Pubdate: Wed, 29 Aug 2012
Source: Springfield News-Leader (MO)
Copyright: 2012 The Springfield News-Leader
Contact: http://getpublished.news-leader.com/Forms/LettersToEditor.php
Website: http://www.news-leader.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1129
Author: Amos Bridges

COUNCIL MEMBERS EXPLAIN RATIONALE FOR OK'ING POT ORDINANCE ONLY TO CHANGE IT

Supporters of reduced penalties for possessing marijuana shouldn't 
celebrate yet - City Council members made clear the ordinance 
approved Monday won't survive long in its current form.

Several council members said Tuesday they don't intend for the bill, 
advanced by initiative petition, to survive at all. They'll try to 
repeal the ordinance within the next 30 days, before it has a chance 
to take effect.

It isn't the first time council has considered approving an 
initiative petition just to amend it.

Former Mayor Jim O'Neal advocated a similar idea a year ago as 
council grappled with the controversial E-Verify ordinance.

That bill, drafted by the Ozarks Minutemen, also was submitted by 
petition, forcing council to adopt it as written - including fines 
and other provisions considered to be illegal - or send it to the 
ballot unchanged.

O'Neal suggested council instead approve the bill, allowing it to be 
changed later with just five votes, then send an amended version to 
voters. He withdrew his support for the idea at the last minute, 
however, saying he feared other council members intended to "gut" the 
bill instead.

This time, several council members were frank about their intent.

"In my mind there should be nothing left standing of that ordinance 
when we're done with it," Councilman Jeff Seifried said, describing 
the ordinance as "bad policy for the city and bad policy for Zone 1."

Avoiding a public election "takes a fiscally responsible road," he 
said, echoing comments made by Councilman Tom Bieker at Monday's meeting.

Rush, too, advocates repealing the ordinance, but said he struggled 
with the decision to vote "yes" Monday night.

"I find myself having a hard time explaining why I voted for 
something in order to repeal it," he said. "I have a lot of respect 
for initiative petitions ... and I have a hard time voting 'yes' for 
something I oppose."

Rush was one of four council members who voted against the plan to 
approve and amend the E-Verify ordinance.

"Although there were some problems with that, I felt it should go to 
the public," he said.

The marijuana petition is different, he said, because in addition to 
containing legal errors it "doesn't do what (supporters) intended."

"I'm pretty confident it would be defeated (at the polls), so it just 
seemed like a terrible waste of money," he said.

"We don't need to be spending money on bad laws," added Bieker, who 
advocated the "approve and amend" approach with the E-Verify petition, as well.

Bieker said he's not necessarily opposed to the idea of reducing 
penalties for marijuana possession, but both he and Mayor Bob 
Stephens said the law needs to be amended, at a minimum, to remove 
illegal provisions and ensure local law enforcement agencies can 
enforce state law.

"There may not be much left at that point," Bieker said.

Councilman Doug Burlison said he was disappointed by some council 
members' eagerness to dismantle the bill.

"I guess I want to respect more the will of the people who signed the 
petition," he said.

A supporter of the ordinance, Burlison said he agrees with amending 
the bill to remove outright illegal provisions, such as the 
requirement that City Council appoint a citizen oversight committee.

But Burlison said he will resist removing an expungement provision - 
highlighted by City Attorney Dan Wichmer as potentially illegal - 
until an opinion from the attorney general's office is available.

"That's not necessarily settled yet," he said.

Petition organizer Maranda Reynolds, meanwhile, said Tuesday she 
thinks a compromise can be reached.

Like Burlison, she supports changes that remove unenforceable 
portions of the bill, as long as core remains. At its most basic, the 
bill would prevent jail time for anyone possessing 35 grams or less 
of marijuana and limit fines to $150 or less.

"I do think it would be an injustice to the citizens of Springfield 
if they take out the heart of the ordinance," she said. "(But) I 
don't want to have to waste city resources by forcing them to enforce 
something that is illegal."

News-Leader reporter Michael Gulledge contributed to this story.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom