August 23, 2011

Fill Seat of Rep. Larson, D Dist 3.2 - Heineberg Center 9/14/11 @ 7PM.


DISTRICT 3-2 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES VACANCY

The 3-2 Representative District Committee of the Burlington City Democratic Party is holding a meeting to vote for candidates to recommend to Governor Peter Shumlin to fill the House of Representatives vacancy created by Representative Mark Larson's resignation.

Any resident of Legislative District 3.02 who is  interested in being recommended to the Governor to fill Rep. Larson's term by the Representative District Committee of the Burlington City Democrats must:
  1. send Greg Jenkins gregjenkins@burlingtontelecom.net a brief statement, including name, physical address and statement why you are interested in filling the position in advance of the meeting; and
  2. Appear in person at the meeting to give a brief oral statement regarding your interest and answer questions from the members of the Representative District Committee.
The Representative District Committee will hold the meeting at 7:00 on Wednesday September 14, 2011 at the Heineberg Community Center, located at 72 Heineberg Road, Burlington, VT.
The Representative District Committee will recommend to the Governor up to three names.
If you have questions please do not hesitate to contact Greg Jenkins at 802-355-4562 orgregjenkins@burlingtontelecom.net

Interest thus far:
David Berezniak, Jim Couture, Carmen George, David Lines, Kate Neubauer, Jean O'Sullivan.

Contact persons for more information:
    Greg Jenkins gregjenkins@burlingtontelecom.net
    Brooks McArthur bmcarthur@jarvisandkaplan.com 
    Seven Days, Shay Totten shay@sevendaysvt.com


May 28, 2011

LAWYERS CLARIFY RESPONSIBILITY FOR USE OF AFFIRMATION OF DOMICILE/RESIDENCE WITH INACTIVE/CHALLENGED VOTERS AT THE POLLS

The Acting City Clerk met with City Attorney and Sec. of State's Office Election Director to clarify the use of Affirmation of Domicile/Residence at the polls as required in state election statutes. Here's a link to the form:  AFFIRMATION OF RESIDENCE/DOMICILE . It is used when a voter has been mailed a notice of challenge because they have not voted recently, and have not confirmed residency before the election.

The failure to use the affirmation form at Burlington polls was pointed out to the Board by NEVIS, and by one of the Board Members who was appointed in June 2010. The Board Chair apparently consulted with the State Elections Director who she says told her the affirmation of domicile/residence form was for a specialized use not relevant to Burlington. The Board member, a home-schooling mom, researched the question for herself and came back with the information that the law is not being followed if the Affirmation is not used to affirm the residency of inactive/challenged voters.

When the use of the Affirmation was discussed at a meeting of the Board for Registration of Voters most recently, the board member asked if the State Elections Director could attend their next meeting. Her request was ignored. Instead, at the next meeting, the Acting Clerk told them he would ask for a meeting with the State Elections Director, and that board members could attend. Subsequent discussion confirmed the meeting, and that the Board Chair and any interested board members would be included. However, when the meeting took place, a board member who attended was told the meeting was CLOSED, that it was a lawyer-client discussion between the parties listed above, and she was waved away by the Acting Clerk.

Report on that meeting at next Board for Registration of Voters, June 7, 6 pm, Rm 17.

April 27, 2011

STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITIES OF BOARD FOR VOTER REGISTRATION

§ 3-43. Composition; duties; appointments; offices
(a) The city council with mayor presiding shall constitute the board of civil authority for said city, except that all duties with respect to preparing checklists of voters and making additions thereto or alterations or corrections thereon imposed upon said council by this charter or the provisions of the general statutes relating thereto shall be performed by a board of nine (9) members, to be known as the board for registration of voters. Not more than five (5) members of said board shall at any one time be from the same political party.
 ...
(c) Said board shall maintain an office in the city hall of the city, open for business during the regular business hours of said city, wherein shall be kept available for public inspection the records pertaining to the qualifications of all legal voters and freemen of the city. Said board shall advise any petitioner affected by an adverse decision of his or her statutory right to seek judicial review of such decision. Said board shall also appoint a clerk, who need not be a member thereof, who shall have such duties as the board may assign, together with the duties imposed upon the chief administrative officer by sections 106 and 107 of the Vermont Statutes, Revision of 1947, as amended. Records of the taking of freemen's oaths heretofore kept by the city clerk shall be transferred to the clerk of said board.

DUTIES OF CAO [106 and 107 ? of the Vermont Statutes, Revision of 1947]
§ 3-17. Chief administrative officer to post lists; copies to be filed in chief administrative officer's office.  It shall be the duty of the chief administrative officer to cause the original of each and every checklist of voters at any time ordered to be posted by the board for registration of voters of said city, to be filed in the chief administrative officer's office with his or her certificate attached, that true copies of such lists have been posted as directed by said board, together with the time and place in said city at which the same were posted, which certificate shall be prima facie evidence of such posting.

§ 3-16. Additions or corrections permitted
The board for registration of voters shall, pursuant to the notice set forth in section 15 of this chapter, meet to make additions to, or alterations and corrections in, the list required by section 14 of this chapter.

April 21, 2011

CHECKLISTUPDATE BEGINS, APPOINTMENTS TO BOARD SCRUTINIZED

Burlington Clerk "inadvertently" sent out a challenge letter that did not comply with the statute, so now Acting CAO City Clerk Schrader says ALL Inactives will be restored to Active status. Inactive/Challenged voters will be required to sign Affirmation of Domicile/Residence (under pain of penalty for perjury) in proposed special election.

In the past, if an Inactive/challenged voter came to vote, by statute they were required to be given an Affirmation of Domicile/Residence form to sign, declaring the address of their legal residence (under pain of penalty for perjury). But our poll workers were not using that form. No ID required, no affirmation of domicile/residence -- just say a name that is on the checklist, and you get a ballot. NEVIS questioned this procedure two years ago, and a newly appointed Board member questioned the Board about it repeatedly in the past year, urging them to read the law and comply with it.

The Sec of State's Office  to 7904 named voters at the address they used to register sometime in the past ~20 years. Some who receive the letter will return the postcard indicating they have moved and want to be taken off the checklist, or still live at the same address. Most will be undeliverable or not returned, and the checklist will be vulnerable to fraud until the cycle of two general election concludes and as long as the Board continues to treat the Affirmation of Domicile/Residence as a bothersome inconvenience!

We need a fresh slate of appointments for the Board for Voter Registration. Members who do not have good attendance, or who have not fulfilled Board responsibilities, need to be replaced. Members were not trained properly, nor did they read the law or avail themselves of training materials available from the Sec of State. Many members were  dismissive, condescending, and/or inexcusably rude to a new member who asked questions, and tried to tell them, for example, that they were not using the Affirmation of Domicile/Residence form as required by statute.

City Council needs to adopt a general practice of  not reappointing old members if there are new applicants, so the boards and commissions are always refreshed. Council needs to infuse the Board with new member. Council must require annual orientation and training by the Sec of State's Office so new members are knowledgeable about the process, policy and procedures; and all members are annually reminded of their responsibilities and informed of changes in policy, procedure, or the statute.

April 12, 2011

Deadline May 11 to Apply for Board of Registration of Voters

There are two openings coming up in June on the Board for Registration of Voters. Deadline for application is May 11. NEVIS is hoping that a member of the League of Women Voters and an advocate of True the Vote will apply. Both these groups are passionate about the integrity of the vote, and integrity begins with a clean certified checklist. The Acting City Clerk says the Board needs to: 

"...re-initiate the process of attempting to determine, with certainty, the true status of the voter's residence and therefore, their voting eligibility. In addition...board [will] adopt a policy and procedure that provides for a systematic process of regularly challenging voters on the City's checklist..." [Scott Schrader, Acting City Clerk. April 5, 2011]

The city's website link to the "Complete List..." is not currently working but I've notified  Lori and expect she will have it corrected soon. Note that the Board for Registration of Voters, at the bottom of the list, is a Miscellaneous 5 year Appointment:  Complete List of Commissioners, Advisory Boards, City Representatives on Regional Boards, Miscellaneous Appointments 

List of Open Commission Seats -- 2 open seats on Board for Registration of Voters

April 6, 2011

THE CHECKLIST

Active: 26,465     
Inactive/Challenged: 7,904
Other: 413
Total: 34,782 

Unfortunately most, if not all of the Inactive/Challenged voters within the HAVA system have not been challenged in accordance with law. Approximately two years ago, the City sent a postcard developed by the State that did not conform to a change in State Law that required the Towns and Cities to provide the registered voter, among other information, a statement that "if he or she fails to return the form as provided in this subdivision, written affirmation of the voter's address shall be required before the voter is permitted to vote", as well as "information concerning how the voter can register to vote in another state or another municipality within this state."  If authorized by the Board of Voter Registration, the clerk's office will "re-classify all challenged voters from inactive to active..."  [Scott Schrader, April 5, 2011] 

From Secretary of State: Jim Condos

...according to recent discussions between my Elections Division and with Scott Schrader, the staff in Burlington is currently going through the process of sending out the correct challenge letters and return postcards or forms… as required by the National Voting Rights Act of 1993.
...Burlington, by charter, has a board of voter registration.  The charter states that “it shall be the duty of the board for registration of voters to prepare full and complete lists of the voters…and to certify the same to the chief administrative officer.”  The board of voter registration also is authorized by the charter to alter or correct the checklist – including purging of ineligible voters.
...The Secretary of State’s office houses the statewide voter checklist but the cities and towns “own” their data and thus are responsible for purging their own checklist. In the City of Burlington, by charter, that body is the Board of Voter Registration whereas in most other cities and towns it would be the Board of Civil Authority.

CHECKLIST CLEAN UP BEGINS

7,904 challenged/inactive voters [have been?] [will be?] returned to active status on the checklist because the city did not send out the correct letter to registrants who have not voted in recent elections. Error discovered when Linda Chagnon read the election law and noticed that clerks were not using an "Affirmation of Domicile/Residence" form at the polls, and she asked the board for clarification on this procedure. She also went to the Acting City Clerk, who said he would assure compliance. The form is mandated by statute, to be used when a person who hasn't voted recently, and hasn't responded to the challenge letter asking them to confirm that they live in Burlington, appears at the polls to vote.

Concluded: The city did not follow the statutory process in challenging inactive voters on the checklist. "Therefore all challenges brought against voters most likely will not withstand a legal challenged [sic] and, as such, on advice from the City Attorney's Office and the Secretary of State's Office should be rescinded." [Scott Schrader, Acting City Clerk, April 5, 2011]

Proposed: "...to re-initiate the process of attempting to determine, with certainty, the true status of the voter's residence and therefore, their voting eligibility. In addition...board adopt a policy and procedure that provides for a systematic process of regularly challenging voters on the City's checklist..." [Scott Schrader, Acting City Clerk. April 5, 2011]

Serious questions remain about other violations, such as the board cursorily approving incomplete registrations or signing off on registrations after information has been added in the clerk's office to complete a registration form. 

March 19, 2011

CITY CLERK DIRECTS POLL WORKERS NOT TO USE AFFIRMATION OF RESIDENCE/DOMICILE

We would be glad to have an explanation of this from the Board for Registration of Voters. We will request an explanation, but for now we have to piece the evidence together for ourselves.

Why doesn't Burlington's City Clerk -- Acting or otherwise -- abide by state election law? How did it happen that the Board of Registration of Voters, representing the people and appointed by the City Council, is a powerless rubber stamp today?

Is there evidence that the checklist is bloated and people are voting fraudulently?
  • Example, approx 1600 inactive registrants on the Ward 1 checklist required challenge letter after they did not vote in the last 2 federal elections. According to the Sec of State's Office, they were not challenged because the City Clerk "inadvertently" did not send out the legal challenge letter and postcard. Inactive/Challenged registrants can vote if they sign the "Affirmation of Residence/Domicile," A member of the board of Registration of Voters requested that copies of the form be available at the polls, and she was told that we don't use that form (as required by law) because people in Burlington are in a hurry to vote, or something ridiculous like that.
  • Example, a candidate sent flyers to checklist registrants in a neighborhood, first class mail, and HALF were returned undeliverable, no such person at that address. Candidate noticed someone on the list who had been dead for 20 years, AND noted that someone was voting using the candidate's residence as their domicile! 
Conclusion: Evidence suggests that the checklist is bloated and vulnerable to voter fraud.

    Here's a link to the form Affirmation of Residence/Domicile that is required by state election law:  AFFIRMATION OF RESIDENCE/DOMICILE .

    March 16, 2011

    STATE AND CITY ELECTION LAWS

    Burlington election officials are not trained by the Sec of State, they are trained by the Burlington City Clerk's office apparently because our elections are different than elsewhere in the state. How are they different? Is our City Clerk required to follow state election law, for example regarding checklist certification? 

    State law requires voter checklist certification before every election. Voters who have not voted are inactive and when sent a form letter with a return post card, they are challenged. People who do not return the postcard have inactive/challenged status on the checklist. The checklist is certified and posted in public places. Inactive/challenged status voters who appear at the polls to vote must sign an Affirmation of Domicile/Residence form affirming that they are a resident at the address on the checklist, or if they have moved they state their current address, under pain of penalty for perjury. If they do not appear and affirm, they are purged from the checklist and archived.

    In Burlington, the Board of Voter Registration has the responsibility to register voters, purge the checklist, certify the checklist, and post the checklist before an election. They may also be responsible for administering the Affirmation of Domicile/Residence at the polls. They meet on the first Tuesday of each month. Apparently today they rubber stamp what the City Clerk's Office does or fails to do. Exactly WHO The City Clerk IS? appears to be shadowy, and the challenge/purge law is definitely not being followed. The Sec of State's election office used the word "inadvertently": Burlington City Clerk's Office inadvertently did not send out the challenge letter and postcard. How long has challenge/purge of checklist process been ignored? 

    Links

    ~Sec of State, Elections Division: http://www.vermont-elections.org/

    ~Burlington election ordinances -Title 24, Chapt 3. http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/sections.cfm?Title=24APPENDIX&Chapter=003 

    § 29 Checklist to be prepared and posted

    § 3-14. List of voters to be prepared; posting
    Preceding each annual or special city or ward election to be held in said city, it shall be the duty of the board for registration of voters to prepare full and complete lists of the voters in the respective wards of said city, and to certify the same to the chief administrative officer. One copy of such lists shall be posted by or under the direction of the chief administrative officer in some public place in the wards to which the voters whose names are on such list respectively belong, at least twelve days previous to any such election.

    J.P. Manual explains the election laws: http://www.sec.state.vt.us/municipal/JP_Guide.pdf

    p.12: ELECTION RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE [BOARD OF CIVIL AUTHORITY].... f)  Removing Names From the Checklist.  (Challenging and Purging the Checklist) 1.  Timing. Challenging voter names on the checklist is another function of the board of civil authority that may be done at any duly warned meeting.  A review of the checklist may be done at any time.  However, systemic purges must be completed at least 90 days before any federal, state or local election. 17 V.S.A. § 2150(b).  

    March 9, 2011

    CHALLENGE AND PURGE OF CHECKLIST


    Removing Names From Checklist.  (Challenging and Purging the Checklist) Challenging voter names on the checklist is another function of the board of civil authority that may be done at any duly warned meeting.  A review of the checklist may be done at any time. However, systemic purges must be completed at least 90 days before any federal, state or local election. 17 V.S.A. § 2150(b).   

    Inquiry. The first step in the purging process is an initial inquiry.  Is there any evidence that the voter is no longer eligible to vote?  BCA members may consider and rely on official and unofficial public records and documents, including telephone directories, city directories, newspapers, death certificates, tax records or checklists showing whether the voter has voted in any election in the last four years. The board may even designate someone to contact the voter personally. 

    Sending Voter Notice (Challenge Letter). If there is reason to question eligibility, or if the BCA has been unable to contact the voter, the board should send the voter written notice questioning whether the voter still resides in town. The notice should be sent to the voter's most recent known address, with "return service requested" on the envelope.  A postage paid preaddressed return card or letter must accompany the notice, giving the voter an opportunity to swear to maintaining his or her current legal street address within the town or to consent to removal of the voter's name from the checklist.  17 V.S.A. § 2150(d)(3).  The notice should explain that if the voter fails to return the enclosed response card before the deadline for voter registration for the next election, written sworn affirmation of residence in town will be required before they will be allowed to vote.  Challenge letters can now be printed from the statewide checklist.
    See notes from last year, same questions. Summit Notes, March 20, 2010



    http://www.sec.state.vt.us/municipal/JP_Guide.pdf  

    March 4, 2011

    Wards 4 and 7 poll highest number of voters in the city with 37 and 31%

    *Reminder, the city checklist is bloated, especially in wards populated by students - 34,778;  and, as Roger suggests below, voters feel used and abused and trust is lacking. Some residents reported voting early at City Hall, where staff left their ballots on a desk in the clerk's office instead of placing them in a locked box. Kilbourn suggests replacing mayor with City Manager, and others suggest replacing Asst. CAO with an elected City Clerk. 


    With turnout tiny in some wards, Burlington voters showed frustration BY JOHN BRIGGS, FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER • THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2011

    Following Tuesday’s elec­tion, Mayor Bob Kiss betrayed no anxiety, avoided labeling the [New] North End as naysayers or demagogues as he has previ­ously, and he calmly told Chan­nel 17 he would make a decision in the fall about running for a third term.


    He attempted no explanation for the low turnout (17 percent) or for the poor numbers (for him) across the city. In interviews Wednesday, others did, pointing to a disillusioned electorate and an inability of the mayor or other leaders to generate enthusiasm for the measures on the ballot.
    It was residents in Wards 4 and 7 who supplied the lion's share of votes against measures Kiss supported -- including a 4-cent tax increase and a 50-percent threshold for electing a mayor. These were the wards that demonstrated the highest voter turnout, 37 percent and 31 percent, respectively.
    Elsewhere, the voting numbers were startling, even for those who campaigned against the proposed tax increase and the 50 percent voting requirement for mayor. Turnout estimates show voting was miniscule in Wards 1 (8 percent), 2 (7 percent), 3 (11 percent) and 6 (14 percent).
    Roger Kilbourn, a New North End resident and lifelong Democrat who works as a real estate appraiser for the state tax department, said he wasn't surprised to see the budget items go down.
    "We the voters have so little control over what government does," he said. "What can you do other than say 'no'?"
    He thinks many of his neighbors and others in town have become so frustrated over issues such as Burlington Telecom's financial woes they have "just thrown up their hands" because the politicians "are going to do what they're going to do." Frustration and discontent, he said, lead to low participation in government.
    "You had a clear, bright day," he said, and even though modest turnout is predictable in an off-year election, Tuesday's 17 percent indicated "people are disengaging, and those who did turn out are sufficiently motivated by their anger."
    The tax increase that Kiss said was necessary passed only in Ward 2 (by seven votes); citywide, 69 percent of those who voted rejected it. The negative numbers were highest in the New North End (77 percent in Ward 4 and 81 percent in Ward 7).
    Heavy "no" votes in the New North End and Ward 6 also sank the 50 percent for mayor question (58 percent "no" in total), but the "yes" votes in Wards 1, 2, 3 and 5 weren't overwhelming. The greatest support was in Ward 2, where the vote for change to a 50-percent requirement was 227-151 (60 percent in favor).
    Kilbourn said the management issues that have surfaced in the last 18 months suggest to him that Burlington might need to consider moving to a city-manager form of government with a manager "working at the pleasure of the council. You need someone who has been trained and has experience in local government management," he said. "Clearly, we don't have that today."
    City government has become too complex, he said, "to rely on a politician."
    Dave Hartnett, a conservative Democrat who was unopposed for the council seat in Ward 4, recoiled from the city-manager suggestion.
    "I don't want the last five years to set a precedent for how we govern the city," he said. "It's worked well in the past."
    He called Tuesday "a sad day" for the city.
    "I can't remember a day in Burlington when people have voiced their displeasure so loudly," he said. "It was really kind of doomsday, and I don't recall such a low turnout. I think the people who stayed home are so discouraged they're giving up."
    "I think we're in for a long year," he said. The mayor's seat is up for election in 2012.
    David Zuckerman, a Progressive and former state representative, said the election was not simply a referendum on Kiss.
    "There were very few contested races and little energy on any issue," he said.
    He said the lassitude is a reflection of Kiss's inability to generate "excitement around the potential in Burlington civic life." But he also suggested that Democrats on the council failed to push for passage of the 50 percent issue or announce their support for the Burlington Electric Department bond issue, which failed.
    "Bob didn't communicate well," Zuckerman said of Kiss, "the caucuses of the council didn't communicate well, and that leads to antipathy. Between some of Bob's communications issues and the negativity from those who like to score political points, many people are just tired of it."
    To analyze turnout by ward in Burlington’s election Tuesday, the Free Press reviewed voting totals from the school budget question, which had the highest number of total votes with 5,922. The figures approximate but do not necessarily equal true voting turnout, since not all voters necessarily voted on this particular question.
          Read the Comments for some thought-provoking responses.

    February 16, 2011

    PRINT SIZE ON BALLOT QUESTIONS TOO SMALL?


    The print size on the ballot in the Ballot Questions section is small and hard to read. This discourages people from voting on these questions. Election inspectors can attest to the number of ballots which leave the ballot questions section blank. In the [New] North End where we have many senior eyes, this can have the effect of SUPPRESSING THE VOTE.


    I called the City Clerk's office, asked if there are LARGE PRINT ballots available at the polls? They forwarded me to a message machine. I called back and said I needed an answer now, and they put me on hold. Obviously, later confirmed, there are no LARGE PRINT ballots available.


    So why not just print all the ballots so the questions are clearly readable? Page two of the current ballot has question #4-#8 on a half page. The print could easily have been enlarged. Could it be that the city does not want people to vote on the ballot questions, especially seniors who are a big part of the voters in wards 4 and 7?


    CANDIDATE NAMES are HUGE compared to the wording of the ballot questions. The question headlines are larger and bolder, but they can be deceptively vague or misleading. PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE -- COMPOSITION OF BOARD OF FINANCE. That tells you nothing, and the small print that follows is not likely to be read, or read carefully.
    Discussion at North End NPA last night revealed serious need for clarification on several ballot questions due to creative, selective and thereby potentially biased and misleading headlines and summaries. Question #5 about 50% run-off voting is a good example. The word run-off was intentionally removed from the summary, by vote of a political block on Council.

    February 8, 2011

    REGISTER TO VOTE, FEB 15 AT NPA

    Miller Center, 130 Gosse Court


    Town Meeting Ballot
    OPEN HOUSE and FORUM


    6-7 PM  OPEN HOUSE: Spokespersons for ballot questions and Candidates for School Board and City Council are invited to an Open House to meet personally with residents of Wards 4 and 7 before the Assembly begins. You are encouraged to bring handouts, flyers, posters, and cookies. NPA will provide tea and hot cocoa.

    Forum Agenda

    7- 8 PM  BALLOT QUESTIONS:  A spokesperson for each ballot question is invited to define the question succinctly, and briefly summarize pros and cons (4 min max, so plan, share the time, focus, and talk fast*). Where possible, invited spokespersons are from our Wards, serving on the Board or Commission that is associated with each ballot question:

    #1~ Increase School Budget: Bernie O'Rourke W4 (School Board). 
    #2 ~Increase Municipal Budget: Mayor Kiss, Kurt Wright W4 (Finance Board). 
    #3 ~Increase BED general obligation bonding authority for capital improvements: General Manager Barb Grimes W4, Jean O'Sullivan W7, Paul Hines W4, and Bob Herendeen W4 (BED Commission).
    #4 ~Request for revenue supported general obligation bond to purchase...: General Manager Barb Grimes W4, Jean O'Sullivan W7, Paul Hines W4, and Bob Herendeen W4 (BED Commission).
    #5 ~50% majority threshold for mayoral election. Mayor Kiss, Paul Decelles W7 (Ordinance Committee). 
    #6 ~Council majority, define as majority of members present and voting. Paul Decelles W7 (Ordinance Committee).
    #7 ~Composition, Board of Finance, remove CAO as voting member and add a City Councilor: Mayor Kiss, Kurt Wright W4 (Finance Board).
    #8 ~Preserve subsidized housing, advisory to State Legislature: Brian Pine (CEDO, Director Housing), Loyal Ploof W4 (Housing Board).

    Presentations will be followed by 25 min questions and comments from residents* 1 min each. Answer/response 1 min. We have a lot of ground to cover.

    8-9 PM  CANDIDATES: Each candidate will have 5 min to campaign, followed by 30 min for questions from organizers (steering committee - BT lessons learned, NPA participation) and questions/comments from residents, 1 min max for comment or question, and answer. *

    ~ School Commission - W4:  Ben Truman. W7: Nate Moreau and Ed Scott.
    ~ City Council - W7: Vince Dober and Greg Jenkins. W4: Dave Hartnett.
    ~ Inspector of Elections - W4: OPEN; W7: Kirstin Decelles, Linda Deliduka

    * We will stay on schedule, with additional time added at the end to continue until everyone has been heard. Residents speak first, and everyone is invited to speak once per issue, additional comments/questions after all have had a chance to speak once. Please use the microphone to project your voice clearly for the camera audience and for everyone in the room.


    Regular NPA business will resume on March 15.  March Program to focus on state legislature and impact of key legislative issues on municipal government and our neighborhoods. 


    http://wards4and7npa.blogspot.com/