the title was enough to allow them some leeway on updates prior to second reading.

The vote on Mr. Webb’s proposal almost seemed accidental. The City attorney indicated that passing Mr. Webb’s proposal during this meeting would preclude the original ordinance from making it to second reading, and since Mr. Webb’s proposal doesn’t have the same time restrictions (in terms of how many readings it needs and when it needs to be passed) it seemed like the four members wanted to postpone consideration (which was actually motioned for but then called off when the City attorney pointed out that it would probably be cleaner for Mr. Webb to just bring it back up at the next meeting). So, I wouldn’t read a lot into Mr. Webb’s proposal being shot down. If anything, I think they need to consider the timing of when they pass something like Mr. Webb’s proposal because it could trigger a referendum vote within 30-60 days from passage of the proposal – which isn’t what Mr. Webb is going after (he’s suggesting the referendum be put on the November 2010 ballot).

Of the 10 citizens who spoke at the meeting – I think the 1 that you suggest was in favor of the ordinance was actually in favor of moving the election to November but via a referendum to be held early in 2010. Also, while the clerk mentioned 9 email messages she forgot the one I sent – but I said basically the same thing as everyone else so that’s fine.

I thought it was interesting that none of the people Mr. Sze has talked to who support the move, and none of the Mayor’s Facebook friends, came to speak at the meeting (or even bothered to send an email). I’m not sure what that means – but I thought it was odd. I was sure there would be at least a few people speaking out in favor of the ordinance.

I know Mr. Lippman feels strongly about this issue, and feels like it might be the kind of thing where he needs to go against the vocal opposition in order to do what’s best for the silent (he suggested it was a majority but since I’m sure people on both sides of this issue are being silent I think we can’t assume which is the majority) – but I wish he would reconsider; or put it on a referendum in November, when the most voters turn out, and see if they want to make the change.

I thought Mr. Maller made some excellent points about the issue. The assumption is that November will result in more voters (I think a pretty fair assumption – although it might depend if the elections are on the even or odd number years) and a better election. Mr. Lippman even said that having a greater raw number of voters turn out is the only factor he’s considering on this issue. But as Mr. Malller pointed out, it’s not actually clear if November elections would result in more people voting in an informed way. If we’re not going to move the May 2010 election (which seems clear considering Mr. Baroukh, Mr. Snyder, Mr. Webb, and Mr. Maller seem opposed to it) why not take some time to do some research on this issue?

If the Council passes an updated version of the ordinance next month (one that moves the election to November but not until 2012) and no citizens show up to support it I’ll be really disappointed in the Council.

To give this some context, Mr. Maller made it clear that he would not ultimately support an ordinance that extended his term. So, while he voted to pass this to the second reading next month, unless he changes his mind he won’t support it unless it is changed to not impact the 2010 election. This means that a May 2010 election is likely to happen (which to me means we have plenty of time to sort out this issue and there’s no pressing reason to pass anything this year).

Also, I think it was Mr. Maller who originally suggested modifying the title of the ordinance, not Mr. Sze, and there seemed to be discussion about whether it made sense to update the language in the ordinance itself or if tweaking the title was enough to allow them some leeway on updates prior to second reading.

The vote on Mr. Webb’s proposal almost seemed accidental. The City attorney indicated that passing Mr. Webb’s proposal during this meeting would preclude the original ordinance from making it to second reading, and since Mr. Webb’s proposal doesn’t have the same time restrictions (in terms of how many readings it needs and when it needs to be passed) it seemed like the four members wanted to postpone consideration (which was actually motioned for but then called off when the City attorney pointed out that it would probably be cleaner for Mr. Webb to just bring it back up at the next meeting). So, I wouldn’t read a lot into Mr. Webb’s proposal being shot down. If anything, I think they need to consider the timing of when they pass something like Mr. Webb’s proposal because it could trigger a referendum vote within 30-60 days from passage of the proposal – which isn’t what Mr. Webb is going after (he’s suggesting the referendum be put on the November 2010 ballot).

Of the 10 citizens who spoke at the meeting – I think the 1 that you suggest was in favor of the ordinance was actually in favor of moving the election to November but via a referendum to be held early in 2010. Also, while the clerk mentioned 9 email messages she forgot the one I sent – but I said basically the same thing as everyone else so that’s fine.

I thought it was interesting that none of the people Mr. Sze has talked to who support the move, and none of the Mayor’s Facebook friends, came to speak at the meeting (or even bothered to send an email). I’m not sure what that means – but I thought it was odd. I was sure there would be at least a few people speaking out in favor of the ordinance.

I know Mr. Lippman feels strongly about this issue, and feels like it might be the kind of thing where he needs to go against the vocal opposition in order to do what’s best for the silent (he suggested it was a majority but since I’m sure people on both sides of this issue are being silent I think we can’t assume which is the majority) – but I wish he would reconsider; or put it on a referendum in November, when the most voters turn out, and see if they want to make the change.

I thought Mr. Maller made some excellent points about the issue. The assumption is that November will result in more voters (I think a pretty fair assumption – although it might depend if the elections are on the even or odd number years) and a better election. Mr. Lippman even said that having a greater raw number of voters turn out is the only factor he’s considering on this issue. But as Mr. Malller pointed out, it’s not actually clear if November elections would result in more people voting in an informed way. If we’re not going to move the May 2010 election (which seems clear considering Mr. Baroukh, Mr. Snyder, Mr. Webb, and Mr. Maller seem opposed to it) why not take some time to do some research on this issue?

If the Council passes an updated version of the ordinance next month (one that moves the election to November but not until 2012) and no citizens show up to support it I’ll be really disappointed in the Council.