HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/27/1995 COW agenda COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
AGENDA
Meeting Location: Meeting Date and Time:
Mount Prospect Senior Center Tuesday, June 27, 1995
50 South Emerson Street 7:30 P.M.
i. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL
II. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF JUNE 13, 1995
III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
IV. PRESENTATION OF FLOOD STUDIES -
SEE-GWUN/MILBURN
MAPLE/BERKSHIRE
As part of the ongoing Village-wide Flood Control Program, the Village Board earlier
this year authorized the preparation of Studies for the See-Gwun/Milburn and
Maple/Berkshire drainage basins. The See-Gwun/Milburn Project was part of the
original multi-year program approved by the Village Board in 1991. The
Maple/Berkshire area was considered but was not made a part of the original 1991
Project list. The Maple/Berkshire Study was commissioned at this time as the result
of extensive basement flooding arising out of a very heavy rain storm last summer.
Funding for the See-Gwun/Milburn Project has been provided for in a recent
analysis of debt capacity for Flood Control Projects. If the Board wishes to proceed
with the Maple/Berkshire project, it will be necessary to rank same within the
remaining phases. Previously, the Board has suggested that projects which
alleviate basement flooding should receive priority over projects which address
overland flooding and erosion issues. This preference would need to be
considered.
The Consulting Engineer, RUST Environment and Infrastructure, will be in
attendance to present the Study results and answer any questions you may have.
Additionally, residents from these two areas have been invited to attend the meeting
and participate in the discussion.
V. REVIEW OF RECALL PROCEDURE
Based upon discussion at the June 6 Village Board meeting, staff has conducted
additional research and redrafted elements of the proposed Referendum question
and recall procedures. Additionally, information was developed regarding the issue
of cause and how same is treated in the recall provisions of other states.
With regard to the Referendum question, the previous language has been
redrafted to provide for the recall of Village Board members. It was noted that the
previous draft could be construed to cover all Mount Prospect elected officials
regardless of governing body.
NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A
DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODATION TO PARTICIPATE, SHOULD CONTACT THE
VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE AT lO0 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS
60056, 708/392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD #708/392-6064.
With regard to the recall procedures, staff has redrafted the proposed procedures
along the lines of the current Village of Wheeling provisions. The redraft retains the
"Mount Prospect provision" that the recall petition must be signed by not less than
10% of the total number of votes cast in the last general election for elected officials
for the Village of Mount Prospect.
With regard to the issue of cause, research indicates that there are four broad
options to addressing this question. The first is to have no definition of cause or the
requirement of any statement of grounds for initiating the recall procedure. The
second option would be to define cause in terms of specific acts or omissions (that
list would need to be determined - see Trustee Clowes' 1/24/95 memo). The third
option is to define cause generally in terms of malfeasance, misfeasance,
nonfeasance or failure to carry out the requirements of the office. The fourth option
is to require a general statement of grounds by the petition initiator. That statement
probably should be related to actions or omissions of the elected official related to
the office.
The attached excerpts from various state recall procedures cover these four options.
Where there is a definition of cause, either specific or general in nature, there
appears also to be a mechanism for a third party -- usually the Court -- to certify the
sufficiency of the question.
The draft provisions under consideration here include a requirement that the Recall
Petition contain a statement of grounds that is not subject to third party review. This
tracks the provisions of the Colorado Recall Statute. There is also a statement
regarding use of municipal funds in conjunction with a legal challenge to an
attempted recall. This provision comes from a Michigan legal opinion.
If the Board wishes to proceed with adopting a Referendum question, same will
need to be accomplished by the second Village Board meeting in August. In the
interim, discussion can continue about the particulars of the Recall procedure with
the idea that an "agreed-to" procedure would be available for citizens to consider in
deciding how they would like to vote on this matter.
Appropriate staff will be present to facilitate discussion and answer questions.
VI. MANAGER'S REPORT
VII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
Viii. ADJOURNMENT
CLOSED SESSION - Personnel