The Cunningham Town Board voted Monday night in special session to put one advisory question on the fall ballot but refrained from filling the ballot with two other questions.
The Urbana City Council, acting as the town board, was expected to put three questions on the Nov. 4 ballot to forestall an effort by local activists to force two advisory referendums in November, since three is the maximum number of referendum questions allowed.
The ballot question the board approved Monday will ask if motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians in crosswalks should be restricted from using cell phones.
The other two questions would have essentially asked voters if they support the status quo in regard to the local election system and in providing township financial and assessment information to the public. The board deferred action on the election question until after a town meeting June 30 and directed staff to come up with proposals to improve financial transparency.
Discuss.
I was there for some of it. Charlie Smyth suggested that people get together to discuss methods of voting, which sounded like a good idea. There was a lot of audience participation, some people more civil than others. The turnout was pretty large, but it bothered me that the notice had been so short that even the city staff apparently hadn't had time to get it on their own website. I hope that there is a discussion about various voting methods, preferably without accusations and finger-pointing.
In her dash to derail democracy, Urbana's Mayor Laurel Lunt Prussing may have violated some Illinois ordinance which requires that all meetings be announced on the Internet, as wayward implies. But more important and obvious was the violation of the dictates of honour and decency, and even common sense, in Prussing's pitiful prating plot to pluck away the power of the people to participate in the political process as a populace picking their preferences in properly proposed referendum questions, which are non-binding, after all.
Belden Fields expressed his disagreement, that it did matter much to him and as a expert with standing in the field, seemed to suggest it was something for the mayor to get hung about, as sort of last straw, buried in the rubble of other things pertinent to living so easily lost if one proceeds with eyes closed. Fortunately, the fellows and friends of the foundations of freedom on the town board found that the foul foolishness of the phony fluff resolutions propounded by Prussing was too much, defeating her dastardly divinations for the time being. It is not surprising that citizens expressed their outrage at the city's civil servant with clear words easily understood.
Accusation in the sense of calling to account seems to be a prime motive for voting so I am not sure there would be much support for voting systems that are ineffectual in that regard. However, regarding the pointing of fingers, you do have a point indeed, since touch screen sensitive voting machines do not appear to be indexed as a popular application of digital technology, and most would prefer the use of paper ballots.
I didn't accuse Prussing of violating the law, nor did I use massive amounts of alliteration. I pointed out that there were no events at all on the city's online calendar for June 16th, when the meeting was held, and when I looked up the online agendas for the township board meetings, there was also nothing for the 16th. To me, it seemed like if the city's own staff didn't even have time to put the information online beforehand, there probably hadn't been enough notice.
I think part of what may be behind the lack of internet announcement is the "separation" between the city and township. Does the city website even have township agendas on it? I've never seen them but never dug deep. This may also be behind the calendar ommission. I certainly think they should put township items on the city agenda, but it may be that it has not been policy to do so in the past. The township has its own website: http://www.prairienet.org/cunningham-township/ but it doesn't have any agendas on it.
I should add that I don't see what was so wrong with Prussing's actions to try and preempt the Greens. The Greens first tried to collect signatures, but forgot to check the law themselves so they got half as many as they needed (why they continue to blame Shelden for their own incompetence, I'll never understand). Then they tried to use a little-used aspect of the law to get the questions on the ballot through the township process. They were outvoted, so they called that an attack on democracy. Then they used the law to setup another meeting to have a do-over vote. Then Prussing used the law to set a meeting before the Green's meeting to preempt their questions.
It's all politics. The primary difference I see is that Prussing isn't crying about losing, while Durl Kruse continues to cry about how wrongly he's been treated by the system. That's democracy, folks.
Yes, they do.
http://www.city.urbana.il.us?URL=/urbana/mayor/boards/township_board/main.htm
This is the calendar:
http://www.city.urbana.il.us?URL=/urbana/calendar/main.asp
They've finally added Monday night's meeting, though it wasn't up Monday, nor was it up when I checked Tuesday (the day after the meeting).
Here are the agendas, still without one for Monday's meeting.
http://www.city.urbana.il.us?URL=/urbana/mayor/boards/township_board/agendas/main.asp
The Illinois Open Meetings act would require the city to post notice of its meetings:
A public body that has a website that the full‑time staff of the public body maintains shall also post on its website the agenda of any regular meetings of the governing body of that public body.but there are no real teeth :
The failure of a public body to post on its website notice of any meeting or the agenda of any meeting shall not invalidate any meeting or any actions taken at a meeting.It's been many years since I had any classes with Professor Fields. What field of expertise are you talking about? This just seems to be sour grapes on the part of people who used the system last year to get what they want and are now complaining because the Mayor and other Democrats used the same system to outmanouver their opponents.
It's all politics. The primary difference I see is that Prussing isn't crying about losing, while Durl Kruse continues to cry about how wrongly he's been treated by the system. That's democracy, folks.
I assure you, it isn't all politics. I truly believe that we need to look at other voting systems and IRV is one of them we should consider. IRV is not perfect but first-past-post has some major problems. Why not just let it go to the voters and have them decide and have the two sides duke it out in debates and forums. Prussing and the Dem leadership are free to campaign for a NO vote if they wanted to. We need to get more citizens invovled in the decision making process via direct democracy.
"crying"?
They can't speak out against something they believe to be unjust and carried out in bad faith? Bad form.
I should add that I don't see what was so wrong with Prussing's actions to try and preempt the Greens.
First of all, it is not just the Greens nor AWARE nor Durl Kruse nor Kruse-clones that were being "pre-empted", nor was it the Greens who collected signatures for a binding referendum, either. Nor does anyone blame Shelden for their own incompetence. Nor is the township advisory referendum a little-used aspect of the law. Nor was the setting up of the meeting for the purpose of a do-over vote. You are correct in saying that Prussing used the law to pre-empt the questions.
There were 2 distinct issues that were called for question before the people by the coalition group. The coalition consisted of Ron Paul Republicans, Libertarians, Democrats, Independents, and bonafide Greens, all in all, a rather motley and nondescript group supporting enhancement of democracy in Urbana. The issues for referendum questions were relative to transparency and Instant Runoff Voting.
The only plausible reason for the Mayor to oppose transparency is that she has sensitive items to hide, which is the incredible and fantastic reason she gave for her opposition. Fortunately, the town board opposed her and defeated her proposal which would have blocked transparency. For now, the board is moving toward the openness in government that would have been recommended in a non-binding way by a YES vote to the transparency referendum. ( Durl Kruse is NOT crying about this). If the board continues to act in good faith as fully expected, the voters will not be asked to render any opinion on transparency, because the board already seems to agree that transparency in government is a great idea.
Which leaves the matter of IRV as a separate issue, although supported by the same nameless formless citizens coalition as the transparency referendum. The original petition for IRV was backed by "IRV for Urbana", a local citizens group, not associated with the Green Party, but representing a subset of the local citizens including some of those supporting the recent drive for referenda. IRV for Urbana circulated a petition for a binding referendum which failed to get on the ballot because of a catastrophic misunderstanding of the number of signatures required, as Curious points out.
At the annual town meeting, the establishment Dems appeared in force, busing in people to oppose the presentation of ANY refererendum items on the ballot. All referenda placed on the ballot by action of the citizens at a town meeting are Advisory Referenda, merely asking the opinion of the people, but not forcing the Government to do anything. It is simply an advisement by the people of what their opinion is on that subject. The Government may take action according to the outcome of the referendum question or it may choose to ignore the outcome of any advisory referendum.
The strange and difficult thing to understand from the standpoint of grassroots participatory democracy is why the establishment Dems came out to oppose asking a question of the people that would merely provide information rather than change any laws. That opposition by the Dems was expressed by not allowing any of the referenda to be discussed at the annual town meeting. The "coalition for enhanced democracy" group (there is actually no formal organisation) felt that transparency and the IRV question are important enough to go to the trouble of calling a special township meeting to force discussion. Every freedom-loving citizen of Urbana should be appalled if not galled that the Mayor sought to block the discussion by disingenuously calling a special meeting of the board. Wisely the board backed away from interfering with "the peoples" meeting, and a special meeting of the township electors (the people of Urbana) will occur on 30 June 2008 as previously scheduled. Most likely this meeting will be only to discuss the merits of putting an advisory (non-binding) referendum for IRV on the ballot.
Unfortunately, an Up or Down vote on placing the referendum on the ballot might not bring any closure to the IRV issue. If the referendum is approved by the electors, it will still have to go on the ballot for November. A YES vote by the majority in November would still not force any action by the town or city but would only be advisory in nature. If the Dems outpack the room on 30 June as in April, the IRV-favouring group will come back either with more meetings or with other efforts and should not be expected to cry, sulk, or even "give up".
Hopefully this provides some clarity where there has been so much misinformation.
The only plausible reason for the Mayor to oppose transparency is that she has sensitive items to hide, which is the incredible and fantastic reason she gave for her opposition. Fortunately, the town board opposed her and defeated her proposal which would have blocked transparency. For now, the board is moving toward the openness in government that would have been recommended in a non-binding way by a YES vote to the transparency referendum. ( Durl Kruse is NOT crying about this). If the board continues to act in good faith as fully expected, the voters will not be asked to render any opinion on transparency, because the board already seems to agree that transparency in government is a great idea.
Putting information online and maintaining it takes labor, which could cost the city money. So that could be another reason to oppose that referendum. I'd want more information about how much this would cost and how many people would be likely to use it.
The City of Urbana and Cunningham Township are two separate units of government. Since the city and the township are co-terminous, the City Council acts as the Town Board. The Mayor chairs the Town Board meetings, but has no voting authority. The City Clerk is the Town Clerk.
The township contracts with the City for certain services: janitorial services, data processing services, building and grounds maintenance, etc. There is currently no agreement to post township information on the city's website, but the meetings are held in the city council chambers.
The township website is not updated; we do not have staff to do this. We have never posted township agendas on the TOWNSHIP website. It would certainly be nice to have an ongoing updated website, but we would have to hire a staff person to do this. Anyone wanting information on the township can certainly contact the township office. We would be happy to provide any information that is allowed to be provided to the public. Information about General Assistance recipients IS NOT public information (per statute). I can be reached at 384-4144, ctso@prairienet.org, carol-ts@sbcglobal.net, or come to the office at 205 W. Green, Urbana.
Did any of you watch or attend the meeting? On the transparency issue, Prussing and the council had open discussion with the primary person pushing for more info online (Visek IIRC). Through that discussion the comptroller told how he had recently put the treasurer's report and some other report online at Visek's request, and now intended to do so every year. These reports list every single financial transaction the city engages in. They are searchable and fully viewable. Visek and others agreed to withdraw their proposal to place a transparency question on the ballot as a result of this. Frankly it was quite a nice show of responsive government in action.
As for this great coalition Regnad suggests, I challenge you to give me a breakdown of the party affiliation of the group. I suspect it is 90+% Green. Now that the transparency issue is moot, I suspect you may have lost some libertarians as well. IRV is a Green Party issue, and pushing it at the local level is one of their national priorities. Certainly that's their right, but the rhetoric suggesting that everybody except Dems is pushing for IRV is just plain propoganda.
Regnad also suggests the Dems were "busing in people to oppose the referendum." This is just silly. Again, do you go to or watch these meetings, or just accept whatever your friends tell you? Most of the votes at that meeting were around 25-30 on one side and 30-35 on the other. Must have been a pretty small bus...
Another piece of misinformation being pushed by the IRV crowd is that there was no discussion allowed at the last township meeting. They say this every chance they get---that they weren't even allowed to discuss the merits. While the motion on the floor was to add items to the agenda, the chair let everyone speak well beyond the bounds of that motion and speak to the issues themselves. No speech was stifled. Everyone was given a chance to speak as many times as they wanted. Several people did state their positions in support of or in opposition to IRV (and the other issues). Frankly, the chairperson could have told people not to discuss the merits of the issues since hte motion was just to add questions to the agenda, but she didn't. She let everyone speak all they wanted about whatever they wanted for as long as they wanted.
When I said it's just politics, what I meant is that the political maneuvering on both sides is just politics. Frankly, the IRV question is mostly politics too, but I understand that some people (on both sides) feel that one or the other systems is empirically the best option.
The township website is not updated; we do not have staff to do this. We have never posted township agendas on the TOWNSHIP website. It would certainly be nice to have an ongoing updated website, but we would have to hire a staff person to do this.
Again, most of the agendas for the town board meetings are posted right here:
http://www.city.urbana.il.us?URL=/urbana/mayor/boards/township_board/agendas/main.asp
When I said it's just politics, what I meant is that the political maneuvering on both sides is just politics. Frankly, the IRV question is mostly politics too, but I understand that some people (on both sides) feel that one or the other systems is empirically the best option.
Yup.
I really knew that. I was just testing. How embarrassing. Anyway, my offer still goes for information on anything else that is not posted anywhere about Cunningham Township functions.
As for this great coalition Regnad suggests, I challenge you to give me a breakdown of the party affiliation of the group. I suspect it is 90+% Green. Now that the transparency issue is moot, I suspect you may have lost some libertarians as well. IRV is a Green Party issue, and pushing it at the local level is one of their national priorities. Certainly that's their right, but the rhetoric suggesting that everybody except Dems is pushing for IRV is just plain propoganda.
As for people giving up on the issue, for instance libertarians dropping off, that is pure nonsense. Since most of the Ron Paul Republicans (but not all) are libertarians too, I would judge the group to be about 30% Greens, 30+% Democrats, 30% Libertarian/RPR and about 10% other. In other words your interpretation of it being the Greens is nonsense too.
"I would judge the group to be about 30% Greens, 30+% Democrats, 30% Libertarian/RPR and about 10% other."
30% libertarians? How many people are we talking about here? And what group are you referring to...is it the activists who consistently come out and support this issue, or the people who signed your petition? The latter would be absolutely bogus and misleading, as having signed the petition to put a question on the ballot isn't an indication they'll vote yes. If the former, then I'm guessing you must not have that many people (in total) in order for the libertarians to be reaching 30%. As for the "30+% Democrats", I highly doubt it. If you like, prove me wrong and list 20. Or list whatever number you can think of.
About 25 people seemed to be in favor of IRV at the first township meeting so maybe this is the group you're talking about. Heck, even with that size, you'd need 8 libertarians, 8 greens, and more than 8 dems. Can you even list those? I saw the greens...
Curio, if that's the number, then you and the WQ and her other crones and cronies shouldn't have any problems stepping aside, better yet, stepping in, and letting people say at the polling place whether or not they prefer to select local elected public servants by IRV
You and Esther Patt, et al. then get to make your case that IRV is Wacky.
Everyone will believe you and the IRV in Urbana crowd will go down in shame and embarrassment along with their ridiculous notions as they are soundly thrashed at the polls in November and never come back.
If you keep messing with them the Greens and Kruse's Krazies and the Paultards will never give up until the people finally get to vote on it or somehow IRV is approved. You know how they are. Nuts, ya know.
FWIW I have signed IRV petitions for years, and been cavassed about it and discussed about it in town and at the Quad Day for U of I and all sorts of places, and it's always been... LIBERTARIANS. Before there was any organized Green party things going on in Urbana the Libertarians were talking about it, even when they weren't actually doing anything about it. Heck, it got discussed on the local USENET even, where people with whom I barely agreed on any issue would join me on that one.
Obviously I realize a lot of Greens also care about the issue for the same reasons and I'm not surprised to find many Greens supporting it in Urbana, but there have always been Libertarians involved.
It was a Libertarian (self-identified) who brought the latest petition for IRV to my house.