 Sponsors Sought Resolution Regarding Bridge Construction by Dick Kauffman April 15, 2002
According to today's news release issued by Bethel, the application for the petition sought a Resolution of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough Alaska to Construct a bridge across the Tongass Narrows. Carol Cairnes was the contact person on the application requesting an Initiative Petition and Charlie Arteaga was listed as the alternate contact person. The application was signed by 20 registered voters as sponsors of the petition. In Bethel's written denial of the application for the Initiative Petition, she wrote that the text of the proposed resolution is confusing and complicated. She stated that it appears that the applicants' intent would be solely to place the ballot proposition (Section 7) of the resolution on the ballot for October 1, 2002, and have the result of the vote on that ballot question applied to the balance of the resolution and to become an official policy statement for both the Borough and the Assembly. The text of the petition does not accomplish this she said. The initiative process would involve adoption of the resolution itself at the initiative vote. The question on such a ballot proposition would be along the lines of:
Bethel wrote in her determination that if this proposition passed, the Section 7 proposition could appear on a subsequent ballot. Nothing indicates when that subsequent vote would occur she said. According to Bethel, the resolution's apparent intent is to seek and to bind not just the Borough to a particular position regarding design and construction of a bridge, but to bind the Borough Assembly as well. While a legislative policy statement adopted through initiative may be binding upon the Borough as a corporate entity until it is repealed or amended, the initiative could not bind the Borough Assembly Members, individually, and require them to express a particular view on their own she said. Bethel stated there is a general reference calling for a vote on the "design and construction of a bridge across the Tongass Narrows." As worded, the proposition in Section 7 of the application does not identify the type and location of the bridge to be designed or constructed, or upon which votes, either in favor or opposed, are requested. She said the section discusses voter approval of design and construction, but the question only asks, "Shall a resolution be adopted by the Ketchikan Gateway Borough to support construct [sic] of a bridge across the Tongass Narrows?" Bethel wrote that this is assuming that: 1) the initiative is turned in; 2) the voters approve the resolution; 3) the proposition and description in Section 7 is placed on the ballot at either a special election or the October 2003 election; and 4) a majority of the voters at such an election voted yes on the question. Bethel writes that the outcome does not trigger anything which would act to adopt an identified resolution supporting a bridge. Contrary to the proposed introductory language for the advisory vote, a "no" vote on the advisory question would not be a vote in favor of a resolution opposing construction of the bridge she said. Also, Bethel stated, regardless of a vote, individual Assembly Members cannot be compelled to voice a given viewpoint against their will. The sponsors requesting the initiative application stated in Section 7 of their application,"
Bethel noted that another complication comes from Section 5 of the resolution proposed in the initiative petition. Section 5 on the application states, "If sufficient qualified voters sign the initiative petition, the question of whether the resolution shall be adopted shall be submitted to the voters of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough at the regular election to be held on October 1, 2002." Bethel said that this section calls for a vote on October 1, 2002, as to whether the initiated resolution should be adopted. If the petition is certified and no regular election occurs within 75 days after the certification of the petition, the governing body shall hold a special election within 75 days, but not sooner than 45 days after certification. Section 5 cannot be given effect according to Bethel. Even if the issue of approval of the resolution appears on the ballot, the resolution does not designate when the proposition stated in Section 7 would be placed before the voters she wrote. Bethel said without an operative timing reference this resolution is not enforceable. The decision by the clerk on an application for petition is subject to judicial review.
Related Information: Alaska Statutes require an application for an initiative and referendum petition to be filed with the borough clerk. If the borough clerk determines that an application for an initiative and referendum petition meets the requirements of the statutes, the clerk is required, by statute, to prepare an initiative or referendum petition. Requirements of an initiative or referendum petition are specified by Alaska Statute 29.26.110. Alaska Statute directs within two weeks the clerk will certify the application if the clerk finds that it is in proper form and, for an initiative petition, that the matter (1) is not restricted by AS 29.26.100.2; (2) includes only a single subject; (3) relates to a legislative rather than an administrative matter; and (4) would be enforceable as a matter of law.
Source of News Release & Information:
|