2014-02-10 Reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

confronted him with the fictitious allegation that he had not paid his taxes, and he had not refuted it, the will of the people would not have been carried out. So maybe the City Attorney can say that people don’t have a right, but in this country his belief is that the public has a right to choose who they want to elect. Mr. Price stated Mr. Price stated that since Ms. Pumm works for Council, then the appropriate question for this body is who authorized the City Attorney to represent her. Because if we control every aspect of the City Clerk’s appointment, then it just doesn’t seem logical for us not to know who made this decision. Mr. Price stated that if this had happened to a candidate that did not have the means to hire an attorney, they would have literally been railroaded off of the ballot. He stated that this process is supposed to be about the right of the public to elect who they want, and not for the chosen few to decide who will be the fortunate son or daughter. But that seems to be what has taken place here, a suppression of the public’s vote. Mr. Price asked Ms. Forster if the City Manager had asked her to represent Ms. Pumm. Ms. Forster stated that the City Manager told her to represent the City and to present the argument on behalf of the City. She further explained that Ms. Pumm was not named as an individual in the Petition, but as an employee of the City. Mr. Price asked who Ms. Pumm reported to. Ms. Forster stated that her understanding is that she reports to City Council. Mr. Price stated that he is not blaming the City Attorney, but for the City to keep this information from Council makes it seemed like some kind of government that is not following the charter. Mr. Price stated that the final determination of this matter will be up to the newly elected members of Council since he has decided not to seek reelection. So if what you want are members that are going to decide underhandedly who can or cannot run, or who gets picked to run, then that decision will certainly be left up to you. Mr. Price stated that he finds it to be ironic that nobody remembers the Resolution that several members of Council vehemently fought for to ensure the public’s right to due process. And he is stunned that citizens do no have a right to due process with respect to putting their name on this City’s ballot. Mr. Price gave the example that his daughter, who is in Medical School in Tennessee who still lives with him, but according to Ms. Pumm she would not have met the residency requirement since she was not physically in his home during this time. He stated that according to some she would not have a right to run and would not have a right to due process. He stated that he is sorry that there is no right to due process when the people want you to be on the ballot. He found that very shocking. Mr. Crow stated that as you look at this issue he believes that it is important for everyone to look to their left, look to their right, and then ask the question could the person sitting beside me afford to get a lawyer and go to court just to get on the ballot. But it’s not just about spending the taxpayer’s dollars to do this. It is about the fact that this is the first time in the history of UCity that a citizen has had to take such extreme measures to get on the ballot. And if you don’t think that’s a chilling effect, just step back and pause; eight thousand dollars, all over an issue that was settled in 1972. Mr. Crow stated that this is an issue that continues to baffle him. The candidate went to court, and no matter what anybody else wants to say, he got everything in the Writ that he asked for. So if you think that the errors in judgment were on the part of the candidate that is probably not correct. Mr. Crow stated that there is no question that many were concerned that several members of Council had been involved. It now seems to be quite clear that they 15