 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Current Issue Links
‘Voluntary vs. mandatory’ debate goes to polls
Councilman proposes ballot poll on trash and recycling as compromise after ‘initiative’
doesn’t pass legal muster
doesn’t pass legal muster
City staff and community residents pack City Hall during the Ridgecrest City
Council’s discussion on an initiative to move the city from mandatory to
voluntary curbside waste collection. Photo by Laura Austin
Council’s discussion on an initiative to move the city from mandatory to
voluntary curbside waste collection. Photo by Laura Austin
By REBECCA NEIPP
News Review Staff Writer
News Review Staff Writer
In keeping with a report that
cited several legal concerns
with an initiative to reverse the
city’s mandatory trash program,
the Ridgecrest City Council’s
motion to place the issue on the
ballot failed for lack of support.
However, a compromise
suggested by Councilman Jerry
Taylor will place on the ballot
two questions that ask
residents whether they would
support mandatory trash and
mandatory recycling programs.
Taylor said it is unfortunate
that the proposed initiative could
not move forward, but he did not
want to disenfranchise some
3,000 people who signed the
petition. “We want at least to
give the citizens a satisfactory
cited several legal concerns
with an initiative to reverse the
city’s mandatory trash program,
the Ridgecrest City Council’s
motion to place the issue on the
ballot failed for lack of support.
However, a compromise
suggested by Councilman Jerry
Taylor will place on the ballot
two questions that ask
residents whether they would
support mandatory trash and
mandatory recycling programs.
Taylor said it is unfortunate
that the proposed initiative could
not move forward, but he did not
want to disenfranchise some
3,000 people who signed the
petition. “We want at least to
give the citizens a satisfactory
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
opportunity to tell us how to proceed.”
City Attorney Keith Lemieux cited several points that prevent the effort from being legal. Chief among those
were the fact that it looked to revise existing law, which classified it as a referendum rather than an initiative. On
that count, he said, the window of opportunity to revise municipal code has expired.
Further, the wording of the initiative would lead to unintentional deletion of significant portions of city code,
said Lemieux.
If the item were placed on the ballot, Lemieux warned the council that the city would be vulnerable to lawsuits
— whether or not the measure passed.
“I want to make it clear that our role is not to be an impediment to the political process,” said Lemieux. Each
of the problems with the initiative were brought to the attention of lead petitioner Robert Eierman in November,
he said. After a lengthy discussion, Eierman “politely disagreed” and the council directed the attorney to move
forward by providing the group with a title and summary.
The ongoing controversy surrounding the program started when the city entered into an agreement with
California Integrated Waste Management Board (now Cal-Recycles) in December 2007. The city and state
crafted a plan — which included mandatory curbside pickup — to increase diversion of recyclables from the
waste stream after state officials warned that Ridgecrest did not meet state requirements.
City staff delayed implementation after conducting a study that found the city was in fact in compliance. But
state officials discredited the formula used and slapped the city with fines — holding more in abeyance upon
successful implementation.
The program was met with widespread public outcry last fall, and since then city officials have been
struggling to find a solution that will be accepted by both the state and the public.
Councilmen reported a more flexible working relationship with state officials after meeting with Cal-Recycles
staff in January. Since then the city has been trying to move to a voluntary program — though the city is still bound
by the confines of its existing contract with waste hauler Benz Sanitation, as well as the diversion requirements
already outlined by the state.
Taylor said that city staff will continue to work toward that voluntary system, but the poll effectively “loads the
gun” in holding the council accountable to its promise.
Wednesday night’s meeting evinced the high emotions surrounding the issue as the three-hour discussion
of the issue often broke down into angry accusations and personal insults.
Lemieux proposed wording for the ballot question in a special meeting on Friday. Members of both the
council and public expressed concerns about the clarity of the verbiage.
“I understand your question, but I don’t know that people not hearing this discussion will understand,” said
Rhonda Hill. She further asked if the council was bound to honor the outcome of the poll.
Lemieux answered no. But both Mayor Steven Morgan and Taylor voiced their promise to bow to the will of
the poll’s majority.
Michael Neel, one of the lead petitioners, said adding the question to the ballot was a slap in the face to
people who signed the original petition.
“I’m having to restrain my ire at this point,” said Neel. “I don’t feel like really doing you any favors, but I will do
this much — prepare yourselves for the wrath you are going to get from the citizens in this town in the coming
weeks. If you think Benz got it big time, I’m afraid you’re going to get it worse.”
He said he disapproved of the threats, harassment and other “heinous things” done to the Benz staff, “But
you can’t hold these people back unless you embarked on a serious, serious public-relations campaign. I’m
sad to think what might happen towards you.”
Lemieux said he offered Neel the opportunity to write the supporting argument for the voluntary trash and
recycling questions, but Neel apparently declined.
Morgan, with input from Lemieux and City Attorney Harvey Rose, will draft the opposing argument. Rose said
that anyone interested in crafting the supporting argument for the ballot initiative has until March 12 to submit
one to the city clerk.
If multiple arguments are received, the clerk has the authority to combine points made in different
submissions or choose one that best represents all submissions. If none are submitted, the ballot will include
an opposing argument only.
City Attorney Keith Lemieux cited several points that prevent the effort from being legal. Chief among those
were the fact that it looked to revise existing law, which classified it as a referendum rather than an initiative. On
that count, he said, the window of opportunity to revise municipal code has expired.
Further, the wording of the initiative would lead to unintentional deletion of significant portions of city code,
said Lemieux.
If the item were placed on the ballot, Lemieux warned the council that the city would be vulnerable to lawsuits
— whether or not the measure passed.
“I want to make it clear that our role is not to be an impediment to the political process,” said Lemieux. Each
of the problems with the initiative were brought to the attention of lead petitioner Robert Eierman in November,
he said. After a lengthy discussion, Eierman “politely disagreed” and the council directed the attorney to move
forward by providing the group with a title and summary.
The ongoing controversy surrounding the program started when the city entered into an agreement with
California Integrated Waste Management Board (now Cal-Recycles) in December 2007. The city and state
crafted a plan — which included mandatory curbside pickup — to increase diversion of recyclables from the
waste stream after state officials warned that Ridgecrest did not meet state requirements.
City staff delayed implementation after conducting a study that found the city was in fact in compliance. But
state officials discredited the formula used and slapped the city with fines — holding more in abeyance upon
successful implementation.
The program was met with widespread public outcry last fall, and since then city officials have been
struggling to find a solution that will be accepted by both the state and the public.
Councilmen reported a more flexible working relationship with state officials after meeting with Cal-Recycles
staff in January. Since then the city has been trying to move to a voluntary program — though the city is still bound
by the confines of its existing contract with waste hauler Benz Sanitation, as well as the diversion requirements
already outlined by the state.
Taylor said that city staff will continue to work toward that voluntary system, but the poll effectively “loads the
gun” in holding the council accountable to its promise.
Wednesday night’s meeting evinced the high emotions surrounding the issue as the three-hour discussion
of the issue often broke down into angry accusations and personal insults.
Lemieux proposed wording for the ballot question in a special meeting on Friday. Members of both the
council and public expressed concerns about the clarity of the verbiage.
“I understand your question, but I don’t know that people not hearing this discussion will understand,” said
Rhonda Hill. She further asked if the council was bound to honor the outcome of the poll.
Lemieux answered no. But both Mayor Steven Morgan and Taylor voiced their promise to bow to the will of
the poll’s majority.
Michael Neel, one of the lead petitioners, said adding the question to the ballot was a slap in the face to
people who signed the original petition.
“I’m having to restrain my ire at this point,” said Neel. “I don’t feel like really doing you any favors, but I will do
this much — prepare yourselves for the wrath you are going to get from the citizens in this town in the coming
weeks. If you think Benz got it big time, I’m afraid you’re going to get it worse.”
He said he disapproved of the threats, harassment and other “heinous things” done to the Benz staff, “But
you can’t hold these people back unless you embarked on a serious, serious public-relations campaign. I’m
sad to think what might happen towards you.”
Lemieux said he offered Neel the opportunity to write the supporting argument for the voluntary trash and
recycling questions, but Neel apparently declined.
Morgan, with input from Lemieux and City Attorney Harvey Rose, will draft the opposing argument. Rose said
that anyone interested in crafting the supporting argument for the ballot initiative has until March 12 to submit
one to the city clerk.
If multiple arguments are received, the clerk has the authority to combine points made in different
submissions or choose one that best represents all submissions. If none are submitted, the ballot will include
an opposing argument only.