HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-2012-06-04COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Special Meeting 7:00 p.m. June 4, 2012
PRESENT:
Mayor Myrick
Alderpersons (10) Brock, Dotson, Murtagh, Clairborne, McCollister, Fleming, Rooker,
Kerslick, Proulx, Mohlenhoff
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Clerk – Conley Holcomb
City Attorney – Lavine
GIS Administrator - Aslanis
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
1.1 Discussion Regarding the 2012 Proposed City of Ithaca Redistricting Plan
Mayor Myrick opened the discussion by explaining the process the redistricting
legislation will follow. The topic will be assigned to the GPA Committee due to the
potential Charter changes; however, for the purposes of group discussion and decision
making, Special Council meetings will be convened so that all members of Council may
participate equally.
Mayor Myrick suggested that each Council member list their preferred scenario(s) as a
means of narrowing down the selections. Scenarios 4-5a; 5-4; 4-6; and an At-large
representation scenario were identified by Council members.
Scenario 4-5a:
Alderperson Fleming commented that this scenario best balances the population,
preserves neighborhoods and historic districts, and demonstrates diversity within the
wards. She noted that she regrets the reduction in the number of Council members but
feels that this scenario is better for the election process.
Alderperson Mohlenhoff noted that this is the preferred scenario of the independent,
Redistricting Committee and she voiced her concern about Council undermining the
work the committee conducted over a number of months. She further expressed her
thoughts regarding fiscal responsibility including the potential reduction of the workforce
and the cost of elections, good government practices, and the need for competition in
races for Council seats. She stated that she finds the 2 representatives for each ward
with staggered terms system very beneficial for constituents.
Alderperson Kerslick stated that he supports ward scenarios with mixed populations.
He noted that the Mayor and residents have asked the City to be more efficient, which
does not mean there will be less representation. He further supports increased
competition for local elections.
Alderperson Clairborne commended the work of the Redistricting Committee, especially
the care taken to keep the wards whole. He noted his concern regarding a reduction in
the number of Council seats and the merging of Wards 1 & 2. He explained that the
person who represented the Second Ward on the Redistricting Committee was not able
to attend most of the meetings and he feels that the 2nd Ward has been lost in this
scenario. He feels that the reduction of 2 Council members equals a loss of
representation and will result in limiting the voices of many residents. He further noted
that he supports the 2 representatives for each ward system as it provides for different
perspectives and flexibility in skills.
Scenario 5-4:
Alderperson Brock stated that she appreciates the hard work of the Redistricting
Committee. She commented that the City is working toward becoming a more inclusive
and participatory government and that a move to consolidate wards will undo much of
this work. She noted that most members of the working class live downtown and on
West Hill, and believes that reducing 4 votes out of 10, to 2 votes out of 8, is a
June 4, 2012
2
disservice to the community. She voiced her concern regarding the preservation of
neighborhoods.
Alderperson Murtagh stated that he understands the issues surrounding contested
political races and expressed his belief that the 5-4 scenario preserves all of the voices
in the community. He noted that he would hate to lose the diversity of Common
Council, and commented that the City’s 5-4 ward scenario would line up best with the
County’s 4-6 scenario.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the population differences between the wards
in each scenario, and the potential changes to those numbers during the next census
when current development projects have been completed.
Scenario 4-6:
Alderperson Rooker stated that he supports the 4-6 scenario because he believes that
Collegetown has more in common with East Hill than South Hill.
Mayor Myrick noted that this is his preferred scenario as he feels that South Hill and
East Hill have many common interests. He believes that this scenario pairs areas with
shared interests and also matches many of the constituent concerns he heard during
his campaign.
Alderpersons Murtagh and McCollister stated that they initially liked this scenario as
well, acknowledging that the First Ward configuration could be difficult. Alderperson
McCollister also expressed her concern about the potential workload for the Council
members representing South Hill and East Hill.
Alderperson Dotson noted that she can appreciate the benefits of each scenario but
would like to consider the option of having 3-4 at-large seats.
At-large Scenarios:
Alderperson Proulx noted the challenges of having some members elected at-large
while others are elected by ward (ie. “Super” Alderpersons vs. Ward Representatives).
He stated that the differences could cause confusion for residents and result in a
potential undermining of the Mayor. He also described the benefits of having a 2-3
Council members who had a more comprehensive perspective on the issues. He
questioned how workloads would be impacted and shared a couple of potential
scenarios.
Discussion followed regarding how viable this option would be for 2013, and what the
possible ratios would be (ie. 8 ward representatives / 2 at-large representatives).
Alderperson McCollister inquired about the Re-districting Committee’s opinion of this
issue. Chair Tom Frank noted that this was not a popular concept due to the “Super”
Alderperson / “Deputy Mayor” concerns.
Alderperson Brock voiced concern about the at-large concept noting that running for
one of those seats would be similar to running a mayoral campaign. She suggested
that the need to fundraise could lend itself to powerful interest groups. She also
questioned the level of accountability for those Council members.
Alderperson Clairborne noted the similarities between an at-large election and the
School Board elections which are sometimes viewed as a popularity contest. He stated
that ward representatives gain city-wide experience due to the issues that arise
throughout their terms.
Alderperson Fleming requested more information from the Board of Elections on the
issues surrounding the 5 vs. 4 ward scenarios. Mr. Frank noted that there were three
key issues:
• Cost of running elections ($2,655 per election/per sliver district)
• Locating polling sites in each district
• Staffing the polling locations (ratio of workers to voter participation)
June 4, 2012
3
The 5-4 Scenario paired with the County 4-6 Scenario would produce a minimum of 6
sliver districts which would cost approximately $15,000 per election
Mayor Myrick requested that a straw vote be cast to narrow down the number of
scenarios being discussed. He suggested that each Council member receive two votes
to use on their preferred scenarios. The scenario with the most votes will be considered
further.
Due to confusion over the voting process and Council member’s reluctance to support
certain scenarios, several straw votes were taken. Scenarios 5-4 and 4-6 received the
most votes and will be considered at a Special meeting scheduled for June 13, 2012 at
5:30 pm. The at-large concept did not have enough support for consideration in 2013
but may be explored further in the future.
ADJOURNMENT:
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
______________________________ _______________________________
Julie Conley Holcomb, CMC Svante L. Myrick
City Clerk Mayor