Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Voting Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Charter commission debates two-step voting plan for March 19 ballot decisions
Summary
Members of the Mount Vernon Charter Review Commission read a formal voting procedure into the record and debated an amendment proposing a two-step vote — an initial selection of items on March 19 followed by a final vote after legal review and public hearings. No formal commission vote on the amendment is recorded in the transcript.
The Mount Vernon Charter Review Commission on March 5 read a proposed voting process into the record for items to be considered for the March 19 ballot and discussed whether to use a two-step voting approach.
The commission’s formal reading described procedures for March 19 that include 3-minute subcommittee presentations, a public-comment period with two minutes per speaker, and a roll-call vote conducted in alphabetical order with the chair voting last. The reading stated that an initiative “will be approved if it receives more yes than no votes from the commission members present” and that voting records will be made public.
The discussion that followed centered on a proposal from Commissioner Anitra Hadley to hold two votes: an initial vote on March 19 to identify items the commission has consensus to research further, and a later final vote after the commission completes legal review, brings in experts, and holds public hearings. “My amendment was that we just have two votes,” Anitra Hadley said, describing the first vote as a way to mark consensus and the second as the final approval after more study.
Other commissioners argued both for and against the two-step approach. Supporters said a split vote would allow time for legal review and public hearings. Opponents said the commission has spent nearly a year on this process and that delaying a final decision risks prolonging work indefinitely and increasing legal and consultant costs. One commissioner noted the commission could still address issues discovered after March 19 and said, “If something huge comes up after that, yeah, we can talk about it again.”
Several commissioners and staff raised practical concerns about the cost and efficiency of paying attorneys to draft full ballot language in advance for items that the commission might later reject. Commissioner Brian Dwyer said he had contacted potential counsel and offered to share contact details with the commission if members wanted legal assistance before the vote.
The transcript records an extended back-and-forth but does not record a formal motion or roll-call vote on Anitra Hadley’s two-step proposal. Commissioners repeatedly emphasized that March 19 is the scheduled deadline for decisions but also said that further research, public hearings and legal review could continue after that date depending on circumstances.
The commission also discussed meeting management rules, public outreach and how to ensure broad participation in advance of March 19, including translating materials and posting the written voting procedure for members and the public.
