|
|
|
Though the steps to recall an elected official are long and arduous, a group of Mount Shasta citizens calling for the replacement of three city council members says it’s ready and willing to see them through.
However, in order to go through all the necessary steps before the deadline to consolidate the recall with the Nov. 8 general election, proponents will need to work quickly, said Siskiyou County Clerk Colleen Setzer.
Last week, councilors Sandra Spelliscy and Tim Stearns were served with Notices of Intention to circulate a recall petition. Mayor Michael Murray declined to accept the papers at that time, however, he said he’ll accept them this week when he returns to town.
The recall process
According to state law outlined in documents which can be found at the Secretary of State’s website, proponents must first serve a Notice of Intention to circulate a recall petition to each councilor sought to be recalled. The notice must include a minimum of 20 signatures of certified voters who live within the electoral jurisdiction of the officer they seek to recall (in this case, within Mount Shasta city limits.)
The councilors then have seven days in which to provide a 200 word written response.
Kim Latos, who is one of those supporting the recall effort, said each of the three petitions were signed by 30 Mount Shasta voters to ensure its validity. A prior recall petition had been deemed invalid because a few of the signatories had moved from within city limits, she explained.
Those who signed this time were people who are involved “throughout the city and city agencies,” Latos said, though many of the signatories are not involved with the city’s inner workings at all.
“They are a mix of residents and well-known business owners who support what we’re doing,” said Latos.
After the notices are served, a copy of each must be published at the proponent’s expense at least once in a newspaper of general circulation, which is the next step in Latos’ plan, she said.
After all the preliminary steps are complete, the proponents must draft the actual recall petition, which has precise guidelines that must be followed.
Copies of the petition must be filed with Setzer’s office to be reviewed for correctness. The petition will be rejected if any errors or discrepancies are found. No signatures may be obtained on the recall petition until it has been approved by Setzer.
This is often the most difficult and time consuming part of the process, Setzer said, since it typically takes two, three or four tries for proponents to get everything precisely right.
“The Clerk’s office gets ten days to complete the review, and it usually takes that long,” she said. “It’s a very exacting process, I have to check word count and spelling... there’s format that must be followed by law, so I have to get out a ruler and even check things like the margins.”
If the petition isn’t approved, the process can begin again until the proponents get it right.
After the petition is approved, signatures of at least 25 percent of Mount Shasta’s 2,079 registered voters must be collected within 60 days after its approval.
After signatures are collected, the Clerk’s office will examine and verify the signatures by a random sampling signature verification technique within 30 days.
If the number of signatures is found to be insufficient, proponents may review it, and the petition will remain on file.
If the petition is found to have an adequate amount of signatures, Setzer must issue a Certificate of Sufficiency and submit it to the Mount Shasta City Council at its next regular meeting.
Within 14 days of receiving the certificate of sufficiency, the Council would need to issue an order stating that an election will be held to determine whether or not the councilor or councilors will be recalled.
The election would be held no less than 88 days and no more than 125 days after the issuance of the order. If a regular election is to be held within that time frame, the elections would be consolidated.
In light of this, all steps would need to be completed no later than Aug. 12 for the recall to coincide with the general election on Nov. 8.
Could the recall be consolidated?
One of the issues Setzer said she’ll be looking closely at is the regulation that a councilor cannot be recalled if he or she has less than six months left to serve on their term. If this turns out to be the case, the recall of Spelliscy and Stearns wouldn’t be valid.
Latos said that the she and the other recall supporters want to ensure the elections are consolidated so the city won’t have to pay extra for a special election.
At this time, the average cost of a special election is just over $5 per voter, Setzer said. However, a recall consolidated with the Nov. election would increase costs “only slightly.”
“That’s the only drawback to a recall, the money it can take for the election,” Latos said. “If we get out there and hustle getting those signatures, it won’t the city cost anything.”
Though the steps to recall an elected official are long and arduous, a group of Mount Shasta citizens calling for the replacement of three city council members says it’s ready and willing to see them through.
However, in order to go through all the necessary steps before the deadline to consolidate the recall with the Nov. 8 general election, proponents will need to work quickly, said Siskiyou County Clerk Colleen Setzer.
Last week, councilors Sandra Spelliscy and Tim Stearns were served with Notices of Intention to circulate a recall petition. Mayor Michael Murray declined to accept the papers at that time, however, he said he’ll accept them this week when he returns to town.
The recall process
According to state law outlined in documents which can be found at the Secretary of State’s website, proponents must first serve a Notice of Intention to circulate a recall petition to each councilor sought to be recalled. The notice must include a minimum of 20 signatures of certified voters who live within the electoral jurisdiction of the officer they seek to recall (in this case, within Mount Shasta city limits.)
The councilors then have seven days in which to provide a 200 word written response.
Kim Latos, who is one of those supporting the recall effort, said each of the three petitions were signed by 30 Mount Shasta voters to ensure its validity. A prior recall petition had been deemed invalid because a few of the signatories had moved from within city limits, she explained.
Those who signed this time were people who are involved “throughout the city and city agencies,” Latos said, though many of the signatories are not involved with the city’s inner workings at all.
“They are a mix of residents and well-known business owners who support what we’re doing,” said Latos.
After the notices are served, a copy of each must be published at the proponent’s expense at least once in a newspaper of general circulation, which is the next step in Latos’ plan, she said.
After all the preliminary steps are complete, the proponents must draft the actual recall petition, which has precise guidelines that must be followed.
Copies of the petition must be filed with Setzer’s office to be reviewed for correctness. The petition will be rejected if any errors or discrepancies are found. No signatures may be obtained on the recall petition until it has been approved by Setzer.
This is often the most difficult and time consuming part of the process, Setzer said, since it typically takes two, three or four tries for proponents to get everything precisely right.
“The Clerk’s office gets ten days to complete the review, and it usually takes that long,” she said. “It’s a very exacting process, I have to check word count and spelling... there’s format that must be followed by law, so I have to get out a ruler and even check things like the margins.”
If the petition isn’t approved, the process can begin again until the proponents get it right.
After the petition is approved, signatures of at least 25 percent of Mount Shasta’s 2,079 registered voters must be collected within 60 days after its approval.
After signatures are collected, the Clerk’s office will examine and verify the signatures by a random sampling signature verification technique within 30 days.
If the number of signatures is found to be insufficient, proponents may review it, and the petition will remain on file.
If the petition is found to have an adequate amount of signatures, Setzer must issue a Certificate of Sufficiency and submit it to the Mount Shasta City Council at its next regular meeting.
Within 14 days of receiving the certificate of sufficiency, the Council would need to issue an order stating that an election will be held to determine whether or not the councilor or councilors will be recalled.
The election would be held no less than 88 days and no more than 125 days after the issuance of the order. If a regular election is to be held within that time frame, the elections would be consolidated.
In light of this, all steps would need to be completed no later than Aug. 12 for the recall to coincide with the general election on Nov. 8.
Could the recall be consolidated?
One of the issues Setzer said she’ll be looking closely at is the regulation that a councilor cannot be recalled if he or she has less than six months left to serve on their term. If this turns out to be the case, the recall of Spelliscy and Stearns wouldn’t be valid.
Latos said that the she and the other recall supporters want to ensure the elections are consolidated so the city won’t have to pay extra for a special election.
At this time, the average cost of a special election is just over $5 per voter, Setzer said. However, a recall consolidated with the Nov. election would increase costs “only slightly.”
“That’s the only drawback to a recall, the money it can take for the election,” Latos said. “If we get out there and hustle getting those signatures, it won’t the city cost anything.”
