A proposed charter amendment in Sanford has ruffled some feathers, but it’s really just an effort to remedy a major omission and give more power to the citizens.
Councilor Brad Littlefield is asking the council tonight to add a provision to the charter section 1302 ”“ one that most people thought was already included. It’s a provision that gives residents 10 days to submit a request for petitions after the council takes action on a matter with which they disagree ”“ and if they gather enough signatures within 30 days after receiving their petition blanks, their efforts stop the council action from being implemented until after a referendum vote is taken on the matter.
It’s important to note that this change does not affect citizens’ ability to circulate a petition to consider a new ordinance or change any existing ordinance after it is enacted. That right is enshrined in Section 1301 of the charter and would not be affected.
What this provision adds is the option to petition the council before the ordinance goes into effect. The current charter has no such provision ”“ due to an error by Littlefield when he served as charter commission secretary.
The addition of a provision to prevent the implementation of an ordinance until a citizen-initiated referendum is settled was originally created by then-charter commission member Troy Henke, who initiated the petition against pay-as-you-throw waste disposal back in 2010.
The charter commission agreed to add this provision, which came to be known as the “Henke section,” but it got lost in the editing process when Henke had to leave town for a new job and Littlefield took over as secretary.
Not including this provision in the final draft of the charter was a huge oversight on Littlefield’s part ”“ and he has taken full responsibility, which is why he is urgently making the proposal to fix it.
Mayor Maura Herlihy has also confirmed that this provision was described as being part of the charter, during public hearings before the vote, and said the city attorney has given them the OK to make the change to put it in. She described the oversight as an editing issue, one that was mistakenly removed when the commission made another important change: Clarifying that petitioners have 30 days to gather signatures from the time they get the petition blanks back from the city clerk’s office, rather than 30 days from the council vote. This change eliminates any possibility that a petition effort could be stalled in that office, which could leave petitioners with only a few days to gather signatures.
Littlefield said he knows that those who voted for the new charter did so after being told that this provision was in place, and said he is trying to correct the error. The charter was approved 4,517 to 3,630 on Nov. 6, and Littlefield has said he is trying to adhere to the will of the voters.
Some believe that Littlefield is seeking to quash would-be petitioners’ efforts to oppose city ordinances and have accused him of using this effort as a way to push the new Waste Zero trash disposal ordinance through without dissent. In reality, this provision would make it easier for citizens to dissent, and to do so before the horse is out of the barn, so to speak.
Littlefield himself was opposed to the pay-as-you-throw proposal and has been part of many petition efforts since the 1980s, so it’s hard to paint him as a conspirator against those who would seek to petition the council.
Even Henke, who wrote the provision in question, wholeheartedly believes that Littlefield simply made an oversight in forgetting to include it in the final version of the charter, as he discussed in his letter to the editor, published on Saturday.
Put simply, those who see a conspiracy in Littlefield’s proposal are misinformed.
Under this provision, for example, even if the Waste Zero trash disposal ordinance is voted in and no one challenges it before 10 days is up, citizens could still decide to circulate a petition against it at any point afterwards, whether the ordinance has been in effect for a few months or 10 years.
Without implementation of this charter provision, however, Sanford could be in the same situation it found itself three years ago, when the pay-as-you-throw waste disposal system was voted in by the city council, and went into effect ”“ despite a pending referendum vote by citizen petition. Pay as you throw was repealed in that vote, making the program a short-lived endeavor that inflamed the public against the council.
The 10-day window to file for a petition that would halt council action is short, yes, but a time limit must be imposed if citizen action is going to delay the implementation of a council decision. It needs to be done quickly so that a vote can be taken and city business can move forward.
With council decisions typically taking months of discussion and public hearings, 10 days after the actual vote should be more than enough time to gather five signatures to get a petition going. And if the effort fails, petitioners can always file after the council’s decision has been enacted.
The “Henke section” was widely agreed to be a part of this new charter, and the council will simply be correcting a clerical error of its omission if they vote to do so vote tonight. We urge the citizens to support Littlefield’s efforts to place this provision in the charter where it belongs, because it gives them more power to make their voices heard before the council puts their votes into action.
Ӣ Ӣ Ӣ
Today’s editorial was written by Managing Editor Kristen Schulze Muszynski on behalf of the Journal Tribune Editorial Board. Questions? Comments? Contact Kristen by calling 282-1535, Ext. 322, or via email at kristenm@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
