 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Current Issue Links
An effort to recall three members of the Ridgecrest City Council has left petitioners under pressure to meet
deadlines, the city wondering how to finance the ballot items and candidates for the November election
divided on their support of the effort.
Robert Eierman said that he and other lead petitioners are making good progress on the current effort.
He and a handful of other residents, calling themselves Don’t Tread on Me Citizens for Freedom, began
pursuing the recall effort several months ago in opposition to the council’s failure to adopt their initiative to
revoke mandatory trash and recycling collection and force a lawsuit with the state.
deadlines, the city wondering how to finance the ballot items and candidates for the November election
divided on their support of the effort.
Robert Eierman said that he and other lead petitioners are making good progress on the current effort.
He and a handful of other residents, calling themselves Don’t Tread on Me Citizens for Freedom, began
pursuing the recall effort several months ago in opposition to the council’s failure to adopt their initiative to
revoke mandatory trash and recycling collection and force a lawsuit with the state.
The city attorney said the initiative was fundamentally and substantively flawed, but the council — with the
blessing of the state agency that originally sanctioned the controversial program — agreed to bring a voluntary
option to the public. That revision was enacted last month.
Technical errors on the part of petitioners caused the first two recall attempts to fail. Because of limitations
on how close to reelection a public official may be recalled, the current attempt is aimed only at the three
councilmen whose terms don’t end until 2012.
The current petition was validated on July 8, giving the group 120 days from the next full business day to
collect signatures. According to Eierman, petitioners must collect some 2,800 signatures from registered
voters living in the Ridgecrest area — for each candidate — to qualify the items for a special election ballot.
City Clerk Rachel Ford said that means petitioners have until Nov. 5 to file their signatures with the county
for validation.
There was some question about that date, she said, because of a request made on July 13 to change the
petition after it was submitted.
“They wanted to remove the officers’ responses,” said Ford.
State law allows the officers being recalled, in this case Mayor Steven Morgan, Mayor Pro Tem Ron Carter
and Councilman Jerry Taylor, to submit counterarguments to their recallers.
According to Ford the petitioners had made arrangements to allow council hopeful Walter Maurer to pick
up officer responses, because Eierman was on vacation.
“I agreed, even though he wasn’t a proponent,” she said. “Then they came back and said that because
Maurer was not a proponent, they wanted those statements removed from the petition.”
She said she responded July 22 that she could not change the petition without restarting the process.
Eierman declined to estimate how many signatures the group has so far collected. “There are so many
petitions out, and so many people, collecting, I don’t have an estimate. I don’t even have a guess.”
Once signatures are turned in to the Kern County Elections Office, the staff has 30 days to validate
signatures. County findings will be sent to the City Council. If the petitions qualify with the minimum number of
signatures, an election will be ordered for no less than 88 days and no more than 125 days from that date.
A one-item special election is $98,000, with a “nominal fee” charged for each subsequent item. A recall for
three candidates is estimated at some $105,000. City Manager Kurt Wilson said the staff has no budget for
the expenditure.
Support from the 11 candidates vying for the two seats up for reelection in November is mixed. Vice Mayor
Tom Wiknich — who is not affected by the recall — and challenger Christina Witt say they are in favor of the
recall effort.
“If the people feel they have lost confidence in [the council], they should be able to recall them,” said Witt,
who is reportedly among those collecting signatures.
“Even if I was one of [the recalled councilmen], I would think they have every right to use the processes we
have in place,” said Wiknich.
Larry Lewis and Jack Noyer are among those who have questioned that method.
“I think it’s foolhardy and a waste of taxpayer money,” said Noyer. He said there is a danger to replacing all
five members at once because of the corporate knowledge and experience you risk losing. “That’s why we
have them staggered on the ballots.”
He added that if residents are unhappy with their elected officials, “they already have the right to reelect
someone else in their place.”
Lewis said that he doesn’t believe it has been established that the council has broken any laws. “To me,
that is what a recall is for. To just decide that you don’t like what they’re doing, that’s not a reason to recall. I
think this is a bad thing for the community.”
blessing of the state agency that originally sanctioned the controversial program — agreed to bring a voluntary
option to the public. That revision was enacted last month.
Technical errors on the part of petitioners caused the first two recall attempts to fail. Because of limitations
on how close to reelection a public official may be recalled, the current attempt is aimed only at the three
councilmen whose terms don’t end until 2012.
The current petition was validated on July 8, giving the group 120 days from the next full business day to
collect signatures. According to Eierman, petitioners must collect some 2,800 signatures from registered
voters living in the Ridgecrest area — for each candidate — to qualify the items for a special election ballot.
City Clerk Rachel Ford said that means petitioners have until Nov. 5 to file their signatures with the county
for validation.
There was some question about that date, she said, because of a request made on July 13 to change the
petition after it was submitted.
“They wanted to remove the officers’ responses,” said Ford.
State law allows the officers being recalled, in this case Mayor Steven Morgan, Mayor Pro Tem Ron Carter
and Councilman Jerry Taylor, to submit counterarguments to their recallers.
According to Ford the petitioners had made arrangements to allow council hopeful Walter Maurer to pick
up officer responses, because Eierman was on vacation.
“I agreed, even though he wasn’t a proponent,” she said. “Then they came back and said that because
Maurer was not a proponent, they wanted those statements removed from the petition.”
She said she responded July 22 that she could not change the petition without restarting the process.
Eierman declined to estimate how many signatures the group has so far collected. “There are so many
petitions out, and so many people, collecting, I don’t have an estimate. I don’t even have a guess.”
Once signatures are turned in to the Kern County Elections Office, the staff has 30 days to validate
signatures. County findings will be sent to the City Council. If the petitions qualify with the minimum number of
signatures, an election will be ordered for no less than 88 days and no more than 125 days from that date.
A one-item special election is $98,000, with a “nominal fee” charged for each subsequent item. A recall for
three candidates is estimated at some $105,000. City Manager Kurt Wilson said the staff has no budget for
the expenditure.
Support from the 11 candidates vying for the two seats up for reelection in November is mixed. Vice Mayor
Tom Wiknich — who is not affected by the recall — and challenger Christina Witt say they are in favor of the
recall effort.
“If the people feel they have lost confidence in [the council], they should be able to recall them,” said Witt,
who is reportedly among those collecting signatures.
“Even if I was one of [the recalled councilmen], I would think they have every right to use the processes we
have in place,” said Wiknich.
Larry Lewis and Jack Noyer are among those who have questioned that method.
“I think it’s foolhardy and a waste of taxpayer money,” said Noyer. He said there is a danger to replacing all
five members at once because of the corporate knowledge and experience you risk losing. “That’s why we
have them staggered on the ballots.”
He added that if residents are unhappy with their elected officials, “they already have the right to reelect
someone else in their place.”
Lewis said that he doesn’t believe it has been established that the council has broken any laws. “To me,
that is what a recall is for. To just decide that you don’t like what they’re doing, that’s not a reason to recall. I
think this is a bad thing for the community.”
Recall effort presses forward
City officials anxious about $100K price tag for special election
By REBECCA NEIPP,
News Review Staff Writer
News Review Staff Writer
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
