As you can see, the first page begins with the Council being asked to take responsibility for violating the right of citizens to equal representation as mandated by law.
The second page continues with language noting involvement in the lawsuit, specifying that the parties wish to settle it prior to trial, and expressing the desire to establish new districts to ensure that future elections are fair.
The next three numbered points are the conditions which, if agreed to by Council, would have settled the case and avoided having taxpayers foot the bill for the Council to defend a lawsuit, the facts of which Council President Larry Kochert doesn't even dispute.
Condition number one states that the Council will, sometime after January 1, 2008, establish an Advisory Committee on Redistricting made up of three at-large council members and three people chosen by the Council from a list provided by the plaintiffs. The committee's purpose would be to help explore options for lawful redistricting. Readers will note that the language in the agreement neither requires payment for committee members nor otherwise obligates this or future councils in any way. It's simply a mechanism to begin discussions and keep the process moving in a public manner.
Condition number two states that the Council will pay the plaintiffs' attorney's fees and expenses incurred thus far, as the Council had to be legally prodded to take seriously its public obligation after failing to do so since at least 2002. The proper amount would be determined by the court rather than the plaintiffs or defendants, again to ensure fairness.
Condition three states that, although the lawsuit would be settled, the court would maintain the authority to monitor the process, making certain that both plaintiffs and defendants follow through on the agreement in a legal manner.
The signature section begins after that and continues on the third page.
The gist of it is this: In the interest of reaching settlement and avoiding the unnecessary expenditure of additional public funds, the plaintiffs worked in good faith with a council committee to remove language from prior settlement drafts reported as objectionable to a majority of council members.
We produced a bare bones document that as simply as possible required three essential items:
That the Council be accountable for its wrongdoing; that the Council pay for the expenses incurred in addressing its ongoing refusal to correct that wrongdoing; and that the Council agree to start a legitimate discussion about creating fair voting districts.
Plaintiff Lloyd Wimp made it very clear during the meeting that the above was the final of several settlement offers. But, rather than agreeing with the plaintiffs to honor one of the most basic of civic principles-- a belief in fair and equal representation-- Council Members Donnie Blevins, Dan Coffey, Larry Kochert, Steve Price, and Bill Schmidt chose to defend a lawsuit at taxpayer expense. What they're defending remains to be determined.
I'd like to offer a public apology to Councilman Blevins.
ReplyDeleteYesterday, I called him a liar.
What I meant to call him was an underachieving Coffeyite toady.
Sorry about that, Donnie.
While we may not agree with it, we recognize that FOS has a right to their opinion on "outrageous demands". As has been pointed out by others, where is the ERIKA'S outrage about the Council not doing their job--one that they were paid to do? What about that waste of money? What about not following the Constitution?
ReplyDeleteThe Council members that they are praising today were all involved in not doing their LEGAL duty. And yes, anyone who has sat on the Council from 2002 on, is guilty. Every Council has had the legal duty and obligation to correct this and did not.
How this is the Plaintiff's fault and not Price, Kochert, Garner, Goldberg, et al, is beyond me. Talk about spin. This applies to FC Democrat, too.
That's why I posted the actual final document, IAH. The "outrageous demands" published at FOS were never demands at all. It was a document supplied to the committee as a conversation starter. We fully expected objections to parts of it as it was the first step in negotiations with the committee. That list was never a "take it or leave it" proposition.
ReplyDeleteWhen objections to the list were voiced, we worked together to remove the objectionable parts in an effort to find commonality. The document rejected last night and posted today was the result of that work. The final version was written by the Council's attorney based on mutually agreeable language submitted to him.
The Council was not making decisions based on the list published at FOS. Whether or not the "demands" in the final proposed decree published here today are "outrageous" is, as you say, a matter of opinion. What those demands actually were, though, is a matter of fact.
I just thought it was important for the public to know those facts.
This is an ugly business, and has obviously caused rifts in the community. But there it is in black and white.
ReplyDeleteHow could anyone who gives even an inking of care about this city argue with the fact that the council has been, and continues to be neglegent in their duties?
Yes, this is going to end up costing us taxpayers money. But in the long run, we NEED to pay for it, because other than the obvious lack of action on the part of the council since the census, we have put the ones in office who refuse to just admit they were wrong and take action to fix it.
The failure of the council to perform their duties is the voting publics failure to put people in office who are willing to do the job at hand.
I hardly think that any of the plaintiffs are seeking monetary gain, or their 15 minutes of fame out of this, you have a handful of citizens who have the testicular fortitude to do what ever it takes to assure that the citizens of this city have fair and equal representation as afforded by that little peice of paper called the Constitution of the United States.
My hat is off to the plaintiffs, it would have been very easy to just drop out when the heat got turned up by fellow "citizens", but instead determined to stay the course and see this through to the end.
And shame on the council for failing to take the chances they were given, or to even do what needed to be done in the first place.
Any disagreement past that by other bloggers, I am sorry to say, is being done so out of personal feelings for certain plaintiffs.
thank you for posting the actual legal documents for us to read.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the council wants to admit to being wrong. The plaintiffs 3 demands seem reasonable to me. But I don't get the sense this council will accept any "power" other than it's own on this issue or any issue. And considering the bad blood between the defendants and plaintiffs, I guess this will go to trial and cost more time and money for everyone? ugh...
ReplyDeletethanks for the posting of documents in any case.
Congrats on a victory!!
ReplyDeleteThe coucil has chooses to follow the law, and avoid the suit. Thank you all.