Our city charter gives citizens the ability to propose ordinances.
A petition must be signed by at least five percent of the number of voters in the last city general election. City council then considers the item and either kills the proposal or proceeds with the proposal as though it was a regular ordinance.
A qualifying petition relating to the proposed site of the performing arts center was rejected by council in June.
As allowed by our city charter a second petition with at least five percent of the number of voters in the last city general election was then circulated and signed.
The second petition was turned over to the city clerk. The city clerk found that the signatures were valid and that the petition qualified for the second step in the process, which would have been for the city clerk to put the item on the next city general election ballot. From the city charter:
and that official (the City Clerk) shall have twenty working days in which to authenticate the signatures and thereafter must place the reproposed ordinance on the ballot at the next general election specified in State law, if the proposal received the favorable vote of a majority of those voting in that election it shall thereupon become a City ordinance.
Not possible
Recently a lawyer for the city convinced council not to put the item on the ballot. His claim is that Texas law does not give the City Clerk the authority to put something on the ballot.
Thus, according to this lawyer our right of initiative is inoperative because the city charter is poorly worded.
Could it be that the lawyer is wrong? Stay tuned.
We deserve better
Brutus
elpasospeak 
Elections have consequences. This bunch on City Council, Margo will do what ever they want. The ONLY thing that MIGHT change any of what THEY do to US, is to start RECALLS. This Lawyer is just another mouth-piece for them, to make it all appear “Legal”. “Well the Lawyer said the PEOPLE can’t do this, so nothing we can do, sorry”. THEY work for US and if THEY don’t do the JOB THEY were HIRED to do, FIRE THEM. It is THEM against US in El Taxo. Never forget that.
LikeLike
Brutus, I would think that legal documents by law must be followed according to the literal wording. If they are poorly worded, then tough for them. This is why I filed ethics complaints against city attorney Borunda-Firth, because she was interpreting direct legal language and assigning new meaning not indicated in the wording.
Can’t do that as a lawyer, BUT lawyers are a crafty bunch, they have their ways and can squeeze out of tight legal situations by pulling sh!t like saying “the wording is ambiguous” or “a City clerk can’t put something on the ballot”.
From a legal standpoint, they have problems because the wording clearly states the city clerk CAN and MUST place the petition on the next ballot.
Mayor Margo, city attorneys and city council representatives rely on voter ignorance, apathy and indifference to slide this sh!t past us.
As long as we continue to bring up these issues publicly (like you and several of us are doing) there is always that chance people will wake up.
We continue taking the fight to the city head on.
Thanks.
LikeLike
When he is wrong he is wrong. We have that right even up to the national level.
LikeLike
What was the qualifying petition that was rejected by council in June? In what way was it related to the proposed site of the performing arts center? What were the petitioners trying to accomplish?
LikeLike
Since it can’t be built for Paul and Woody’s team per the judge, why not put it back on the ballot as a sports and entertainment complex? That way Mountainstar can rent it for a dollar a year which was probably what they planned to do anyway.
LikeLike
William Shakespeare had it right;”FIRST, WE KILL ALL THE LAWYERS.”
LikeLike