I know a local elected official who confides that not a day goes by that he does not receive an email from an irate constituent demanding satisfaction on some issue on which they are about 25% informed (on a good day), and stating that they will hold the official accountable with a recall from office. This official confides that if ANY of these folks had been serious he would have now be subjected to 420 recall efforts, rather than the current tally of none.
Recently after the City Council vote on campaign contributions to secure their incumbency for life, several commenters on this board (and by several I mean three) volunteered to sign up for an effort to remove the offending city council members by recall. So I am wondering what they are waiting for.
Under state law and Santa Clarita ordinance, a council member can be served with a notice of recall after serving 90 days in that office with the signature of 20 registered voters. The 90th day past the election was July 12. We are now ten days past that day. Where is the recall effort against the four offending council members, other than the sainted Bob Kellar?
Loading ...
Tim, did you forget some zeroes, or does it really just take 20 signatures to start a recall?
IHeart:
This is correct, but be careful. It takes 20 signatures to serve a NOTICE of recall.
Yeah but I believe you need 15% of total registered voters to sign the petition to qualify on the ballot. I think Santa Clarita has around 90,000 registered voters, so some 13,500 registered voters would need to sign. That’s about the same amount that came out to vote.
86% of the total number of people that cast ballots, to be exact.
Petz has remained silent on this issue, he stands for freedom, liberty and private property rights. Restrictive limits on campaign donations constrain free speech and individual liberty-the right to spend one’s honestly earned resources as they see fit.
Petz stands with Ferry-Weste-Ender-and McLean in this circumstance and against Kellar and Gauny. Restrictions on freedom are the game of the left and you must count Petz out.
Petz:
Then you would agree there should be NO limits like the Hart District and the Water Boards? (I think there should be no limits but IMMEDIATE disclosure of contributions.)
Wow. So you are not a tea partier? Because the local tea party definitely stands against private property rights.
Petz agrees with Tim <:0 and still likes T Parties. Shameful for a firmly grounded conservative to advocate restrictive laws on campaign donations. They protect incumbency and deny freedom to other citizens.