Jump to content



Photo

District Voting Again


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 Rick

Rick

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 07 December 2014 - 11:29 PM

I attended the Town Council meeting on Monday December 1st and heard the same old thing that we have been hearing about district voting in Clarksville. More importantly after Mr. Dearks comments and the same type of stonewalling that the Council has become famous for, John Krueger took the mic and asked two questions and they were did Mr. Polston send out the survey cards that he said he would during the listening sessions back in 2012. He said that he hadn’t. Mr. Krueger also asked if the council would take a vote for district voting, and the answer by Mr. Polston, after looking left and right, was “No”. After the Q and A the council decided to give opinions on “District Voting” of course we know the outcome of these, it would have been a 4-3 vote. But during the statements by Mr. Polston, which were” I don’t have any issue with district voting.” Then he said that someone approached his brother and tried to get him to change his vote to for district voting. Mr. Polston then said that he would not change his vote for anybody”. This is interesting to me in that he has no issue with district voting but he votes “no”. And further he won’t change his vote because someone talked to his brother. This does not make sense to me but not much does with the district voting issues. IMO one of two things are happening either Mr. Polston is being controlled by the other members of the council or he doesn’t hear how it sounds when he tries to justify his stance. Mr Deark, Mr. Krueger, and several others are trying to get this town to see the benefits of “Fair Voting” and for that I say, Thank You. Keep fighting the good fight.
  • GrumpyGranny, Mr. Gray and TomD like this

#2 Mr. Gray

Mr. Gray

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 700 posts

Posted 08 December 2014 - 08:21 AM

Mr. Polston is either incapable of making his own decisions or not allowed to.  By looking left and right and then saying no, looks like he is not allowed (anybody say puppet). The next election is going to be interesting.  Some of the old guard that were tossed out last time are making noise.  Just what Clarksville doesn't need, more corrupt good ole boys. We have four now that need to go.  Pay attention to what is going on here people, throw out the old four next election and send them a message that you are tired of their old school garbage.


Edited by Mr. Gray, 08 December 2014 - 08:23 AM.

  • GrumpyGranny and TomD like this

#3 miami vice

miami vice

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts

Posted 08 December 2014 - 09:42 PM

For those of who may be confused about district voting,  it is also referred to as "fair voting" or "neighborhood voting."

 

Mr. DeArk, Mr. Krueger, and many others do indeed deserve a big hand and support for trying to remove those (the "Gang of 4") who have cost this town much money.   Regarding Mr. Krueger’s time speaking before the council, he first stated he knew Mr. Polston had a lot on his plate; however, after 2 years had he finally made a decision on district voting.  Mr. Krueger could have asked why he changed his campaign stance supporting district voting, but he didn’t.  He could have cited the 3 town hall meetings where citizens overwhelmingly supported district voting, but he didn’t. Indeed, he could have stated that, according to Indiana law, it’s only the council that can determine the voting method, but he didn’t.  No, he just asked that, if after all of this time (over 2 years),  had Mr. Polston  finally made up his mind.   

 

His comments at the end of the meeting defy any logic in more ways than one.  May I ask who made him council president?  Now, more than ever, we need district voting and begin the process of cleansing our town government.

 


#4 TomD

TomD

    Commissioner

  • Moderators
  • 1,076 posts

Posted 10 December 2014 - 04:09 PM

It appears this issue is off the table for now, probably until the next council takes office in 2016.  It's time to move on and concentrate our efforts in trying to elect the best candidates we can in the next election.

 

It's unfortunate that the gang of 4 has blocked implementation of district voting for over 27 months..... 

Even after it was supported by the majority of those who attended the listening sessions back in September 2012... 

Even though the last election saw two candidates seated on the council that lost in their respective districts, yet were declared the winners by virtue of the town wide voting scheme... 

Even though none of the town wide voting supporters have explained why it's a bad idea for district voters to elect their own councilman...

Even though district voting is the fair way to elect our district councilmen...

Even though changing to district voting is the right thing to do...

 

IMO, there is one, and only one reason the gang of 4 would change to district voting.  They would change if they thought it would help them or their minions get elected.  They changed to town wide voting in 1994 to block political opponents.  What makes you think they would change it back for any other reason?


  • GrumpyGranny likes this

#5 TomD

TomD

    Commissioner

  • Moderators
  • 1,076 posts

Posted 12 December 2014 - 09:24 AM

I attended the Town Council meeting on Monday December 1st and heard the same old thing that we have been hearing about district voting in Clarksville. More importantly after Mr. Dearks comments and the same type of stonewalling that the Council has become famous for, John Krueger took the mic and asked two questions and they were did Mr. Polston send out the survey cards that he said he would during the listening sessions back in 2012. He said that he hadn’t. Mr. Krueger also asked if the council would take a vote for district voting, and the answer by Mr. Polston, after looking left and right, was “No”. After the Q and A the council decided to give opinions on “District Voting” of course we know the outcome of these, it would have been a 4-3 vote. But during the statements by Mr. Polston, which were” I don’t have any issue with district voting.” Then he said that someone approached his brother and tried to get him to change his vote to for district voting. Mr. Polston then said that he would not change his vote for anybody”. This is interesting to me in that he has no issue with district voting but he votes “no”. And further he won’t change his vote because someone talked to his brother. This does not make sense to me but not much does with the district voting issues. IMO one of two things are happening either Mr. Polston is being controlled by the other members of the council or he doesn’t hear how it sounds when he tries to justify his stance.  [ Bingo!  Mr. Polston is known to tell people "I'm my own man".  However, he sure seems to be strongly influenced by another councilman and an assistant department head.  When your stance is shaky, it's hard to justify it and you sometimes come off a little silly when you try.] Mr Deark, Mr. Krueger, and several others are trying to get this town to see the benefits of “Fair Voting” and for that I say, Thank You. Keep fighting the good fight.


  • GrumpyGranny and Mr. Gray like this

#6 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 11 January 2015 - 12:10 PM

Now this is an issue of constitutional importance
to protect the rights of all of the residents.

If the town tries to change the voting process to "district only voting"
then they would be blocking the residents from a full vote
on the representatives that make Executive Branch decisions
and they would have only a 3/7ths vote!

A voter has to be able to vote for all seven town council members
in order to not be disenfranchised.
Only voting for two at large and one district council person,
would not give a voter a full voice on the persons subsequently exercising
Executive Branch actions.
That would effectively impact every voter.
It is Unconstitutional.

It gives them only a 3/7ths vote.
Remember, the News and Tribune had an editorial on that fact

#7 GrumpyGranny

GrumpyGranny

    Local Legend

  • Administrators
  • 5,169 posts

Posted 11 January 2015 - 12:37 PM

Savile Row, I live in and vote in Clarksville, and I want district voting. I don't get this 3/7th of a vote thing. I want to vote for MY district, no others. I want MY district to have the final say on who will represent us on the council, not for our votes to count for nothing due to voting by others who do not live in MY district. I want the opportunity to meet/talk with the candidates for MY district, not to have them too busy campaigning all over town to have time for me or others in MY district.

 

Why would I want to vote for the council person in, say, district 3? I don't even know which of the other districts is 3. I don't know what the residents in district 3 want in a candidate for their district. I don't know what district 3's needs are compared to my district.

 

I want to place my vote where it counts for me...my district...and I DO NOT WANT IT CANCELLED OUT BY THE VOTE OF JOHN DOE IN DISTRICT WHATEVER! 


Edited by GrumpyGranny, 11 January 2015 - 12:38 PM.

  • Not Super But Honest Mike and chewing the fat like this

#8 Stirring the Pot

Stirring the Pot

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 179 posts

Posted 11 January 2015 - 01:01 PM

I would counter that the current scheme itself is unconstitutional. It denies the voters of a district the ability to decide for themselves who they want to represent them, and denies the candidate the privilege of having his or her fate determined by the voters in a district. As GG mentioned, Ryan Lynch actually WON his district, but lost the town-wide vote. How is it constitutional for the voters in that district, who voted to put him in office, to have their wishes, their voice diminished by those who do not live in their district? How is it constitutional for a candidate who wins the district they ran for to have that victory wiped away by the whims of others? That is why we have at-large council members; they represent everyone. The district member represents their specific area. You say it's only a 3/7 vote; I counter that it gives EVERYONE at least three people on the council they can turn to if they need to communicate with the council, just like we have three people in Washington we can turn to, our representative in the House and two senators. And besides, if I remember correctly, that editorial ultimately spoke out in favor of district voting.

 

To say that district voting denies the residents their voice just doesn't make sense. If anything, it ensures their voice is properly heard, something certain people in power in Clarksville don't want.

 

And let me just throw out there that I believe Ryan Lynch will be a fabulous addition to the town council, and I wish him all the best!


  • GrumpyGranny, James-R-McClure-Jr and chewing the fat like this

#9 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 11 January 2015 - 01:07 PM

GG, the principle has been upheld before.
Ask Pesty, LW, or Curmudgeon.
Ask the government professors at IUS or UL.


The Legislative Branch duties are properly split into districts and at large
representatives.
However, if ANY council member exercises ANY authority
(like appointing Executive Branch employees, etc.)
that is an Executive Branch function,
then that person must be elected by ALL of the voters in that municipality.
The Legislative Branch functions are broken down under the same concept
as the congressional elections, state assembly seats, council seats, etc.
The Executive Branch decisions are made by the chief executive
such as a mayor, governor or president.

If any member of the elected council
exercises
any Excutive branch authority,
then all voters must have the right to select them.
That is WHY the town's government has been constituted in that manner.
It is not legal to partially disenfranchise
the voter by making them a "3/7th citizen".

Edited by Savile Row, 11 January 2015 - 01:10 PM.


#10 James-R-McClure-Jr

James-R-McClure-Jr

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 125 posts

Posted 11 January 2015 - 01:26 PM

Peace, Savile Row,

 

Now this is an issue of constitutional importance
to protect the rights of all of the residents.

If the town tries to change the voting process to "district only voting"
then they would be blocking the residents from a full vote
on the representatives that make Executive Branch decisions
and they would have only a 3/7ths vote!

A voter has to be able to vote for all seven town council members
in order to not be disenfranchised.
Only voting for two at large and one district council person,
would not give a voter a full voice on the persons subsequently exercising
Executive Branch actions.
That would effectively impact every voter.
It is Unconstitutional.

It gives them only a 3/7ths vote.
Remember, the News and Tribune had an editorial on that fact

 

So, according to your logic, I, as a citizen of Indiana, should be able to vote for all the members of the State's House of Representative & Senate, otherwise, I'm disenfranchised?  Should I also be able to vote for other State's federal representatives and senators?  The district councilmen should represent their districts and the at-large should represent the whole town.  If we continue with everyone votes for everyone else's councilman, we may as well make all seven of them at-large.  Local representation is best.  It allows the citizens the best access to their representatives.


  • GrumpyGranny and chewing the fat like this

#11 James-R-McClure-Jr

James-R-McClure-Jr

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 125 posts

Posted 11 January 2015 - 01:32 PM

Peace, Savile Row,

 

If any member of the elected council
exercises
any Excutive branch authority,
then all voters must have the right to select them.
That is WHY the town's government has been constituted in that manner.
It is not legal to partially disenfranchise
the voter by making them a "3/7th citizen".

 

So, if Clarksville adopted a town manager or mayor, you'd be in favor of district voting?

 

I do appreciate the attempt to paint district voting proponents as pro-slavery with your "3/7th citizen" reference, but with district voting, My three councilmen would only decide 3/7th of the executive decisions, so I should only have "3/7th of a vote."


  • chewing the fat likes this

#12 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 11 January 2015 - 01:54 PM


The Executive Branch authority
is executed
by a mayor, a governor, or a president.

So, in Clarksville there are seven mayors, governors, or presidents
each having only 1/7th of the authority to act upon Executive Branch activities.

Each voting person has the constitutional right to elect everyone whom will make Executive Branch decisions.
Everyone gets to exercise a "whole vote" over the Executive Branch "executive".
That is why the town's voting is correctly structured the way it is.

Edited by Savile Row, 11 January 2015 - 01:56 PM.


#13 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 11 January 2015 - 02:03 PM

Yes, Mr. McClure, you are correct.
The Legislative Branch structure would also change
if the voters of the town decided to switch to a city rather than a town.
The constitutional concept would remain the same.

The town would vote "citywide" for a mayor,
the head of the Executive Branch,
and
split up at-large and districts for the Legislative Branch.

Remember, a 'town manager' is an "appointed bureaucratic employee"
of the Executive Branch.
They are not an "elected official".

Edited by Savile Row, 11 January 2015 - 02:06 PM.


#14 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 11 January 2015 - 02:10 PM

I think that Clarksville
has defeated a ballot referendum
three times
avoiding a switch to a city government.
The last time the measure was defeated by a wide margin.

It may be long past time to re-start that debate
and get the measure placed on the spring ballot
for a new vote.
The last vote was a number of years ago.
Does anyone remember how long it has been since that vote?

Edited by Savile Row, 11 January 2015 - 02:12 PM.


#15 James-R-McClure-Jr

James-R-McClure-Jr

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 125 posts

Posted 11 January 2015 - 03:35 PM

Peace, Savile Row,

 

So, in Clarksville there are seven mayors, governors, or presidents
each having only 1/7th of the authority to act upon Executive Branch activities.

 

False, councilmen aren't mayors, governors, or presidents.

 

That is why the town's voting is correctly structured the way it is.

 

False.  The current voting structure is incumbent protection.



#16 James-R-McClure-Jr

James-R-McClure-Jr

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 125 posts

Posted 11 January 2015 - 03:41 PM

Peace, Savile Row,

 

Yes, Mr. McClure, you are correct.
The Legislative Branch structure would also change
if the voters of the town decided to switch to a city rather than a town.
The constitutional concept would remain the same.

The town would vote "citywide" for a mayor,
the head of the Executive Branch, and split up at-large and districts for the Legislative Branch.

 

So, which are our current council members: legislators or executive?  Selecting a mayor wouldn't suddenly change their status.



#17 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 11 January 2015 - 03:54 PM

They are both.
That is why everyone has to able to vote for every member in order to meet the Executive Branch requirement.
With a city form of government,
there would be no role for the councilcritters
to exercise the executive functions.
They would be the Legislative Branch exclusively
and would be elected with the format of districts and at-large.
If Clarksville were to become a third class city,
they would have two at-large council members
and five separate elected in districts.
I am not sure of the population requirements
and what size city they would be classified.

Edited by Savile Row, 11 January 2015 - 04:01 PM.


#18 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 11 January 2015 - 04:00 PM

It might be a good idea to begin
organizing the electorate to get the referendum
on the ballot for May 2015 to become a city.

The Mayor does not have to be classified as "full time" yet.
The old argument of those opposed has always been that it "costs too much".
That argument is way out of date with Clarksville's growth.


When is the next meeting of the current town council?
That would be a good place for the readers of the CCC to begin their quest......

#19 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 11 January 2015 - 04:23 PM

1.) Of course there are not seven persons
'actually elected as mayors, governors, or presidents'.
That is used to illustrate the CONCEPT of the actual function
of the town board members in an "elected executive capacity".,

2.)Incumbent-critters
in Clark County are an ENDANGERED SPECIES.

The current system actually provides them no protection at all.
They are equally vulnerable under a city system or a town system.
Jamie Noel has made it a brand new day.
He has had exceptional success as the Chair of the GOP.


3.)I totally agree that it is a learning process
and the reasons have not been fully explained to the public.
Respectfully, please re-read the earlier posts
that explain in detail the
functions of the elected council members.
It helps to better begin understanding
the constitutionally protected process.

Edited by Savile Row, 11 January 2015 - 04:38 PM.


#20 TomD

TomD

    Commissioner

  • Moderators
  • 1,076 posts

Posted 11 January 2015 - 04:34 PM

Folks, we seem to have gotten a little off topic here.  I'll post the state statute concerning the makeup of town councils, and then ask that future posts pertain to the topic.  Thanks.

 

IC 36-5-2-2
Towncouncil;president
Sec. 2. The town council elected under IC 3-10-6 or IC 3-10-7 is
the  town  legislative  body.  The president of the  town  council  selected
under section7 of this chapter is the town executive.
As  added  by  Acts  1980,  P.L.212,  SEC.4.  Amended  by  P.L.5-1986,
SEC.55; P.L.8-1989, SEC.97.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users