DOCSLIB.ORG

In Opposition to the Proposed Ordinance to Ban Abortion in the City of Lubbock

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In Opposition to the Proposed Ordinance to Ban Abortion in the City of Lubbock Jennifer Clements From: Becky Garza Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 8:56 AM To: Dan Pope Cc: Courtney Paz; Jennifer Clements Subject: RE: City Council Public Hearing Nov 17 2020 my comments AGAINST proposed "sanctuary city" ordinance Thank you. We will include this with the other citizen comment emails we have received (330+ so far). From: Dan Pope Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 7:01 AM To: Becky Garza Subject: Fwd: City Council Public Hearing Nov 17 2020 my comments AGAINST proposed "sanctuary city" ordinance Dan Pope Mayor City of Lubbock 806‐775‐2050 Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Mary Crites Date: November 1 To: Dan Pope >, Juan Chadis , Jeff Griffith < , Steve Massengale >, Latrelle Joy >, Shelia Patterson Harris >, Randy Christian Subject: City Council Public Hearing Nov 17 2020 my comments AGAINST proposed "sanctuary city" ordinance Hello, My name is Mary Crites and I live at 4617 8th St, Lubbock, TX 79416. In an effort to do my part to reduce the spread of COVID‐ 19, I will not be attending the public hearing scheduled for this Tuesday night. However I do want to be heard on this important matter. Please have my comments read during the hearing as I feel very strongly that the council and public should hear from citizens who do NOT support the proposed ordinance that would create a “sanctuary city” and effectively bon abortion in Lubbock. This is a thinly veiled attempt to deny women their legal right to this necessary and legal medical procedure. I fully support and was pleased with the City Council’s previous decision to not act on this proposed ordinance. This is not a city issue. The decision about when or if an abortion should occur is deeply personal and should be between your constituent and their physician. Locally 1 elected government officials should not be creating policy that conflicts or interferes with this personal decision and with established law. The proposal to essentially ban abortion by creating a “sanctuary city” will waste city funds legally defending this policy. I would prefer our tax dollars be used for legitimate city functions such as parks, libraries and the local health department who is currently doing a yeoman’s job managing the COVID‐19 crisis here in Lubbock. I strongly urge the city council to vote against adopting this ordinance. Respectfully, Mary K. Crites, AIA ARCHITECT Lubbock, Texas 806.790.7114 WARNING: This message was sent from outside the City of Lubbock's email system. It could contain harmful attachments or links to harmful web pages. 2 5409 21st Street Lubbock, TX 79507 806-795-4502 home 806-790-1228 mobile Comments to be read: To the Mayor and City Council of Lubbock: I am sending this email because I do not feel it is wise for me to attend the Council meeting in person due to the widespread community outbreak of COVID-19. I regret not being able to address the council in person. I want to express my opposition to passing a Sanctuary for the Unborn ordinance. I realize that the petition submitted by Charles Perry and other supporters have forced the issue despite your attempts to explain the legal complexity involved. I had hoped that by the Council’s getting an outside legal opinion, the group would drop their attempt, but instead, they submitted a legal petition. Now they are forcing each of you to vote on an issue that is likely unconstitutional unless/until Roe v. Wade is overturned. Abortion is still a legal medical procedure in the U.S., though each state has varying restrictions. There are several reasons to vote no on this Sanctuary ordinance. First is the obvious legal issues and the expense of a law suit which will surely be filed against the city, if passed. As for the private enforcement aspect of the ordinance, allowing private citizens to sue doctors and/or clinics who perform legal abortions, that is quite problematic. Second, such an ordinance will cause further division in Lubbock when we are in the midst of a pandemic and have recently concluded a divisive national election. We need to be pulling together, not fighting over the issue of reproductive rights within our city limits. If some people complain that wearing a mask is a threat to their freedom; then what about controlling women’s reproductive decisions? Third, passing this ordinance will bring negative publicity to Lubbock, and major companies will not look favorably on a city which tries to restrict the freedom of women and to usurp the federal courts. There is a reason no large city has passed such an ordinance. Would the Lubbock Chamber of Commerce market this ordinance in their national recruitment advertising? Would Texas Tech? Fourth, the Constitution set up a secular government. That was the first thing I taught to my American government classes. We do not have theocratic government at any level — city, county, state or national. People are free to have diverse religious views but those views should not be codified into law. Some pro-life advocates want to force their 2 beliefs on everyone. Pro-choice advocates allow people to make individual choices. Separation of church and state protects the freedom of both entities. After the required public hearing, please carefully consider the many ramifications before you cast your vote on this ordinance. I encourage you to vote NO. Sincerely, Grace Rogers WARNING: This message was sent from outside the City of Lubbock's email system. It could contain harmful attachments or links to harmful web pages. 3 Jennifer Clements From: Kathryn Smith Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 6:59 PM To: Citizen Comments Subject: Public Hearing 11/17/2020 Good evening council members, I would like to express my opposition and concern regarding the proposed ordinance regarding anti-abortion propaganda. This is an unconstitutional petition that is outside the scope of the Lubbock City Council’s responsibilities, and does not reflect the entirety of the Lubbock population’s system of beliefs. Please reject this ordinance as inappropriate, unenforceable, and ill-conceived. Lubbock has the opportunity to be a model for the surrounding West Texas communities to show how differing political and religious values can function in healthy and prosperous cooperation. Please elect not to vote on this ordinance which only satisfies a small enclave of the city of Lubbock that chooses judgement and shame over tolerance, acceptance, and support in this incredibly personal and difficult decision with which many women are forced to reckon. Thank you in advance for providing equal representation for all members of this city. Cheers, Katie Smith 2604 25th Street WARNING: This message was sent from outside the City of Lubbock's email system. It could contain harmful attachments or links to harmful web pages. 1 Jennifer Clements From: Carol Douglass < Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 4:55 PM To: Citizen Comments Subject: Sanctuary city I am opposed to the city council naming Lubbock as a sanctuary city. This is not the duty of a city council. Please follow legal council’s opinion and vote no. I believe that it nears violation of US Supreme Court law as well. Thank you Carol Douglass Sent from my iPad 2 Jennifer Clements From: Nick Smith < Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 10:11 AM To: Citizen Comments Subject: Please do not consider the anti-abortion ordinance Dear Lubbock City Council Members, I am writing to voice my support for the City Council’s decision to not act on the anti-abortion ordinance. As you know, abortion procedures are legal medical procedures in the United States of America. It is out of the purview of the Council to make medical decisions on behalf of their constituents. Please refrain from participating in this act of political theatre and do not consider the proposed ordinance. Thank you, Nick Smith Constituent of Lubbock, TX District 3 3 Jennifer Clements From: Linda Shough Sent: Thursday, Nove To: Citizen Comments Subject: anti-abortion petition I support the City Council's previous decision to not act on this ordinance. It is outside the purview of council concerns. Local elected government officials should not be charged with making personal, medical decisions for their constituents. And women have a right to decide what happens with their bodies. If men would stay with women and not abandon them with babies, this would not be an issue. Linda Shough 1904 64th St Lubbock, TX 79412 WARNING: This message was sent from outside the City of Lubbock's email system. It could contain harmful attachments or links to harmful web pages. 4 Jennifer Clements From: on behalf of Allison Wright < Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 5:25 PM To: Citizen Comments Subject: Oppose City Abortion Ban Dear Lubbock Citizen Comment Email, I am emailing in opposition to the proposed ordinance to ban abortion in the city of Lubbock. I urge you to not use City Council resources on a state political agenda. A city ban would be divisive, expensive and conflict with state and federal policies. Please continue to focus on urgent city business such as protecting Lubbock citizens from the COVID pandemic, including insuring access to healthcare for all who need it and minimizing the economic harm to the local community. I urge you to carefully consider the impact any decisions or actions regarding this issue will have. An abortion is a personal decision and the city of Lubbock cannot dictate to a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. Access to a safe and legal abortion is guaranteed under Roe V Wade and to take away access will only cause people to travel further or seek illegal means for an abortion.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • June 29, 2021 Dear Texas Congressional Delegation, We
    June 29, 2021 Dear Texas Congressional Delegation, We write in deep appreciation of the enactment of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). ARPA’s comprehensive approach is already providing an important boost to our pandemic recovery efforts. We are especially appreciative that ARPA provides fiscal assistance to almost every local government in the nation via the Coronavirus Fiscal Recovery Fund. These funds are providing critical assistance to our cities and will continue to do so as we work to overcome the health, economic, and social impacts of the pandemic. As our cities reopen, we are pleased to see many signs of a strong economic recovery and a return to normal life. However, we are deeply concerned about recent proposals to rescind, recapture, or “clawback” the second tranche of the Coronavirus Fiscal Recovery Fund scheduled for allocation next spring. When creating the Coronavirus Fiscal Recovery Fund, Congress and the Administration foresaw that while our economy would see rapid economic growth this summer and fall, many of the pandemic’s social and economic impacts will take more time to fully address. In response, the program is designed to address short-term needs via an immediate allocation of half of the program’s funds while also allowing for long-term recovery via a second allocation next spring and a provision providing us with three years to obligate the funds. The wisdom of this approach is becoming increasingly evident as we work on our recovery plans. Although the pandemic has given us renewed pride in the strength and compassion of our communities, it has also laid bare how much work we have to do, to fully address all of the pandemic’s impacts and build a more resilient society.
    [Show full text]
  • February 3, 2021 Honorable Members of the Texas Delegation: As Texas
    February 3, 2021 Honorable Members of the Texas Delegation: As Texas combats the third and largest surge of the COVID-19 pandemic, we once again write to request that Congress provide direct and flexible fiscal assistance to local governments of all sizes. Texas cities need help to continue to address the pandemic and its economic and social impacts and to weather budget shortfalls that we face through no fault of our own. The budget calamity looming over local governments is real and requires extraordinary measures. As the numbers recently released by Comptroller Hegar illustrate, Texas is not immune from this pain. He reports that December 2020 general fund tax revenues were 9.26% below December 2019’s figures. Please note that these numbers do not include delayed property tax revenue losses, the primary source of local government revenue in Texas. Property taxes are always a lagging economic indicator, and we therefore fear that it will be some time before our revenues rebound from the pandemic. All Texas cities are grappling with this devastating reduction in revenue as a result of an unprecedented pandemic. In addition, we are facing this fiscal crisis at the same time we continue to address major public health and public safety challenges and are incurring significant costs to ramp up vaccination efforts and other pandemic prevention and response activities. Cities have been, and will continue to be, the first responders to our pandemic – assistance cannot come at a more necessary time. Texas cities are major employers that provide core local government services to tens of millions of Texans.
    [Show full text]
  • Governor Abbott Funding Letter
    May 7, 2020 Dear Governor Abbott, First, thank you for your guidance and leadership during this uniquely challenging time. As mayors from cities across Texas, we fully understand the need to revitalize economic opportunity for all Texans while also ensuring we are doing all we can to protect public health by stopping the spread of COVID-19. We stand ready to assist you in this endeavor in every way possible. On March 27th, President Trump signed into law the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, which provided over $2 trillion in emergency relief funds to help mitigate the financial harm caused by COVID-19. Included in the funding was $11.24 billion from the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF), which was split between the state of Texas and local governments in Texas with populations exceeding 500,000. While the six largest cities in Texas received a direct allocation of this funding from the federal government, no other Texas city has received CRF revenue to assist with disaster response. Needless to say, the virus representing our common enemy at the moment does not acknowledge city boundaries or population distinctions. Every single Texas city has a role to play in the battle for our state’s health and prosperity. To that end, we’ve been encouraged to learn that your office is currently establishing a program for the distribution of a portion of the state’s revenue received from the CRF to cities with populations under 500,000. This funding is critical to support Texas cities and the services they are providing on the front lines of the COVID-19 emergency.
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting Summary
    Ports-to-Plains Segment #3 Committee Meeting #4 Summary May 11, 2020, 8:00 a.m. WebEx* *Note: WebEx was required due to COVID-19 shelter in place orders Attendees Segment Committee Member Organization Attendance Mayor Luis Sifuentes City of Eagle Pass Present via WebEx Sid Cauthorn Ports-to-Plains Alliance Not Present Miguel Conchas Laredo Chamber of Commerce Present via WebEx Anna De La Garza Eagle Pass International Bridge Not Present System Liliana Flores Del Rio Port of Entry Present via WebEx Nick Gallegos Middle Rio Grande Development Present via WebEx Council Melissa Huddleston Laredo Motor Carriers Association Not Present Blanca Larson Del Rio Chamber of Commerce Not Present Morris Libson Eagle Pass Business and Economic Not Present Development Council Yvette Limon Laredo International Bridge System Present via WebEx Mayor Bruno Lozano City of Del Rio Present via WebEx Sandra Martinez Eagle Pass Chamber of Commerce Not Present Leo Martinez Del Rio Economic Development Designee Oriana Corporation Fernandez Present via WebEx Margie Montez Del Rio International Bridge Present via WebEx Judge Lewis G. Owens, Jr. Val Verde County Not Present Judge Francisco G. Ponce Dimmit County Not Present Mayor Pete Saenz City of Laredo Not Present Judge David R. Saucedo Maverick County Not Present Mayor Wayne Seiple City of Carrizo Springs Not Present Judge James Tullis Shahan Kinney County Present via WebEx Kirby Snideman Laredo Urban Transportation Study Not Present (Metropolitan Planning Organization) Judge Tano E. Tijerina Webb County Present via WebEx 1 Ports-to-Plains Segment 3 Committee Meeting #4 May 11, 2020 Summary WebEx Segment Committee Member Organization Attendance Raul S.
    [Show full text]
  • Lubbock MPO Orientation
    Welcome to the Lubbock Metropolitan Planning Organization 1 Lubbock County Citibus City of Wolfforth TxDOT City of Lubbock 2 What is the MPO? Transportation Advisory Committee Transportation Policy Committee 3 A federally mandated and federally funded transportation policy-making organization in the United States made up of Local elected officials and other transportation providers who are mandated to develop and implement a multimodal transportation network based on a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive 3-C planning process. According to law, the 3-C planning process must take place in all communities with 50,000 or more population. Further, with the passage of ISTEA in 1991, all communities with 200,000 population or more have the added mandate to monitor and control air quality issues and local congestion issues as a designated Transportation Management Area (TMA). The TMA requirements have been continued through MAP-21 and the FAST Act. 4 Additionally, the 3-C planning process must seek to satisfy or support the 10 stated project selection criteria contained in the FAST Act for implementing a national transportation network, as well as a host of Performance Measures and Targets. 5 Where are the MPO’s? 6 Amarillo Wichita Falls Sherman-Denison Fort Worth Paris Texarkana Lubbock Dallas Abilene Longview Midland Tyler El Paso Waco Austin San Angelo Killeen-Temple Bryan-College Station San Antonio Beaumont Houston/Galveston Victoria Laredo Corpus Christi Hildalgo County Harlingen-San Benito Brownsville 7 Currently there are 408 designated MPO’s in the United States. 25 are in Texas of which 8 were previously designated as TMAs. 4 new TMAs have been added since the 2010 census.
    [Show full text]
  • July 16, 2021 the Honorable Charles E. Schumer Majority Leader United
    July 16, 2021 The Honorable Charles E. Schumer Majority Leader United States Senate The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Speaker United States House of Representatives The Honorable Mitch McConnell Republican Leader United States Senate The Honorable Kevin McCarthy Republican Leader United States House of Representatives Dear Leader Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, Leader McConnell, and Leader McCarthy: On behalf of the Texas Big City Mayors, we urge you to take immediate action on the Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework announced by President Biden and the group of Republican and Democratic Senators on June 24. This plan will help lead to critical infrastructure investments in Texas communities and across the country. The framework’s $1.2 trillion over eight years will help make local economies more sustainable, resilient, and equitable. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework is vital to the critically needed investments in public transportation; roads; bridges; passenger and freight rail; drinking water and wastewater; clean energy and electrification; pollution cleanup; cyber-attack and extreme weather resiliency; and broadband access. We applaud the bipartisan approach of this framework, and we hope that this bi-partisan support continues in the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. As bi-partisan Mayors, we are grateful for the $350 billion investment in direct relief for state and local governments through the American Rescue Plan. We look forward to collaborating with you as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework develops further to offer our support and share our knowledge about the needs and priorities of cities. We cannot overstate how important it is that no funding from the previous COVID relief funding for local governments be reprogrammed or redirected toward these infrastructure investments.
    [Show full text]
  • Most Southern Cities Are Led by Democratic Mayors
    BLUE CITIES: Most Southern cities are led by Democratic mayors SIZE CITY MAYOR AND POLITICAL AFFILIATION* NOTES RANK 1 Houston, TX Sylvester Turner, registered Democrat Nirenberg is a registered independent but is 2 San Antonio, TX Ron Nirenberg, registered independent considered to be more progressive than his Democratic predecessor. 3 Dallas, TX Mike Rawlings, registered Democrat 4 Austin, TX Steve Adler, registered Democrat 5 Jacksonville, FL Lenny Curry, registered Republican 6 Fort Worth, TX Betsy Price, registered Republican 7 Charlotte, NC Vi Lyles, registered Democrat Lyles will take office in December, replacing Democrat Jennifer Roberts. 8 El Paso, TX Dee Margo, registered Republican 9 Nashville, TN Megan Barry, registered Democrat 10 Memphis, TN Jim Strickland, registered Democrat 11 Louisville, KY Greg Fischer, registered Democrat Runoff will be held on Dec. 5 between 12 Atlanta, GA Kasim Reed, registered Democrat Democrat Keisha Lance Bottoms and independent Mary Norwood. McFarlane defeated Democrat Charles Francis 13 Raleigh, NC Nancy McFarlane, registered unaffiliated for re-election but has been endorsed by the local Democratic Party in the past. 14 Miami, FL Francis Suarez, registered Republican 15 Virginia Beach, VA Will Sessoms, registered Republican 16 Arlington, TX Jeff Williams, registered Republican Runoff will be held on Nov. 18 between 17 New Orleans, LA Mitch Landrieu, registered Democrat Democrats LaToya Cantrell and Desiree Charbonnet. 18 Tampa, FL Bob Buckhorn, registered Democrat 19 Corpus Christi, TX Joe McComb, registered Republican 20 Lexington, KY Jim Gray, registered Democrat 21 Greensboro, NC Nancy Vaughan, registered Democrat 22 Plano, TX Harry LaRosiliere, registered Republican 23 Orlando, FL Buddy Dyer, registered Democrat 24 Durham, NC Steve Schewel, registered Democrat Schewel will succeed Democrat Bill Bell in December.
    [Show full text]
  • Oped: Our Communities Need Your Help: a United Call to Action from Texas Mayors for More Federal Assistance
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 7, 2020 Contacts: April Reiling, (972) 721-2777 or [email protected] Meribeth Sloan, (214) 662-9805 or [email protected] OpEd: Our Communities Need Your Help: A United Call to Action from Texas Mayors for More Federal Assistance Co-Authored by: - Mayor Sylvester Turner, City of Houston - Mayor Ron Nirenberg, City of San Antonio - Mayor Eric Johnson, City of Dallas - Mayor Steve Adler, City of Austin - Mayor Betsy Price, City of Fort Worth - Mayor Dee Margo, City of El Paso - Mayor Jeff Williams, City of Arlington - Mayor Joe McComb, City of Corpus Christi - Mayor Harry LaRosiliere, City of Plano - Mayor Dan Pope, City of Lubbock - Mayor Scott LeMay, City of Garland - Mayor Rick Stopfer, City of Irving - Mayor Ginger Nelson, City of Amarillo - Mayor Ron Jensen, City of Grand Prairie - Mayor Joe Zimmerman, City of Sugar Land Even as some states take steps to reopen businesses, our nation continues to simultaneously face public health, economic and fiscal crises that could endure for some time. These crises are neither “red” nor “blue”; they are red, white, and blue. The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) does not distinguish between Democrats or Republicans or between “blue” states and “red” states, nor do its economic and fiscal impacts. There is no shortage of critiques of the relief bills Congress has enacted, including critiques made by mayors and other state and local elected officials. However, it is important to step back and note that Congress acted quickly and decisively to address this crisis in a bipartisan manner and on a scale commensurate with the challenge our nation faces.
    [Show full text]
  • December 15, 2020 to the Honorable Members of the Texas Congressional Delegation
    December 15, 2020 To the Honorable Members of the Texas Congressional Delegation: As the 116th Congress draws to a close, we are increasingly concerned about the possibility that you will adjourn without enacting a broad pandemic relief bill. Earlier this year, Congress took swift and bold action commensurate with the scope of the public health, economic, and fiscal crisis our nation is facing. The development of a vaccine has given our nation a light at the end of the tunnel. If Congress can once again take bold action, it will allow Americans to weather the remainder of this storm and lay the groundwork for a strong economic recovery. We fear that failure to reach an agreement will not only lead to a great deal of unnecessary pain and suffering, it will needlessly cause economic damage that stymies a full, post-pandemic recovery. Strong and fiscally fit local governments will be a key part of a strong economic recovery. However, absent a pandemic relief bill that includes assistance to state and local governments, Texas local governments will soon face a fiscal crisis. Our balanced budget requirements mean that we will have no choice but to reduce services levels necessary to provide the essential public services our citizens depend on, which may include salary freezes and even layoffs. Time and again, history has shown that state and local government layoffs and spending reductions are a drag on economic recovery, countering monetary and fiscal stimulus efforts at the federal level. Indeed, most economists estimate that pro-cyclical policies by state and local governments delayed full recovery from the last recession by several years.
    [Show full text]
  • Ports-To-Plains Advisory Committee Meeting Summary October 1, 2019, 8:30 A.M
    Ports-to-Plains Advisory Committee Meeting Summary October 1, 2019, 8:30 a.m. Arbor Hotel and Conference Center 401 62nd St Lubbock, Texas Attendees Advisory Committee Member Organization Attendance Mayor George Arispe City of Eldorado Not Present Mayor John Baker City of Tahoka Present Judge Mike Braddock Lynn County Present Judge Charlie Bradley Schleicher County Not Present Mayor Bob Brinkmann City of Dumas Present Mayor Ramsey Cantu City of Eagle Pass Present Judge Terri Beth Carter Sherman County Present Judge Bryan Cox Martin County Present Judge Steve Floyd Tom Green County Designee Present (Guy Andrews) Judge Ronnie Gordon Hartley County Present Mayor Brenda Gunter City of San Angelo Present Judge Kim Halfmann Glasscock County Present Mayor Phillip Hass City of Dalhart Designee Present (James Stroud) Judge Deborah Horwood Sterling County Not Present Mayor Lane Horwood City of Sterling City Not Present Judge Ernie Houdashell Randall County Not Present Judge Terry Johnson Midland County Not Present Judge Harold Keeter Swisher County Present Mayor Bruno Lozano City of Del Rio Present Mayor Jerry Morales City of Midland Present Judge David B. Mull Hale County Present Mayor Ginger Nelson City of Amarillo Designee Present (Jared Miller) Judge Foy O’Brien Dawson County Present Judge Lewis G. Owens, Jr. Val Verde County Not Present Ports-To-Plains Advisory Committee Meeting #1 December 2, 2019 October 1, 2019, Lubbock, Texas 1 Judge Curtis Parrish Lubbock County Present Judge Francisco G. Ponce Dimmit County Not Present Mayor Dan Pope City of Lubbock Present Mayor Ricky Reed City of Stratford Not Present Judge Johnnie “Rowdy” Moore County Designee Present (Dee Rhoades Vaughan) Judge Wesley Ritchey Dallam County Present Mayor Pete Saenz City of Laredo Not Present Judge David R.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Partisan Elections – Referendum 40 - 42 If the City Would Like to Hold Nonpartisan Elections, City Council Should
    Draft AGENDA Rules Committee Monday, October 7, 2019 Lorraine H. Morton Civic Center, James C. Lytle City Council Chambers, Room 2800 6:00 PM Page (I) CALL TO ORDER/DECLARATION OF A QUORUM - ALDERMAN REVELLE (II) PUBLIC COMMENT (III) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 3, 2019 Draft Minutes of the June 3, 2019 Rules Committee Meeting A. 4 - 9 (IV) ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION A. Ordinance 20-O-19, Amending Title 1, Chapter 10 "City of Evanston 10 - 39 Code of Ethics and Board of Ethics" The Members of the Ethics Subcommittee recommend adoption of Ordinance 20-O-19 Amending City Code Title 1, Chapter 10 "City of Evanston Code of Ethics and Board of Ethics" and the Board of Ethics Rules. For Action Ordinance 20-O-19, Amending Title 1, Chapter 10 B. Continued Discussion on Non-Partisan Elections – Referendum 40 - 42 If the City would like to hold nonpartisan elections, City Council should Page 1 of 322 Draft pass a resolution submitting a public question to a referendum not more than one year, but not less than 79 days prior to the next regular election. The next regular election is March 17, 2020, meaning that the Council will need to pass a resolution by December 30, 2019 in order to add the referendum question to the ballot in the next election. For Action Non-partisan Elections – Referendum C. City Manager Search Firm 43 - 311 Staff is recommending that three (3) firms be selected to interview for possible selection for the City Manager executive search.Funding is from HR’s Recruitment budget, 100.19.1929.62512.
    [Show full text]
  • Letter to Chairman Burrows – HB 2 February 26, 2019
    Mayors Coalition Letter to Chairman Burrows – HB 2 February 26, 2019 February 26, 2019 The Honorable Dustin Burrows Texas House of Representatives P.O. Box 2910 Austin, Texas 78768 Dear Chairman Burrows: As the mayors of some of the fastest growing cities in the state and nation, we thank you for your leadership on the issue of property tax reform. Like you, we worry about the growing burden of property taxes and what it means for the future of our great state. We emphatically support property tax relief efforts and applaud the leadership of the Texas House of Representatives on the issue of school finance reform, as it holds the hope of providing the most meaningful property tax relief for our citizens. We are committed to working with you and your fellow legislators as we strive to make real progress on these issues. Our coalition has worked diligently to study HB 2 and analyze its potential impact on our municipalities. We greatly appreciate that your bill did not incorporate a super-majority voter approval and that it excluded debt service in the rollback equation. However, we are developing several specific concepts in an attempt to improve HB 2 and move us towards an agreeable bill. To be clear, the proposed rollback number of 2.5% in the filed version of the bill is not a workable proposal for us as it would have a wildly disparate impact on various cities depending on our varying reliance on property taxes as part of our overall total revenues. Moreover, it does not account for the very real and regionally unique cost drivers that exist in our budgets – cost drivers over which cities have limited control.
    [Show full text]