The "Amended Motion"

Mike
I haven’t had a chance to watch a rerun of this vote yet…however I thought they passed the new one on an emergency vote. Gee this vote was really difficult to follow. I believe this should not have been put on the ballot under these conditions…I smell a law suite on it’s way.

My confussion is about a confussing ballot. Here's my story. My MJ column of July,26th.... titled by the Journal...."Two-fer referendum wrong way to go" was 900 words about the confussion for the voter of having two issues on one ballot.  "Put more simply, if you walk into the voting booth and want to vote for smaller government in order to reduce the number of representatives to 5 from 7....you are also voting to eliminate the ward system, whether you want to or not. Conversely, if you're there to cast your vote to get rid of the ward system....you are automatically voting to reduce the number of council representatives from seven to five whether you want to or not.

Thank you Mike for clearing up that ringing in my ears. Still, what about the confussing ballot?

Perhaps MOVING MIDDLETOWN FORWARD TOLD coached them what to do???

I don't know why someone has not gotten the ACLU involved in the many issues that take place in Middletown from what I continue to read. As for the ballot language, undoubtedly Ohio voting law and statutes address that issue and "clarity." As for the right to put on the ballot issues which were not supported by petitions, then, is it not also setting precedent that
Ms. Ford must still be on the ballot? Or is the elimination of the ward no longer going to be on the ballot, as it would be write-in? How can the Butler Cty voter registration panel say not enough votes were met, and then put the same measure on the ballot? So, now anyone who has insufficient numbers of registered voters can go to city council and ask them to vote to have their names put on the ballot. And if city council doesn't approve that request, is that a discrimatory practice? Why is no one asking city council pushing to have the infrastructure funds put back on the ballot or simply mandate it by an emergency vote? Do you individuals not realize as the voters voted to allow the funds to be used elsewhere, it will also take a VOTE to put it back on the ballot? And yet as the streets crumble, no one is not asking why is the ward situation taking precedent over getting the infrastructure issue on the ballot? The city doesn
t want to maintian roads because they want you, the citizens to suffer, as leverage for a tax increase. That's what all this ward elimination is about. Why do you think the city moved to have these violations in place for an unpainted shed, a dead plant on the porch? Because its evidence tio use for the grand plan on the HUD funds. And with the stimulus money---who oays that back, the city or the state? If its the city, where's the money coming from? Taxes? Too much not seeing the forest for the trees in my opinion. Playing tactics instead of a strategy matching battle plan with battle plan.   

Accuro:

Mike, I remain perplexed to what your point is on the difference. But the Ohio laws have to have uniformity, you simply cannot make exceptions to have items on the ballot regardless of the charter or not. My point was, how would it be constitutional for Ms. Ford to be denied the right to be on the ballot, and another ballot issue which failed to have sufficient numbers be acceptable when the test for both was not met? The argument presented by the President of the NCAAP was very poor, she did it on economic grounds. The question was why was Mr. Landen pushing this initiative so hard when council had already defeated it? Doesn't the city report to council? Didn't a majority vote on council take place, which did not want a public vote on the issue (I say again- a majority)? So, why did Mr. Laden go outside to seek counsel on an issue which was defeated? Who drove him, what were his motives? That was the round about argument made. Is it Mr. Landen's own initiative or the MINORITY of council thay pushed him. The public record trail would reveal what? Is it not starnge on other issues which are defeated Mr. Landen doesn't seek council to get an opinion? Is there a coincidence the woman was chastised by one of the MINORITY supporters of getting it on the ballot? And if council need not have even considered a petition or vote (obviously that was unexpected, therefore the circling of those seeking the absolute right for the voters to vote on this most significant issue), why the petition. And why did Mr. Schiavoni change his position, based upon insufficient signatures?