The decision to make an alderman at large of Alderman Radtke after the redistricting is explained in information that came through the Office of the Attorney General through Frank Mautino.our state representative. I have foia'd a copy and it does not seem to me to be a cut and dry answer to the problem.
"after redistricting, the number of aldermen serving in a municipality may temporarily exceed the number generally authorized by statute based upon its population. Because a temporary increase in the number of aldermen following redistricting is expressly authorized by statute, it doe not constitute an impermissible change in a municipality's form of government."
Several options are rejected.
I was going to go through these papers and post but I believe it would be easier for you to do your own foia to the city clerks office or else you can email me, and I will forward my foia to you. Email is mypointofviewlc@gmail.com.
The last comment on the paper is
This is not an official opinion of the Attorney General.
2 comments:
If it is not cut and dry and it is not a official opinion of the AG why would a city government allow it to be used when they are having a upcoming election? It is a well known fact that when the county board was redistricted the entire county board had to rerun for election. There was no county board member at large.
Has anyone determined and expressed what the present position of Treasurer-Budget Director will be titled as on the ballot and what the pay will be for the entire term?
Wasn't it Peru that had a candidate win a election for the Treasurer position and refused to be sworn in and held onto his old position. What has been researched to stop this from occurring again? I would bet that it is still a open end clause.
There are too many open end clauses in Peru which are the result of poor leadership and the lack of the person in charge taking command and forcing decisions to be made whether they are popular or unpopular.
Post a Comment