Clarifies the usage of the term “shall” by replacing with “will,” “must” or other appropriate language
This is accomplished in the proposed language.
Modernizes the language to be more inclusive by removing he/she language;
As with a similar administrative oversight in the amendments to Article IX addressed in question 2C, this assertion is incomplete.
Six instances of this gendered language remain in the proposed amended article and would need to be further updated to complete this work, in:
Section 2(b)(2)f(viii)
Twice in Section 2(c)(5)
Section 7(b)(2)f(viii)
Twice in Section 7(c)(5)
Revises and reorganizes Article X to be simpler and easier to follow
While the content is revised and reorganized, it is largely subjective to evaluate whether it is simpler or easier to follow, or clearer.
Makes the City Clerk responsible for preparing a general statement for inclusion in a petition and limits requirement to include entire ordinance in each petition section
This was previously done by the voters circulating the petition for both initiatives and referendums - it is not clear this change takes that opportunity away from them and places it with city staff instead. Despite an assertion made in the discussion about this change at Council on July 2, having the petition representatives prepare their own general statement has had no impact on the timing to approve the form of petition, as this is done before that form of petition is submitted.
It is also misleading by omission to assert that the language change "limits requirement to include entire ordinance in each petition section" as this only applies to referendum petitions. No such change was proposed for initiative petitions.
Increases time for City Clerk petition review and scheduling protests
The ballot language itself is not inaccurate. What is lost, however, is the impact of additional time being allowed for petition review and scheduling protests. No mention is made in the ballot language or the materials provided to the Election Code Committee or City Council how the proposed timing changes greatly extend the length of time before an ordinance being protested can possibly be stayed, until well after it has already taken effect.
This is already an issue with the existing Charter language and is made worse - not better - by these changes. Under the new language, an ordinance that was immediately protested by voters using the referendum process could still go into effect and be in effect potentially for as long as 3 months before a successful referendum could stay it.
This is not what is intended under the State Constitution for allowing for referendum processes. Under state law, a protested ordinance NEVER takes effect when the referendum process under statute is followed.
Simplifies review process and removes technical “cure” provision to conform to Municipal Election Code
The summary of changes and ballot language about cure provisions is a particularly inaccurate representation of their scope. The existing provisions of the Charter do not provide a cure period as an opportunity for “correction of technical deficiencies after submission” as stated but rather explicitly for amending the submitted petition to provide more signatures if the petition is initially deemed insufficient. This is not a mere technical deficiency. Particularly for the initiative petition, it is also an appropriate provision even without being mirrored in state statute given the tremendous difference in circulation periods allowed for an initiative between state law (C.R.S.) and the Charter.
Seeking to align with state law in eliminating the cure period while maintaining the massive gulf in circulation time from state law makes this justification further ring hollow.
The initiative is not bound to currently pending legislation like the referendum is, and there has been no justification provided in the consideration by the Election Code Committee or the full Council to artificially limit its exercise even further so drastically below what is allowed under state law. Doing so under the guise of ‘technical changes’ is disingenuous and not in the interest of Fort Collins voters. Working in the interest of voters, the City should be considering extending the timeframe allowed to circulate an initiative petition to be more than just 35% of the 180 days allowed under state law.
Further, an amendment by the Council to the proposed charter language in the ballot question ordinance on first reading to at least add those cure period days to the circulation period was never made to the actual ordinance so the final adopted ordinance had the original, shortened, number of days, again increasing the gulf from the time allowed under state law.
Tightens timeframe for protest hearing and decision
As is the case with Ballot Question 2C, this is not accurate.
This timing is actually extended - the quoted reduction of time for issuance of a decision on a protest, including in the Coloradoan, compares the current 30 calendar days against 20 business days. This is factually not less time.
The additional changes at other steps add further potential time to the protest process, including the date for the hearing itself which would be later than under current provisions. The benefit of more time for this process could potentially be argued, but instead the ballot language inaccurately represents what is being done.
Again, the increases in time that are in fact part of this language greatly extend the length of time before an ordinance being protested can possibly be stayed with the referendum process, until well after it has already taken effect. Under the new language, an ordinance that was immediately protested by voters using the referendum process could still go into effect and be in effect potentially for as long as 3 months before a successful referendum could stay it, while a protested ordinance NEVER takes effect when the referendum process under state statute is followed.
Requires Council to set initiative measures for vote at next timely November election
This provision takes the opportunity for any other date off the table entirely for voters, greatly abridging the opportunity to advance an initiative, solely for the convenience of city staff. This ballot language does not make clear how much of a change this is from current process.
Requires Council to set referendum measure for vote no later than next regular or special municipal election
This is not a change from current requirements.
Adds rules for computation of time and consistent deadline timeframe
No issues are apparent in this language, although it would not resolve the specific circumstance that occurred in 2022 with a referendum and created interest in implementing provisions like this. In that instance, the initial 10 day period to provide notice of intent to protest an ordinance fell on Friday, November 11, 2022, which was a City Holiday (Veterans Day).
The existing language in the Charter already indicates that notice must be provided 'within' that 10 calendar day period. In this instance, the voters would lose a day of that time, given the City holiday on the final day because calendar days are maintained in the calculations affecting voters, while business days are used for the timing impacting the City.