Sedona AZ (April 22, 2014) – The following is a letter to the SedonaEye.com editor from City of Sedona resident Jean Jenks:
To: mayoradams@sedonaaz.gov; mdinunzio@sedonaaz.gov; mward@sedonaaz.gov; dmcilroy@sedonaaz.gov; jmartinez@sedonaaz.gov; blitrell@sedonaaz.gov; jwilliamson@sedonaaz.gov
Subject: AB 1767, Extension of Home Rule — ARS 41-563.02 Non-Compliance, 4-22-14 Special City Council Mtg. Agenda Item 3a
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 09:44:26 -0700
Hello Mayor Adams and Councilors,
I. According to Arizona Revised Statute 41-563.02, Elections for expenditures in excess of expenditure limitation:
“Arguments for the proposed excess expenditures shall be prepared by the governing board. Arguments against the proposed excess expenditures shall be provided by those in opposition.”
It is not lawful (see ARS 41-563.02.B.8) for the City to state in AB 1767 that “…any citizen is allowed to submit an argument supporting or opposing the Home Rule–Alternative Expenditure Limitation Option.”
While ARS 41-563.02.B.8 allows any citizen to submit an argument in opposition to the AEL (Home Rule Option), an argument in support from a citizen is prohibited. Only the governing board (City Council), can legally submit an argument supporting the Alternative Expenditure Limitation.
“Arguments for or against the proposed excess expenditure limitation [are] not to exceed two hundred words.”
It is not lawful (see ARS 41-563.02.B.8) for the City to state in AB 1767 that “The argument may not exceed three hundred (300) words in length” as the law limits arguments to two hundred words or less.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: THE PUBLICITY PAMPHLET FOR THE NOVEMBER 2014 AEL (HOME RULE) ELECTION MUST COMPLY WITH ALL LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF ARS 41-563.02 INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THOSE INDICATED ABOVE.
II. According to the City’s Resolution 2014-___ as proposed, “The Alternative Expenditure Limitation shall be adopted each year after a public hearing at which the citizens of the City of Sedona may comment on the proposed Alternate Expenditure Limitation.”
What does this sentence mean? I’m a little confused. Will there be Alternative Expenditure Limitation (Home Rule) elections every four years hence at the time of the November election of the Mayor and Council, or will the November 2014 AEL election be the City of Sedona’s last?
Sincerely,
Jean Jenks Sedona Resident
For the best in Arizona news and views, read www.SedonaEye.com daily!
Update: The Home Rule election will not take place at the time of the November General Election(s), but during the August Primary.
BTW, even though the City operates under Home Rule and is not restricted by the State’s spending limitation, our Mayor and City Council spent $1,470,182 more last year than it took in.
According to Page 18 of the City of Sedona Comprehensive Annual Report for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2013 (CAFR):
Total Expenditures = $17,622,427
Total Revenues = $16,152,245
A continuation of Home Rule will only give our big-city government–which is out of control and doesn’t listen to the majority of us–more financial freedom to do what it wants, serve special interests handsomely, and interfere further into our lives. Vote against Home Rule in August.
@Jean
With all seriousness, I would really like to know what you mean by: “doesn’t listen to the majority of us”?
What MAJORITY do you speak for that the Council isn’t listening to?
City of Sedona Call for Arguments
On April 22, 2014, the City Council passed Resolution No. 2014-05 proposing an Extension of the Alternative Expenditure Limitation. Voter ratification of the proposed extension is required. This issue will appear on the August 26, 2014 ballot. Information regarding this issue will be included in a publicity pamphlet.
Arguments supporting or opposing adoption of the Extension of the Alternative
Expenditure Limitation may be submitted to the Sedona City Clerk, City of Sedona, 102 Roadrunner Drive, Sedona, Arizona, 86336, for insertion into a publicity pamphlet. Arguments cannot exceed 300 words in length. Individuals submitting arguments must provide their name, physical or mailing address and a telephone number. Only your name will be included in the publicity pamphlet. Each argument filed shall contain the original, properly notarized signature of each person sponsoring it. If the argument is sponsored by an organization, it shall contain the notarized signature of two executive officers of the organization, or, if sponsored by a political committee, it shall contain the notarized signature of the committee’s chairman or treasurer.
The deadline for submission of supporting or opposing arguments is Wednesday, May 28, 2014 at 5:00 p.m.
Time to use your voice in local government.
Thank you @Jean for the update and information. I am one resident that does not understand “Home Rule” There are many just like me. It would be great to get the word out and get everyone informed.
Love how you explained it. That is great to know about August, thank you for letting us know.
There is much confusion for Sedona to have their City elections during a national primary election this August and the reason this is now occurring is because of a change in State law.
There was discussion about this at the council meeting yesterday (4/22). Anyone registered to vote that hasn’t declared a party (Democrat or Republican) is NOT eligible to vote in a primary election without first declaring a party. It’s further unclear to me whether or not there will be a mail-in voting opportunity or if voters must physically go to the polls.
Because Sedona voters reside in two counties adds to the confusion. There was more discussion about the need to call the registrar in the appropriate county to request for ONLY a Sedona election ballot if one prefers not to declare a political party for this primary.
Susan Irvine, Sedona City Clerk, explained to the best of her ability the complexity of this situation and gave assurance that every effort will be made between now and the election in August to inform voters of the change in procedures.
Because many people vacation during this time of year and some Sedona residents actually even spend the summer months at a second location, it’s already anticipated the voter turnout will be even less than that for the Community Plan Update approval.
This appears to be a great injustice that has befallen Sedona and most likely other Arizona municipalities, for the State to have made this drastic revision to voting laws.
Staying informed and paying attention to procedural changes may be our only chance to avoid being disenfranchised.
Thanks to the Sedona Eye for this informative piece. Thank you to the writer. What a kettle of worms Sedona is becoming.
A few days ago I received an email from City Attorney Mike Goimarac on this matter. He is stating that I am “referring to the wrong portion of the statute” and further indicating that A.R.S. 41.563.02.B.8 does not apply to the City’s Home Rule elections.
But wait a minute! The City was not adverse to using this portion of the statute during the Home Rule election of two year ago.
In 2012 five of us chipped in together to pay the $250.00 FEE the City was extracting at that time before approving an Argument for publication in its Publicity Pamphlet.
On April 20, 2012, after the election was over, the City mailed the following (on official letterhead) to the individual who submitted our lone Argument Against:
“Dear Mr. ___________,
Enclosed please find a check payable to you in the amount of $250.00. It was recently discovered by our Legal Department that, according to A.R.S. 41.563.02.B.8, we are unable to charge a deposit [FEE] for arguments relating to the Alternative Expenditure Limitation. We are therefore refunding the deposit which was erroneously collected from you. We apologize for this oversight and thank you for your understanding.
Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
[signature]
Susan L. Irvine, CMC
City Clerk”
Are you saying that the City Attorney erred in his original interpretation of the law which collected the $250 it wasn’t entitled to? We are to not question his interpretations in the future? What say you City Councilors?