Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-0619 Documents Submitted at Mtg 1 ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION — June 19, 2012 Mark Dennett, 541-488-4915, Mark @dennettgroup.com As a former B&B owner, operator of vacation rentals in Sun River, Jacksonville and the Oregon coast, and as a long-time tourism consultant who has worked for various local hotels, resorts and B&B's, I want to request that the Ashland City Council reconsider their policy toward vacation home rentals and immediately instruct city staff to review and update a 30-year-old city ordinance that is no longer serving the city or the public's best interest. As owner of one of the first B&Bs in Southern Oregon, I am fully supportive of Ashland's B&B industry and they certainly deserve a level playing field. Although there is no hard evidence that vacation home rentals offer inferior accommodations or directly compete with B&B's, Ashland visitors certainly need to be assured that home vacation rentals are regulated and the city needs to collect transient occupancy tax (TOT) from all visitor accommodations. But vacation home rentals shouldn't be regulated in the hotel/motel category. Like B&B's, they deserve their own thoughtful regulations and controls, because vacation home rentals are the fastest•growing segment of today's lodging industry. Let me put this market in perspective for you. National research (Phocus Wright) shows that today there are four primary lodging choices for visitors. Staying with friends and relatives and motels/hotels/resorts remain the two largest. But the next two are equal in size: B&B's and vacation home rentals both control 11% of the market. But the fastest growing demand is for extend-stay style lodging, such as suites, cottages, cabins and vacation homes. The demand for this segment is reflected in the explosive growth of vacation home rental websites. The three major vacation home websites, FlipKey owned by TripAdvisor, HomeAway and the smallest VRBO (Vacation Rentals by Owners) have almost 60 million visits per month. With all due respect, to think that Ashland should manage this exploding lodging segment by enforcing a 30-year old hotel/motel ordinance on a few select homeowners is not wise public policy. 2 Numerous Oregon cities have embraced the vacation home rental segment for years and made money by developing sensible regulations that can address neighborhood issues while collecting TOT from everyone. I would like to take two minutes to explain why an updated vacation home ordinance would be in the best interest of visitors, property owners, the local economy, and most importantly the City. First, as it relates to the city, Ashland needs more lodging capacity to generate more TOT revenue. With the closing of a large portion of the Windmill Inn, the city lost thousands of potential room nights of revenue. The city, given its well-thought-out "no growth" policy and limited land for development, cannot replace this capacity by building more hotels and resorts. And they shouldn't. Like housing, the city needs to rely on "in fill." An updated ordinance to regulate vacation home rentals in all zones, including R1, would not only increase lodging capacity, but it would allow Ashland to better serve one of the fastest growing segments of the lodging industry. For visitors, vacation home rentals fulfill a need for longer stay lodging. Typical vacation home renters are extended families, two couples, or someone looking to relocate here. They want to "test drive" living in an Ashland neighborhood, and they can't do this with a B&B or motel/hotel experience. Home rentals especially appeal to foreign visitors, the fastest growing segment of visitors to Southern Oregon (Southern Oregon Visitor Association Research), that usually stay even longer. Also, more and more visitors want to travel with their pets, and this eliminates many current Ashland lodging choices. (END OF PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL ON 6/19/12) For the local economy, because vacation home visitors typically stay longer, a week or more, there are more opportunities for tourism dollars to reach deeper into the community. By staying longer, these visitors support more local businesses: wineries, culinary attractions, shopping; local artists, golf, etc. The longer someone stays the more likely they are to shop in local stores, buy groceries and gas, purchase fresh produce at the farmer's market, go to 3 the movies, ski Mt. Ashland, and support the more than 80 restaurants and numerous galleries in Ashland. For homeowners, vacation home rentals provide an important source of supplemental income. Many aging or retired-property owners, who had planned to sell their homes as part of their retirement income plan, cannot afford to do so at current market values, even though they may no longer live full-time in Ashland because of family commitments, health issues or a desire to travel. Many homeowners also rely on this supplemental income to pay their property taxes and mortgages in the face of layoffs or other economic issues. Many are at risk of losing their homes if they are denied this income source. If these owners are forced into foreclosures and loan defaults, how will this help the City, Jackson County, or our Ashland economy? The finally point I would like to make is that the city's current "crack down" on vacation home rentals, driven by a complaint and study developed by the local B&B industry, places the city in a questionable legal environment called rent-seeking. In economics, rent-seeking is an attempt to obtain economic control by manipulating the social or political environment in which economic activities occur. The simplest definition of rent-seeking is to gain wealth by increasing one's share of existing wealth, i.e. market share, instead of trying to create new wealth. The City of Ashland, by favoring one segment (B&B's and hotels) over another (vacation home rentals) could be accused of doing this. Of course, this doesn't even touch on the primary legal issue of selective enforcement, where the City has not applied their enforcement efforts equally. Easily identified vacation rentals have been targeted, while the vast majority that are flying under the radar have not. If this ordinance. is to be enforced, it must be done so across the board and in a manner that is fair to all vacation homeowners. It is unfortunate that the City has placed.their hard-working and dedicated planning staff in a position where they have to spend their time scouring Craig's List and other websites, instead of simply updating and revising a vacation home ordinance that would make vacation home rentals a positive economic and community asset. 4 In conclusion, an updated ordinance that addresses the unique nature of the vacation home rental market would increase the city's lodging capacity, improve the local business economy, remove potential legal issues involved in enforcement, and most importantly, generate increased TOT income to the city. I would be happy to assist the council in conducting a study session on this issue or serve on a citizen's committee to speed this review. The City's crackdown has already reduced lodging capacity for this summer. If you don't act promptly, you will see continued decline in TOT revenue for 2013 and beyond. Thank you U`v� To: Ashland City Councilors June X19, 2012 From: Eliza & Brad Kauder 709 Glendale Ave Ashland, OR 97520 V (541)482-8172 elizakauder @charter.net bradkauder @charter.net Subject: Preventing Medical Marijuana Grows in Neighborhoods—Request for Ordinance Dear Ashland City Councilors, In June 2011, we noticed a noxious odor coming from our neighbor's yard. After doing some initial investigation,we found that our neighbor had a license to grow medical marijuana for four(4) people, which means six(6) mature plants per person, or 24 plants. We contacted the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program to ask if we had any rights as neighbors of a grow site, and the answer was"no." We called the Ashland Police and City of Ashland to ask the same thing, and again the answers were no By July,the odor became overpowering, to point of making us nauseous;we started keeping our windows closed,which helped, but not completely; and it preventing us from drying our laundry outside (the odor penetrated the fabrics). Visitors to our home constantly asked, "what IS that smell?" In September, in desperation, we called the City of Ashland and asked if there were any codes dealing with noxious odors. Finally, the answer was "yes." 9.08.060 Nuisances Affecting the Public Health No person shall cause,or permit on property under their ownership or control,a nuisance affecting public health.The following are nuisances affecting the public health and may be abated and/or cited as provided in the AMC: F. Odor. Premises which are in such a state or condition as to cause an offensive odor or which are in an unsanitary condition; In October, with this code in-hand,we called the Ashland Police and lodged a formal complaint. They sent out two officers to check out the complaint, and their first comment was, "We could smell it two blocks away!" After confirming that our neighbor was approved to grow the marijuana, and after another neighbor lodged a similar complaint,the police paid a visit to our neighbor and cited him, based on the ordinance above. They gave him 10 days to rectify the problem or receive another citation. Since it was time to harvest anyway,our neighbor harvested and the odor was eliminated. A friend who is a real estate agent told us, "I cannot sell a house within 2 or 3 blocks of a neighborhood marijuana grow. And, it drives down the value of the homes." The Ashland Police have confirmed that our neighbor is licensed to grow medical marijuana again this year. Last year,this neighbor installed an alarm (that went off incessantly during the summer, often awakening us from our night's sleep), and constructed a "screen" extension to the fence of more than 12 feet. The Ashland Police informed us that last year, at another neighborhood-grow location, someone climbed a neighbor's fence,cut down a mature plant,threw it over the fence and was dragging it through the neighbor's yard when the police apprehended him. Although we are also concerned about the safety of having medical marijuana grows in Ashland neighborhoods, today we are only addressing the odor issue. RE UEST Therefore, we request that the Ashland City Council consider creating a preventative ordinance to prohibit medical marijuana grows within 75 feet of a neighbor's property line. Although we were able to "solve"the odor problem as the plants came to maturity by enforcing Code 9.08.060, that can only be enforced after the marijuana has been growing for a couple of months. Approaching this preventatively could eliminate substantial problems for us and our neighbors. We ask that this request be put on the July 2012 Ashland City Council agenda for discussion and consideration. Respectfully submitted by: �3 � NM;_a — Uzi 7,L•bn 4t �Iq Fv Col2U RESOLUTION NO. 2012 - A RESOLUTION TRANSFERRING APPROPRIATIONS WITHIN THE 2011-2012 BUDGET THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Because of the circumstances stated below, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Ashland determine that it is necessary to transfer appropriations as follows: General Fund To: Cemetery $20,000 Police Department $75,000 Fire and Rescue Department $30,660 Community Development—Planning $30,000 Community Development—Building $20,000 From: Contingency $175,660 To Transfer appropriations from Contingency to Cemetery Division for higher costs in personal services due to a retirement. To Transfer appropriations from Contingency to the Police Department to cover costs for the homicide investigation. To Transfer appropriations from Contingency to Fire and Rescue Department for Radio Repair where two radios failed and for a Personal Service to cover additional benefit costs. To.Transfer appropriations from Contingency to Community Development—Planning for higher cost in personal services to cover implementation of the Class and Comp study. To Transfer appropriations from Contingency to Community Development—Building for higher cost in personal services due to hiring a temporary employee to cover inspections for the additional building activity. Electric Fund To: Electric Conservation $40,000 From: Contingency $40,000 To Transfer appropriations from Contingency to Electric Conservation to cover cost for Personal Services for an employee that was reallocated from the Water Conservation. Central Service Fund To: City Recorder $20,000 From: Contingency $20,000 Page 1 of 2 To Transfer appropriations from Contingency to City Recorder—to cover implementation of the cost from Class and Comp study and Increase Banking fees. Insurance Service Fund To: Insurance Services—Personal $ 5,000 Insurance Services—Material $25,000 From: Contingency $30,000 To Transfer appropriations from Contingency to the Insurance Fund—for higher costs due to payouts per the contract and increase claim costs. Equipment Fund To: Equipment Maintenance $30,000 From: Contingency $30;000 To Transfer appropriations from Contingency to Equipment - Maintenance—for higher costs due to unanticipated repairs to equipment. TOTAL To: Division Appropriations 2 5 From: Contingency SECTION 2. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of June, 2012, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of June, 2012: John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Page 2 of 2 (�CITYOFASHLANDLEGAL DEPARTMENT Ca,�itfakfzeQ,f �/�q�j2 covn� ►M-�"�-- MEMORANDUM DT: 6114/2012 TO: Mayor and Council FR: David Lohman and Douglas M. McGeary R Persistent Violation and rsistent FTA Questions and Answers The following questions and answers are an attempt to synthesize most of the critical comments, concerns and objections the Legal Department has received about the above proposed ordinances and our concise responses to them with as little legalese and as few legal citations as possible. Any failures herein to address or faithfully articulate particular concerns are unintentional oversights due to our lack of time or full understanding: As part of the dialogue on these ordinances, we look forward to discussing the helpfulness and accuracy of these questions and answers. 1. QUESTION: Do these ordinances infringe on a person's rights of criminal due process? RESPONSE: No. These ordinances do not evade or weaken the criminal justice process for determining guilt or innocence; the right against arrest except only upon probable cause; or the right to arraignment, appointment of legal counsel,jury trial, and innocence until proven guilty. In fact, other jurisdictions that have successfully adopted expulsion ordinances allow for administrative proceedings that have fewer constitutional and other legal safeguards than those proposed in these ordinances. 2. QUESTION: Can a court expel a convicted person from an area of town without these ordinances? RESPONSE: Yes. The Municipal Court has done so in the past as part of a defendant's probationary sentence. Previous judges have gone so far as to expel persons over the California border, giving them a bus pass; a questionable decision not contemplated in these proposed ordinances. There are cases in other jurisdictions that have fully considered the state and federal constitutional issues involved in expulsion and have prescribed how it can be done properly. The proposed ordinances take advantage of the lessons in such cases to ensure due and equal process protections are retained. 3. QUESTION: If the Court can expel a convicted person from an area of town, why do we need these ordinances? RESPONSE: The Court has discretion to do many things in sentencing, but through its ordinances, the City Council can provide a menu o preferred sanctions for a judge to consider. Knowing the elected leaders'and police department's law enforcement priorities, the judge can select and fine, Pdge 2 CITY OFASHLANDLEGAL DEPARTMENT tune sentences or probation terms to correspond with legislated priorities, such as providing enhanced protections in selected areas of the city. In addition, expulsion due to multiple violations of Ni, City ordinances alone or in combination with state crimes would not be possible without these ordinances. 4. QUESTION: Will these ordinances discriminate against any legally-protected class(race; religion, sex, age, etc)? RESPONSE: No. These ordinances are neutral as written and should be enforced against everyone equally_ The court of course, however, will have discretion to decide against expulsion based upon the circumstances surrounding the crimes or violations a person has committed;the needs of the pl accused person, and protection of the public. Thus, an accused person has a specific provision (p GhJ within the ordinance upon which to rely and argue for the court's judgment that a sentence would unfairly burden him or her. 3QAO S�4 5. QUESTION: Will the impact of these ordinances fall more heavily on homeless persons than on other people in Ashland ? RESPONSE Itdepends. •' The goal is not to impact any particular group but rather to deter and thereby reduce offenses in parts of the city here i al conduct is concentrated land has a significant impact. If some persons who are homeless are frequent offenders in the downtown area or frequent"no- shows"in Municipal Court and are not currently being deterred by the possible sanctions of having to spend a few hours in jail or facing fines, then those persons are more likely to be impacted by these ordinances than are other potential offenders for whom fines or incarceration do now serve as effective deterrents. j r• The arrest records in the downtown area in 2011 include one person with 5 separate arrests gyp+ for theft; another had 1 arrest for criminal trespass, 2.separate arrests for theft, and 1 arrest (Y� for failure to register.as a sex offender; another person had 10 separate arrests related to public alcohol consumption, along with 2 arrests for criminal trespass. Examples like these suggest not only that social services are needed to address recurring inappropriate conduct, - but also that there is a need for an alternative consequence for,those for whom the threat of ( ` fines or incarceration is not an effective deterrent or means to address their problems. b Unless some unwelcome sanction is available and occasionally imposed on individuals grown accustomed to ignoring certain ordinances and statutes, their misconduct in the downtown area is likely to continue as long as they choose to be there. 6. QUESTION: Should any particular group be exempted from sanctions for illegal acts because their circumstances may make compliance more difficult than it is for others? . RESPONSE: No. • In the absence of some rational basis for such selective enforcement, it is unfair to those not exempted and is potentially subject to legal challenge under the Equal Protection Clause. • If a legislative body has concluded a law, for example an ordinance against public alcohol consumption, should not be enforced or should be enforced only in certain circumstances, then the ordinance should be repealed or modified. The police and the court should not be the entities to decide that exemptions should.be granted to particular groups or to effectively nullify a law through non-enforcement. LEGAL DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5350 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-552-2092 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us Page 3 CITY OFASHLANDLEGAL DEPARTMENT • Such selective enforcement would not be feasible in the absence of some way to objectively identify the group. 7. QUESTION: Is it lawful for past acts to be used as the basis for establishing a new crime subject to separate'additional penalties? RESPONSE: Yes. One example in Oregon law is Disorderly Conduct in the first degree, (DOC 1). ORS 166.023. One conviction is a Class A misdemeanor carrying a maximum punishment of one year in jail. A repeat conviction for subsequent similar disorderly conduct is a Class C Felony--a significantly more serious crime with a maximum punishment of 5 years in prison. Racketeering is another example in which a string of certain kinds of crimes, called predicate crimes, constitute a new separate crime when the illegal acts, taken together, also meet other proscribed conditions. ORS 166.720. The persistent violation ordinance is similar to the racketeering statute in that previous. convictions are the constituents of a distinct new crime when, taken together, they meet additional specified criteria (within 6 months,within the downtown). There are also numerous examples of crimes or violations for which the penalties increase as the number of times they are committed by a particular person increases. Examples include multiple unpaid parking violations, multiple DUlls, and furnishing alcohol to a minor. 8. QUESTION: Is it lawful for the very same conduct that is alleged to be one type of unlawful act subject to one type of penalty to also be alleged to be another type of unlawful act subject to a separate penalty? RESPONSE: Yes. The very same conduct that leads to a conviction and penalty for reckless driving can also be the basis for a conviction and a separate penalty for driving under the influence of intoxicants. Similarly, assault and intimidation can be predicated on a single act for which distinct penalties may be imposed. 9. QUESTION: Is it unjust for the possible consequences for multiple crimes or ordinance violations to include expulsion from the downtown area? RESPONSE: No. • When the Legislature has determined that a restriction as severe as incarceration is an appropriate sanction for one statutory offense, a less severe restriction on personal freedoms, such as a limited-duration expulsion from a limited area of the city after multiple offenses is easily within the realm of just outcomes. The same is true when the Council determines that multiple violations of certain ordinances constitute misdemeanors and therefore warrant time in jail as a possible sanction and then makes a lesser sanction the preferred alternative. • The fundamental goal underlying sanctions within the criminal justice system is to protect society by deterring illegal acts, and/or by temporarily separating those who do not restrain themselves from further opportunities to commit illegal acts. When jail is mostly unavailable as a last resort, and another sanction that is less restrictive than jail is available and is potentially more effective than jail for protecting areas of the city the legislative body has determined to be negatively impacted by a high incidence of unlawful conduct, it is not unjust for the legislative body to establish the less restrictive sanction as the preferred alternative—while leaving the sanction decision ultimately to the discretion of the court. LEGAL DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5350 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-552-2092 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.onus I Page 4 CITY OFASHLANDLEGAL DEPARTMENT I 10. QUESTION: What purpose does criminalizing a.behavior fulfill when the jail will not hold the violator anyway? RESPONSE: The criminal justice process allows restricting person's freedoms of movement only when their acts constitute a crime. Since the jails will not hold the defendants, for its own protection, the city can create a form of criminal trespass law to expel these persons from valued or sensitive area of the city. Thus, if by FTA a violator never resolves the underlying offense, law enforcement does not have to wait for a warrant to remove the violator nor is it powerless to do anything when the violator returns after the warrant is returned. Removing violators from protected areas serves a purpose similar to that of a jail by removing the problem from the community, but is less restrictive in many ways: 11. QUESTION: Is it necessary for legislation giving discretion to a judge to decide on appropriate sanctions for illegal conduct to include specific guidance on the exercise of such discretion? RESPONSE: The judiciary avoids questioning the wisdom or direction of laws passed by the legislature. Judicial doctrine, in fact, requires the judiciary to defer to the legislative decision. That is, the judge is to interpret the law under the presumption that it is constitutional, and only then overturn 1 the law if it finds that the law cannot be interpreted in a manner that does not violate the state or U.S. Constitution. The legislature can effectively direct solutions to society's ills by passing laws reflecting the expectations and acceptance of its citizens as guided by the Constitution. Directing the court to address particular persons in a manner that protects the community is clearly acceptable, and the Court protects the individual from errant laws upon its interpretation of those laws according to the Constitution. 12. QUESTION:. Could the same outcome be achieved by Council direction to the Municipal Court judge to consider imposing expulsion after someone has committed offenses according to the parameters in the proposed persistent violation ordinance. RESPONSE: No;generally. • See responses to Questions 3 and 10. • Creating a crime from a combination of violations can only be achieved by ordinance. • As noted elsewhere, the FTA ordinance has a procedural component that directs the City attorney and the police department to do specific acts. The court does not have the power, at least not practically or efficiently, to prescribe or legislate such a process that occurs outside its presence. 13. QUESTION: Can an expulsion last indefinitely? E RESPONSE: No. The ordinance limits expulsion to a term of not more than 1 year. i LEGAL DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5350 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-552-2092 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us r4m4A CA /g1,ZC6v A5 Mayor and Council— Attached is a summary of legal issues that have arisen regarding the ` ersistent Violator" ordinances. In addition, the Mayor asked me to respond to the questions specifically about the Failure to appear portion of the proposed ordinances. I plan to be prepared to discuss these at the Council meeting tomorrow night. NOTE: These two sets of questions and answers are not a confidential communication and can be shared with others. 1. QUESTION : In the Second Reading versions of the ordinances concerning "persistent offenders," staff is proposing several changes from the First Reading versions. What is the proposed change with respect to failures to appear? RESPONSE : The version approved in the First Reading had two separate provisions on failure to appear ("FTA"); one in proposed AMC 10.120.020C and another in proposed AMC 10.125.010- .030. The two provisions had differing conditions and terms. The first FTA provision, AMC 10.120.020C, established one of the conditions for a crime of Persistent Violation. It provided that any failure to appear in court for any crime or violation after having received three or more summons or citations within a 6-month period for any combination of the "listed" offenses within the downtown area constituted the crime of Persistent Violation. The "listed" offenses are those appearing in proposed AMC 10.120.020A; they include statutory crimes and 5 specified ordinance violations. The second FTA provision in the First Reading version was AMC 10.125.010-.030, which is a procedure to compel attendance in the Municipal Court. It is triggered in the event of three or more FTAs in a 12-month period after having received summons or citations for three or more separate incidents involving any offenses established by statute or ordinance. In the Persistent Offenders ordinances proposed for approval in the Second Reading, the first proposed FTA provision, AMC 10.120.020C, has been deleted, and the second proposed FTA provision has been retained, with a few modifications. The only noteworthy modification consists of incorporating by reference the state statute establishing a Class A misdemeanor for failure to appear, instead of creating a separate Class B FTA misdemeanor by city ordinance. 2. QUESTION : What is the reason for 11W proposing to drop one of the FTA provisions? RESPONSE : There are two distinct enforcement problems in dealing with persistent downtown offenders: (1) weak incentives to get them to show up in court for adjudication, sentencing, and possible evaluation and treatment; and (2) largely ineffective deterrents to unlawful acts in the first place. Legal staff initially drafted slightly differing approaches to each problem. After review of public comments and further analysis, legal staff concluded having the two separate FTA provisions with differing features was unnecessary and confusing. 3. QUESTION : How would the proposed retained FTA provision work in detail? RESPONSE : The purpose of an expulsion order arising from multiple FTAs is to create an incentive for defendants to come to court to get closure on outstanding underlying offenses. Once those underlying offenses have been adjudicated and resolved through exoneration or satisfaction of court-determined work center, treatment, community service, fine, incarceration, or expulsion requirements, the expulsion order is lifted. The proposed Second Reading provision on Failure to 1 Appear, AMC 10.125.010-.030, has these features: If o A person has missed 3 prior required court appearances within the previous 12 months; and o The court appearances were required in order to answer charges concerning any illegal acts (lyhtither or not the alleged off s occurred downtown and even if some or all of the alleged offenses were violations not listed in propose 10 120.020A1 Then o The City Attorney files a sworn complaint for failure to appear pursuant to ORS 133.060 or 133.070 (a Class A misdemeanor under Oregon statutes); and o A police officer will personally serve on the defendant the criminal complaint with summons in the form of a citation ordering him/her to appear in court at a specified time for a show cause (contempt) hearing. �—'1 • At the show cause/contempt hearing, o If the defendant fails to appear, § The court is directed to enter an arrest warrant and an expulsion order unless there is reasonable cause to order some other action within the court's discretion, which could include incarceration or a fine; and § With respect to any such expulsion order, the court is to use its discretion to take into account the nature of the alleged offenses and where they allegedly occurred in order to determine whether the "off limits" area should be the downtown area or some other part of town; and § Any expulsion order is to include leeway for travel to court to make an appearance and to places of employment, public offices, treatment facilities, etc.; and § The expulsion order is lifted once the defendant shows up in court as ordered and must be lifted after one year in any event. o If the defendant does appear at the show cause/contempt hearing, § The court may allow a continuance for preparation of a defense, hiring or appointment of a lawyer, or other reasonable justifications and may enter a temporary expulsion order in the meantime, if appropriate; and § Upon conclusion of the hearing, the court may dismiss the FTA charge if it decides prior court absences were excusable and set a subsequent date for adjudication of the underlying alleged offenses and criminal FTA complaint; or § Upon conclusion of the hearing, the court may find the prior court absences were unjustified and impose a sentence which may include expulsion for up to one year from the downtown or some other area where the alleged offenses occurred—with exceptions for travel to court for adjudication of the underlying offenses and to places of employment, public offices, treatment facilities, etc. Also at the conclusion of the hearing, the court may set a subsequent date for adjudication of the underlying offenses and criminal FTA complaint. 4. QUESTIOjI : What is the justification for retaining the FTA provision based on any underlying l ed ffenses occurring within 12 months instead of the FTA provision based only on "listed" underlying alleged offenses occurring in the downtown area within 6 months? 2 RESPONSE : Under a "three strikes within 6 months" provision with respect to FTAs for offenses only /within the downtown, the presumed sanction (subject to judicial discretion) for an offense committed downtown would be conditional expulsion only after the third FTA. In contrast, the same offense committed outside downtown would be subject to conditional expulsion after the first FTA. This is because any FTA for an offense anywhere in the City is already a Class A ? misdemeanor under state law, with serious possible consequences pending resolution, including the possibility 1 year in jail or conditional exclusion from the entire City. If the "three strikes within 6 months" provision with respect to FTAs for offenses within the downtown is enacted, the presumed sanctions for FTAs on offenses in the downtown, high impact area would be less stringent than those available for FTAs on offenses outside the high-impact area. If, on the other hand, the presumed sanctions for offenses committed in a high-impact area were more stringent than for offenses elsewhere, such a discrepancy would likely pass the "rational basis" test a court would apply in the event of a legal challenge to the ordinances. Whether it stems from neglect, incapacity or deliberate disregard, failure to obey a judge's order to appear in court is a very serious offense in itself. If a person who will not or cannot comply with simple orders to show up from the ultimate authorities in our judicial system-- those intended, trained, and constrained to be the most objective, most evenhanded of all -- then separation of that person from all or part of the rest of the community is appropriate, no matter where in the community the person's offenses occurred. Defendants with multiple FTA's for offenses outside the downtown have been persons who failed to show up in court multiple times for offenses in the downtown area, as well. 5. QUESTION : Is the retained FTA provision consistent with the direction Council has given on the development of the "persistent offenders" ordinances? RESPONSE : Yes. On April 3, 2012, Council directed the Police Department and City Attorney to develop legislation that would expel multiple violators of ordinances or statutes from the downtown area for a limited time. In the Council Study Session on May 14, 2012, Chief Holderness discussed several options for addressing this directive. The City Attorney also outlined the need to include a provision on failures to appear in court to respond to charges or citations, arguing that without such a provision, expulsion sanctions or any other form of enforcement would have little effect. On June 5, Chief Holderness presented for First Reading of Section 10.120 on persistent violations within enhanced law enforcement areas, Section 10.125 on persistent failures to appear in court as ordered, and amended Section 1.08 to explicitly name expulsion as a possible court-ordered sanction and to make court appearance mandatory for specified ordinance violations. With a few fairly minor exceptions, Proposed Section 10.125 is the same in the Second Reading as it was in the First Reading. The newer version incorporates by reference the state statute establishing a Class A misdemeanor for failure to appear, instead of creating a separate Class B FTA misdemeanor by city ordinance. 6. QUESTION : If the Council wanted to adopt a "three strikes within 6 months" provision with respect to FTAs for offenses exclusively within the downtown, what motion to amend could achieve that without requiring an extensive re-write of the proposed ordinances? RESPONSE : Below is a provision that could replace the AMC 10.125.010 proposed by staff. It addresses only FTAs for"listed" offenses committed in the downtown area within a 6-month 3 period and is silent on FTAs for other offenses. AMC 10.125.010 Persistent Failure to Appear, Citation; Form. (1) When the city attorney has filed a complaint pursuant to ORS 133.060 or 133.070 against a person for failure to appear in Ashland Municipal Court after receiving personal service of summons or citations for three separate incidents of any combination of those crimes and/or violations provided in AMC 10.120.020 occuring within a six (6) month period in an enhanced law enforcement area described in AMC 1.120.01 OB, and a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe the person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly engaged in such repeated failures to appear, the officer shall personally serve on the person a citation ordering the person to appear in Court within three judicial days or at the next regularly scheduled Municipal Court hearing date, whichever is later, and show cause why the Court should not enter a Court order expelling the person from any enhanced enforcement area described in AMC 1.120.010B. 4 0/R11L Ashland Physicians Position Statement on Smart Meters 04 We, the undersigned Ashland physicians,are deeply concerned about the public health impact of radio-read electric "smart" meters. Established research provides evidence that exposure to microwave and radio frequency radiation increases the risk of cancer, increases damage to the nervous system, causes electro-sensitivity, has adverse reproductive effects, and a variety of other effects on different organ systems.1 We agree with the World Health Organization's conclusion that"the use of precautionary approaches is warranted." We acknowledge that,according to the Santa Cruz Public Health Department, studies show that 1.5 to 8 percent of the population has electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS),a condition the World Health Organization describes as "a phenomenon where individuals experience adverse health effects while using or being in the vicinity of devices emanating electric, magnetic, or electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Whatever its cause, EHS is a real and sometimes debilitating problem for the affected persons (Mild et all, 2004)." These citizens are likely to have their symptoms aggravated by an increase in microwave radiation, often without knowing the cause. We call for the Ashland city council to: 1. Maintain the no fee opt-out previously adopted by our City Council and similar to that enacted by the state of Vermont. 2. Enact an immediate moratorium on radio-read meter installation until the financial and public health issues can be studied and better understood. 3. If the installation of radio read meters is resumed, first inform all households, including those who have already had a Smart Meter installed, about the opt-out option,clearly describing the potential health risks of exposure to microwave radiation. 4. Establish an independent committee whose role is to study all city-wide issues relating to RF/EMF radiation exposure, and make recommendations to the city council on present and future policies and decisions that involve controllable EMF exposures. Signed, 1 Statement by Dr. David Carpenter, a Harvard Medical School-trained physician who worked for the New York State Department of Public Health for 18 years before becoming Dean of the School of Public Health at the University of Albany,where he currently directs the Institute for Health and the Environment. Page 1 of 2 C8'�'� hula-mtx�� �lrq��z Cate Hartzell From: David Lohman[lohmand @ashland.or.us] D(/{x Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 9:10 PM x�.� To: 'Cate Hartzell' Cc: 'John Stromberg' Subject: RE: Request for meeting Cate— This is in follow-up to your June 5 letter about the Council's consideration of a revision to the recently- adopted opt-out ordinance regarding "smart" electric meters. The Council can take up consideration of repealing or amending an existing ordinance and then vote on whether to amend it or to repeal it and replace it with a different ordinance. The Council does so with some frequency. The wireless ordinance is a recent example. Robert's Rules says generally a vote cannot be renewed in the same session. But there are exceptions. One such exception is a motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted, also known as a motion to repeal or annul. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revise (11th ed.), Section 35, p. 305-310. I should also note that Robert's Rules were created for large assemblies that have periodic sessions. Therefore, some elements of Robert's Rules cannot be applied to the Council. The rule on renewal of motions is one of them, since the Council does not have "sessions," as do legislatures or large membership organizations that only have annual meetings. So even if Robert's Rules did not provide an exception for motions to rescind (or to amend something previously adopted or to repeal or to anul), I would have to conclude the rule against renewal of motions does not apply to the Council. I concur with the Mayor's response to your argument that passage of the May 15 opt out ordinance established a legal contract with electric customers. If existing ordinances were deemed to be contracts, they could only be changed by contract amendments with each affected.citizen. That would leave legislative bodies with much less authority that the constitution grants them and tie governments in knots. I believe any such argument would be disposed of quickly in court through a ruling on a motion for dismissal or summary judgment. If this message and my June 6 response have not clarified the reasons for my conclusions about the upcoming "opt out" agenda item, please let me know. -- Dave Lohman From: David Lohman [mailto:lohmand @ashland.or.us] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 2:59 PM To: 'Cate Hartzell' Cc: 'John Stromberg'; 'Dave Kanner Subject: RE: Request for meeting Cate— 6/19/2012 Page 2 of 2 I am way behind on too many projects and need to focus my time on them. So I need to beg off of having a meeting. By early next week, I will try to send you back your letter with a few inserted comments from me to give you a sense of my thinking, beyond the comments below. Then, a quick phone call might serve your purpose. I just can't afford to spend much time second guessing a conclusion that I'm pretty sure about and that probably would not change anything even if my conclusion changed. In my role as parliamentarian, whatever I say is only interpretation, and the Mayor is free to ignore it or can adopt it and then, per Robert's Rules, be over ruled by a majority the Council on appeal. In short, if a majority of the Council wants to have a vote on repealing and replacing the opt-out ordinance already passed, they will manage to do so, and parliamentary rulings cannot bar that course for long, if at all. With respect to the 2 hour rule, staff did not spend more than 2 hours preparing the agenda item, since virtually all the work had been done in preparation for the May 15 meeting. - Dave From: Cate Hartzell [mailto:cate @mind.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 11:30 PM To: 'David Lohman' Cc: 'John Stromberg'; 'John Stromberg' Subject: Request for meeting Dave, I would like to see whether you have any time on your calendar available to meet briefly on Friday. I am perplexed over this AMC meeting rules issue and would like to have you help me understand what it is I am not seeing. Thank you, Cate 6/19/2012 June 5,2012 Cate Hartzell 892 Garden Way Ashland, Oregon 97520 Dave Lohman Ashland City Attorney 20 Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 Mr. Lohman, I address you in your role as the Official Parliamentarian for the Ashland City Council. I am writing to question the legal basis of item XlU 1 on the Ashland City Council June 5u', 2012 agenda. According to the City Recorder's Office's proposed minutes that were posted onto the City of Ashland website on May 31, 2012, the May 15'h, 2012 Regular Meeting of the Ashland City Council contains the following: Councilor Slattery/Chapman m/s to approve Resolution #2012-14. Councilor Slattery/Voisin m/s to amend main motion that no fees be associated with the Opt Out Policy. Voice Vote: Councilor Morris, Slattery, and Voisin, YES; Councilor Silbiger and Chapman, NO. Motion passed 3-2. Roll Call Vote on amended main motion: Councilor Voisin, Morris, and Slattery, YES; Councilor Silbiger and Chapman, NO. Motion passed 3-2. According to the online, publicly-posted official agenda for the June 5a', 2012 Regular Ashland City Council meeting, this item is on the agenda: Council Communication dated June 5m, 2012 on the topic of A resolution adopting an opt out policy for the automated meter reading program and repealing Resolution No. 2012 -14 (at the request of Councilors Morris and Chapman). This agenda item is legally problematic for three reasons: 1. The agenda item violates Roberts Rules of Order. AMC 2.04.020(H)Robert's Rules of Order Robert's Rules of Order shall be the authority for the government of the Council during its sessions, when not in conflict with the City Charter and these code rules. Failure to strictly follow Robert's Rules of Order shall not be cause to void or otherwise disturb a decision or action of the Council. The Council will strive to be clear in its proceedings. June 5,2012 Page 1 of 3 The proposed Resolution adopting an opt out policy for the automated meter reading program and repealing Resolution No. 2012-14 is premature as an agenda item. A successful motion to reconsider a previously adopted Resolution must occur before debate on a contradictory resolution is conducted. The extent of City Councilor debate and deliberation about costs associated with the Opt Out program establishes that the intent of the successful motion was to adopt staffs recommended Opt Out Program that does not involve cost to Electric utility customers. Therefore,the agenda item to both adopt an Opt Out program that contains costs and to repeal Resolution 2012-14 is reasonably interpreted as contradictory and mutually exclusive of Resolution 2012-14. 2. The agenda item violates Roberts Rules of Order in another way. AMC 2.04.020(J) Reconsidering a Vote. A motion to reconsider a vote can be made only once and at the session at which the motion or matter was adopted, or at the next regular meeting of the Council,provided that no vote to reconsider shall be made after the ordinance, resolution,or act has been officially recorded, filed or transmitted or otherwise gone out of the possession of the Council. , "The motion to reconsider cannot be applied to a vote on a motion that may be renewed within a reasonable time; or when practically the same result may be attained by some other parliamentary motion;or when the vote has been partially executed(except in case of the motion to limit debate),or something has been done as the result of the vote that the assembly cannot undo; or to an affirmative vote in the nature of a contract when the other party to the contract has been notified of the vote; or to a vote on the motion to reconsider." http://www.robertsrules.org/rror-06.htm#36 My request, made prior to the May 15, 2012 Council Meeting to the City of Ashland Electric Dept for the means by which to Opt Out of having radio frequency meters was delayed by staff explaining that the City Council hadn't adopted a policy yet. Many other residents have said they were told that they would be notified when the City Council established a policy. I am one of many City of Ashland utility customers that attended, watched or was notified of the adoption of a cost-free Opt Out program. The City of Ashland website contained the proposed Resolution 2012-14 ahead of the May 15, 2012 meeting, the meeting was televised to the public, and the City Recorder's proposed Official Minutes of the May 15n', 2012 meeting contain the language of Resolution. In each of these ways, the public and utility customers were led to believe that the adopted Resolution was the empowering legislation that allowed the City of Ashland Electric Dept to subsequently mail to customers that have indicated a desire to opt out a contract to Opt Out. By submitting my Opt Out agreement, I have every right to assume that this contract represented Resolution 2012-14, allowing me to opt out at no cost, either initially or having to pay a monthly fee. As such, I believe that Resolution 2012-14 was implemented by City Administration in the form of contracts with customers and is outside the realm of the Council to reconsider, both under AMC 2.04.020 and Roberts Rules of Order. June 5,2012 Page 2 of 3 3. The presence of the agenda item violates AMC 2.04.030 B. and C.. The June 5, 2012 Council Communication includes this statement by staff: "AMC. 2.04.030(B) allows an individual councilor to request that an item be placed on a Council agenda." AMC 2.04.030 states: "The City Administrator is responsible for the preparation of the Council agenda. B Councilor may request that an item prior to initial Council discussion, that does not involve staff time, policy research, or drafting of an ordinance, be placed on the Council' s agenda.... Council members will endeavor to have subjects and any materials they wish considered submitted prior to finalization of the Council packet. C. A Councilor who desires major policy research and discussion or drafting of an ordinance should first raise the issue at a meeting under Other Business from Council members prior to more than two hours of any staff time being spent on the issue. The Councilor may also request that the discussion of this item be formally placed on the agenda in accordance with paragraph B of this Section. The Council should consider items in light of City priorities, including adopted City Council Goals, and workload. The Council must agree to proceed with an issue or ordinance before staff time is spent preparing the matter for Council action. The Councilor may present information or a position paper or ask for a department report or committee recommendation." Clearly, Council's own rules do not allow staff to be recruited by a subset of City Councilors to spend time drafting formal policy options that overturn the vote of the majority of City Council on a contradictory policy decision. I formally request that as the Parliamentarian you instruct the Mayor to withdraw this item from the June 5, 2012 agenda. Respectfully offered, Cate Hartzell June 5,2012 Page 3 of 3 Survival Tips on Robert's Rules of Order-Rescind,Repeal,Annul http://www.roberts-rules.com/parl20.htm SURVIVAL SuRwAL TIPS ON PS on Parliamentary Robert's Rules of Order Procedure 8+ According to Rescind Robert's (often called Repeal or Annul) ,�Qaeind RULES OF ORDER You always have the right to annul or California Stall amend something already adopted. Assocla"on of Quite often it is obvious that a great deal of Parliamentarians preparation and support has been quietly Home organized before a motion is presented to the members. The motion is adopted before you even understand the true purpose and potential consequences of the motion. Fortunately there are no time limitations to annul or amend any motion. Then: are no arbitrary restrictions, just a couple of logical ones: 1. If on the day a motion was passed, someone moved to reconsider the vote on that motion, you can neither Rescind nor Amend that motion, until after the Motion to Reconsider has been resolved. 2. If the motion you wish to Rescind has been executed in an irreversible manner, you can not Rescind it. However, any reversible portion can be amended. A simple way to look at this is, if no one outside the meeting knows about the motion, the motion can probably be undone. If a part of the motion has not been executed, you can probably amend the unexecuted portion of the motion. 3. If a motion results in a contract and the other party has been informed of the vote, you can not Rescind the motion. 4. If the motion acts upon a resignation, or results in an election/expulsion, and the person involved is officially notified of the voting, you can not Rescind the motion. Fortunately, Robert's textbook allows for a reinstatement procedure and disciplinary removal of a person from office. 5. In order to Rescind a motion, it takes at least a 2/3 vote unless the membership has received a Previous Notice. (See the Votes Required to Adopt a Motion by a 213 Vote Table.). When a motion is adopted before you can prepare a means of defeating it, all you need is a 2/3 vote, and you can nullify or amend the offensive motion. 1 of 2 6/19/2012 7:02 PM Ba'kbara Christensen lull From: Lorie Anderson [lorie.anderson @gmail.coml ©Pf" 0G Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:03 AM To: christeb @ash land.or.us Subject: Correction: I meant JUNE 19 agenda packet, not July 18. Sorry, I meant to write June 19 agenda packet, not July 18. Also, if you need me to include my address, please let me know. Thank you, Lorie Anderson On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:22 AM, Lorie Anderson <lorie.anderson@gmail.com> wrote: This submission is intended for inclusion in the July 18, 2012, agenda packet for the City Council discussion of Smart Meter opt-out fees. Dear Council members and Mayor, I understand the City has decided to allow residents to opt out of Smart Meter installation, largely due to fears about radio frequency (RF) safety. Further, I read in the media that the added expense for allowing opt-outs could cost the city as much as $150,000. RF radiation can be an emotional topic for many, and I personally tend to favor freedom of choice. But, I feel that the financial burden of accommodating scientifically unsupportable claims should be born by those adhering to the claim. While not all RF safety questions have been thoroughly answered through scientific research (which may be an impossible expectation and something that might still not satisfy many opposers), the most credible expert sources are reassuring that RF devices are very safe when regulations are followed. RF exposure from Smart Meters appears to be especially trivial (similar to baby monitors, TVs, radios, remote controls, garage door openers), given their very low power intensity, short transmission time (typically less than a minute per day), and the fact that exposure to electromagnetic radiation decreases exponentially with distance from the source. Smart Meters transmit primarily from the front (aiming away from the house), the RF is attenuated by an enclosure and obstacles like walls, and they're not a device that people.ordinarily stand close to or hold directly up to the face as they might do with cell phones. And even if they were, the RF exposure is minuscule compared to a cell phone. Meanwhile I see a fair(or should I say unfair) amount of misinformation; for example, suggesting that scientific research has shown that many people suffer from electromagnetic hypersensitivity(EMH) from RF waves. Systematic reviews of the best studies on this question have shown no correlation between reported EMH symptoms and the level of RF exposure reported to be causing them. While the medical symptoms are real, it's the fear of RF and not the RF itself that appears to be causing a stress response and/or leading the sufferer to misattribute symptoms caused by something else to RF radiating devices. I urge our city council members and the mayor to counter the wave of fear-mongering about radio frequency (RF) radiation by (1) studying the consensus of scientific opinion based on systematic reviews of the best scientific evidence from credible US and international sources (for example: ICNRP, WHO, HPA, FCC, FDA, t NIOSH, etc.), and (2) widely distributing a plain language report to the public explaining the safety of non- ionining.radialjon and of RF devices that meet FCC guidelines. Policy decisions that involve the safety of RF devices should be based on reliable, expert opinion; decisions accommodating unwarranted fears could end up reinforcing the misperception that such fears are warranted. I recommend the following sources: "What are electromagnetic fields?" A primer on electromagnetic field, including what they are and how safe they are. http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index.html "Electromagnetic fields and public health - Electromagnetic hypersensitivity" http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs296/en/ About Smart Meters: "Health Impacts of Radio Frequency from Smart Meters," California Council on Science and Technology, 2011. http://www.ccst.us/publications/2011/201 Ismart-final.pdf Thank you for your consideration. Lorie Anderson, resident Ashland, OR 2 *6*Z* S (oh R/v '�rnQU( JV N June 19, 2012 To the Members of the Ashland Oregon City Council When I first came to Oregon the system for voting was a happy surprise. I studied the pamphlet provided before election day and could feel my choices were well informed. Especially helpful was the section in which organizations endorsed candidates and issues. Now that dark money, money of unknown origin, permeates the electoral process, of what value will these voter pamphlets be? I have voted in every election for 67 years, always with the sense that my voted counted. This year I feel disenfranchised. Rarely does a candidate succeed when grossly outspent by an opponent. The Supreme Court made a mistake in the Dred Scott decision, which supported slavery. It is not infallible. Our justices are human. The current spectacle of a process awash with money suggests that if democracy is to survive, the issue of who is a person and what constitutes speech must be laid before we the people. Please pass a resolution from the City of Ashland to amend the current Citizen's United Supreme Court decision. If you are unable to upgrade your resolution of March, please help us get this issue onto the November ballot. Thank you for the work you do to keep our democracy viable. Sincerely, Elizabeth R. Hallett 938 Mountain Meadows Circle Ashland, OR 97520 Phone: 541-282-3238 Council Communication June 19, 2012 Business Meeting AUTHORIZATION & RESOLUTION for City Council to put Move to Amend on the November, 2012 Ballot letting citizens decide about campaign finance reform. FROM: Citizens of Ashland, Spokesperson, John Tyler, 812 Plum Ridge Drive,Ashland. SUMMARY Basis for our appeal to the Council: We come before you tonight because of the 2010 decision of the United States Supreme Court in the Citizens United case, which has dramatically changed our electoral process. The Citizens United decision has diluted the votes of ordinary citizens by (1) declaring that unlimited amounts of money can be spent to influence our elected officials, and (2) including corporations as people entitled to make political contributions, which allows individual contributors to make unlimited anonymous gifts through Super PACs, and effectively removes transparency from our electoral process. This has opened the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections. People all over the country are outraged at the effect this decision is already having (80% of voters were opposed to the decision), and many of Ashland's voters want to join those who are taking action to restore our democracy by voting to pass an Amendment to the Constitution to overturn Citizens United. We are in the process of canvassing Ashland's citizens and collecting signatures on a petition addressed to Senators Merkley and Wyden, and Representative Walden, which provides as follows: "I am one of your constituents, and I want you to act decisively to free our system of elections from the control of big money, especially corporate money. Thanks to Citizens United and the Supreme Court cases that led to it, this goal must be accomplished by Constitutional amendment. I want you to support in Congress an amendment declaring that only human beings are "persons" under law, and that campaign donations are not speech enjoying First Amendment protection. " In the last five days, in a non-self-selecting effort in various locations in Ashland, 61% of all those approached signed the petition. Since people often do not want to sign any petition, even if they agree with its proposals, we can safely say that at least 61% of those approached favor this action and therefore the Council is justified in considering what we propose. Need for Council authorization: Oregon statutes do not permit citizens to petition directly to have this placed on the ballot in November; however, the Oregon Attorney General has stated that counties and municipalities may do so by local ordinance (see attached information from Oregon Common Cause). Therefore, we believe that the Council may legally authorize the inclusion of this question on the ballot so the voters may express their opinion. In order to accomplish this, the Council must first pass legislation authorizing advisory opinions to be placed on the ballot. We submit that it is entirely appropriate for the Council to have this authorization. Other cities in Oregon have enacted such legislation (Portland, Corvallis, Eugene and Lincoln County have already enacted ordinances authorizing advisory opinions on the ballot). Similar actions are being taken all over the country and over 100 local jurisdictions have passed resolutions to permit their citizens to express' their views. We urge the Council to give itself the necessary authorization to provide an avenue for citizens to make their voices heard on important matters of the day by passing an ordinance authorizing placement of advisory opinions on the ballot. Suggested legislative language is attached for the convenience of the Council. Request for Council action on ballot question: The Oregon Attorney General has indicated that gauging voter attitude about issues that affect a locality's residents is, by definition, a matter of local concern, even if the issues involve federal and state law. Therefore it is appropriate for the Council to take whatever action is necessary to give the voters an opportunity to make their wishes known on a ballot measure in the Fall. We are specifically not asking the Council to take any position on the merits of the resolution or the proposed Amendment. That is up to the voters, who will determine whether this measure passes or not. What we are asking is that the Council use its authority to make the ballot process available for a public determination of this matter. Once the Council authorizes the resolution to be placed on the ballot, we will present educational forums at which citizens will have the opportunity to learn about what is happening to our political process. We will reach out to all sides of the political spectrum—this is not a Republican or Democratic issue, it is an issue which affects every voter, and we believe every voter should have an opportunity to express his or her opinion in the voting booth. We urge the Council to include both issues—corporate rights and money as speech—in the ballot question. The use of corporations to shield individuals from personal responsibility is well recognized, and is one of the primary reasons for the existence of corporations. It is instructive to note the evolution of corporations in the United States. The earliest corporations were created for specific purposes by state charter, which clearly specified the nature of the corporate purpose and usually gave a limited time to accomplish that purpose. Corporations have always been subject to regulation by the federal and state governments, but over time there has been less and less oversight of corporate behavior, and court decisions have expanded corporate rights to the point that we now have the Citizens United case and all the abuses which have begun to flow from that case. As Justice Stevens said in his dissenting opinion to the Citizens United decision, "Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races." We want to be clear that stating that corporations are not people is not anti-business. Corporate entities have rights and privileges through state and federal laws that provide important protections like limited liability, certain property rights, etc. The Constitution and Bill of Rights never mentioned corporations, and the rights provided in these documents were clearly intended to apply only to real people. Therefore, we submit that the abuse of corporate power embodied in the Citizens United case should also be subject to review by the voters by placing that portion of the amendment on the ballot as well. PROPOSED AUTHORIZATION Re: Advisory Question Sections: 1. Definition. 2. Request requirements. 3. Council Responsibility. 1. Definition: "Advisory question," as used in this Chapter, is any measure, proposition or question which, if submitted to and approved by.a majority of the voters, would not have the force or effect of law, whether or not the measure, proposition or question is phrased or formulated in a form usual for the making of a law. 2. Request requirements. No request for submission of an advisory question to the voters of Ashland will be accepted or considered by the Council unless that request conforms substantially to the requirements of an initiative petition. 3. Council Responsibility. If a request for submission of an advisory question to the voters conforms substantially to the requirements of an initiative petition, the Council shall consider the request within a reasonable time and shall determine, in its discretion, whether the advisory question shall be submitted to the voters, and if it is to be submitted, the date of the election at which the question will be submitted and the content and wording of the question as it will appear on the ballot, including any editing or revision of the question. PROPOSED ADVISORY QUESTION FOR BALLOT CAPTION: Advisory question on corporate constitutional rights and money as speech. ADVISORY QUESTION: Shall Ashland voters instruct Congress to amend the United States Constitution to limit political campaign spending and provide constitutional rights only to people? CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT Proposed by Move to Amend Section 1 [Corporations are not people and can be regulated] The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only. Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable. Section 2 [Money is not speech and can be regulated] Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure. Federal, State and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed. The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment. Section 3 Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.