- advertisement -
RSSChangeDecatur appeals to Supreme Court
Search By Issue DECATUR - Decatur voters will decide in February whether
to retain the city manager form of government, the 4th District Illinois
Appellate Court ruled Monday.
But the appeals court tossed a second
question, asking if Decatur should adopt the strong mayor form of city
government, off the Feb. 5 primary election ballot.
The three justice
panel that heard the case Wednesday issued a split decision.
Justices
John T. McCullough and Thomas R. Appleton voted to keep one question and remove
the other. Justice Sue Myerscough dissented, opting to keep both questions on
the ballot.
Organizers of ChangeDecatur said they filed a brief Monday
afternoon with the Illinois Supreme Court, asking it to make an "emergency
decision" on the issue.
ChangeDecatur asked the Supreme Court to consider
placing both questions on the ballot, organizer Steve Daniels said.
If
the court does not render a prompt ruling, ChangeDecatur will ask the court to
issue a stay on the appellate court's decision, which would allow both questions
to be voted on by Decatur voters in February. The outcome of the election would
not become final until after the Supreme Court issued a ruling on the
appeal.
If the court can't put both issues on the ballot or issue a stay,
ChangeDecatur asked that both questions be removed from the ballot, Daniels
said.
ChangeDecatur wants to replace the city manager and council form of
government with a strong mayor and aldermanic system.
The city currently
is served by the mayor and six council members, who are elected at-large to
represent the entire community.
Under ChangeDecatur's plan, the community
would be divided into wards represented by 20 aldermen and a strong mayor, who
would serve as CEO of the city.
Without the second question on the
ballot, a successful vote not to retain the city manager form of government
would cause the city to revert to a commissioner form of municipal government in
2009.
"ChangeDecatur and the 1,600 signatures that we obtained from
registered voters of Decatur never expected to have a referendum between the
commission and manager form of government," Daniels said. "We want to give our
citizens the chance to vote on a strong mayor form of government with aldermanic
representation.
"This is an important issue for Decatur. We said we'll
vigorously defend the rights of voters, and we intend to do so as far and as
long as we have to."
The ruling was good news to Jeff Hendricks, chairman
of the Greater Decatur Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors.
The
Chamber board supported the court appeal that was filed by Decatur Realtor Carla
Brinkoetter.
"The Chamber is very pleased with the ruling," Hendricks
said. "Obviously, (the appellate court judges) agreed with us that it was
confusing, and the confusion has been removed. That was certainly a concern of
ours."
The Chamber board likely will take a position on the single
question on the Feb. 5 ballot and communicate its feelings with voters,
Hendricks said.
"Personally, honestly, I think some wonderful things are
happening in Decatur, and I want to think long and hard before I would put
Decatur in the situation of making a significant change in the way we govern
without looking at the progress that's being made in our community," Hendricks
said.
The court majority examined conflicting provisions of the Illinois
Municipal Code.
It ruled that the code's article 6, which requires that a
proposal to adopt the strong mayor form of government must be presented at a
municipal general election, trumped article 5, which states that both the
proposition to reject or continue the managerial form of government and one to
adopt the strong mayor form of government may be submitted at the same election
and printed on the same ballot.
However, each proposition must be stated
separately.
Writing for the majority, McCullough said the general legal
rule is "where a general statutory provision and a more specific provision
relate to the same subject, courts will presume the legislature intended the
more specific provision to govern."
For that reason, the strong mayor
proposition was not properly certified to appear on the upcoming Feb. 5 ballot,
McCullough said.
Because that petition was filed more than one year prior
to the next municipal election at which it might legally appear on the ballot,
the petition must be dismissed entirely under the Illinois Election Code, he
said.
Myerscough said she would affirm a ruling by Macon County Circuit
Judge A.G. Webber IV that both propositions could be on the Feb. 5
ballot.
Articles 5 and 6 are to be construed separately, she
said.
"Each article functions independently, and, if anything, article 5
is more specific than article 6," Myerscough said. "Article 5 specifically
addresses the situation here, where two issues are placed on the ballot. Article
6 addresses only the situation where the strong mayor issue is on the
ballot."
Myerscough said the majority "effectively obliterates" article
5's authorization to place two issues on the ballot at any election.
"The
majority's action ignores the legislature's intent and purpose," Myerscough
wrote. "Nowhere has the legislature indicated its intent to repeal that
authorization."
Macon County Clerk Steve Bean said he hopes the issue is
resolved soon, allowing enough time to mail absentee ballots to military
personnel.
"If they don't do anything by (Dec. 26), it puts us in a
bind," Bean said. "If we've got to add something on to the ballot, it causes us
a lot of headaches. With the holidays, I don't know how quickly the court acts
with all of this."
Bean said both questions will be left on the ballot
now at the printer because it will be easier to remove one on Dec. 26 than to
add one, should the high court rule both proposals can be voted
upon.
Chamber President Randy Prince said the Chamber didn't want to
pursue the matter past the appellate court, ensuring that ballots can go out in
a timely manner.
"The questions are now not misleading," Prince
said.
Members of ChangeDecatur said they are eager to get the question
resolved quickly.
"We would have preferred to have this issue resolved
before now; we thought it had been resolved," Daniels said. "Sixteen hundred
voters asked for this to be put on the ballot.
"One voter, with the
support of a select few individuals in this town, got it apparently off the
ballot today. We're going to get it back on the ballot in time to vote on Feb.
5."
Mike Frazier can be reached at mfrazier@herald-review.com or
421-7985, and Ron Ingram can be reached at ringram@herald-review.com or
421-7973.
Previous Page 
Subscribe 
Email
Alerts
del.icio.us
digg
newsvine
facebook
