Last night, the council decided not to place the Iraq War referendum question on the ballot. As I
stated at the meeting, this was a difficult decision for me. Personally, I feel the decision to go to war in Iraq was made on incorrect and false information. I support a vision, which includes a flexible timeline, for post-war Iraq, just as I supported it for weapons inspections and the elections. I support the men and women of our armed services. I also support the safe and effective withdrawal of troops from Iraq, especially our National Guard and Reserves.
There were two issues before us: the petition drive and the council initiative. The petition drive came up short and did not meet the threshold for direct legislation. Councilor Esslinger decided to pursue the second method of putting the question on the ballot - through direct council action. I am fully aware they are two distinct and valid ways to put a referendum question on the ballot.
It is my opinion that the council should only place items on the ballot that directly impact or affect how we conduct city business, e.g., how we elect our mayor, local ordinances, etc. If the Oshkosh Common Council is going to place an item on the ballot, advisory or binding, members should be able to address the following: the purpose and plan for why it should be placed on the ballot (also addressing why the council should not vote on it without first a referendum – if it’s a particular issue), when it should be voted on, why the item is important to put to referendum, what to do with the information after a vote, how it will be used, when to take action, etc. Some of these items were addressed with this particular referendum question, however, not enough for me to support putting it on the ballot.
A group collecting signatures and pursuing direct legislation for a referendum, similar to the troop withdrawal question, is to be commended. In fact, I encourage and welcome active participation in the democratic process. The group, however, must meet the established threshold. That threshold is in place for a reason – to help provide validity, demonstrate need, etc. – and it is not a “minor” or “narrow” technicality when a petition process is 1,000 signatures short and superseded the 60 day timeframe. Those two pieces are the ‘meat and potatoes’ of the direct legislation process.
I strongly encourage the group to pursue direct legislation. According to the City Attorney Warren Kraft and City Clerk Pam Ubrig at last night’s meeting, the group has approximately five or so weeks to collect the required number of signatures and submit them for a referendum question on the April ballot. I encourage the organizers to meet with Mr. Kraft and Ms. Ubrig to get specific information such as required number of signatures and the timeline before proceeding.
Finally, I commend those who spoke last evening and at previous meetings, for and against, and especially those who took the time and effort to collect signatures and bring this discussion to the forefront. What you did is a prime example of what makes democracy work. Thank you for your passion and involvement.
-Bryan
![[ BadgerLink logo ]](http://www.badgerlink.net/images/bl_logo1.gif){kind=logo}