Pubdate: Sun, 09 Sep 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: Michael Gulledge REPEAL EFFORT THREATENS SPRINGFIELD MARIJUANA LAW Council Will Consider Various Options, Including Ending the Measure The City Council will discuss four amendments to the newly passed marijuana decriminalization bill on Monday, one of which would repeal the law. The petition initiative was passed by the council Aug. 27 with the immediate intent to amend the bill to, at the least, remove illegal portions. However, four council members have co-signed an amendment to do away with the initiative entirely. "I stand on the side of full repeal," Councilman Thomas Bieker said. "I didn't get my name in in time to be a co-sponsor." Council members Jerry Compton, Jan Fisk, Jeff Seifried and John Rush co-signed the repeal amendment. Three other amendments have also been submitted for consideration, including one, sponsored by Councilman Doug Burlison, that seeks to remove the oversight committee requirement that has been determined to be illegal. Mayor Bob Stephens is listed as the sponsor of two amendments, both of which remove the oversight committee and expungement, thought also to be illegal by the city. One amendment leaves the fine at $150, while the other raises the fine to $450. "Three of the ideas that came out - they weren't necessarily mine," Stephens said. He submitted amendments from a council discussion to provide options. "I'm taking a wait-and-see attitude on this one," he said. Burlison has supported the petition initiative through its inception and does not want to see the bill gutted. "I'm very concerned that the spirit of the petitioners is not going to be honored," Burlison said of the possible amendments. He said most members likely have a mindset against marijuana instead of the bill itself, a viewpoint he can see. "Multitudes of people have invested themselves in policy (against drugs)," he said. "I had hope that people would maybe set aside their institutional mindsets and explore the information that's actually in front of us." Burlison noted that the public town hall meeting he held to answer questions about the ordinance was a chance for council members to participate with the discussion. No other council members attended. Council members in favor of full repeal cited a variety of reasons for their position. "It wants to sidestep state law, which I think is totally improper," Councilwoman Cindy Rushefsky said. Bieker, along with Compton, cited the concerns of the police as a reason for repeal. Springfield Police Chief Paul Williams and Greene County Prosecutor Dan Patterson spoke to the council in August about their concerns with the ordinance. "They've said this is a necessary piece of legislation that we cannot remove from their toolbox," Bieker said. "I will not remove a tool that hinders their duties." The council passed the initiative in part to save the cost of adding it to the November ballot. If the council had not passed the bill, it would have gone to the voters to decide. If voters approved it, a unanimous vote would have been required by the council six months after passage to change the bill, including its illegal portions. "There's no point in spending a lot of money to have it voted on by the people," Rushefsky said. Maranda Reynolds, the petition organizer, said she would speak against full repeal of the petition at Monday's meeting. "Passing the ordinance purely for the purpose of repealing it or gutting it completely destroys the purpose of the petition process," she said. Burlison agreed, saying, "I'm just a little disappointed with strategy that would vote for something with the mindset of damaging that ordinance when it's all said and done. I'm not sure that's what the city charter actually intended." However, Rushefsky said the initiative process had gotten "out of hand." She said the process doesn't work through items in a way that makes sense under law and should be revised. Stephens said the process of a petition is to get an issue before the council, which then can choose where to send it. The Council is planning to hear public opinions on Monday and vote on the amendments at its Sept. 24 meeting, despite bill language that includes an emergency declaration that allows the council to vote in one meeting. Should the council choose to repeal the ordinance, Reynolds said there are a variety of options her organization is considering, including litigation, another petition or a referendum petition, which would bring the council's changes to voters to approve. "The matter here, though, is people aren't going to give up on this," Reynolds said. "We're not just talking about my organization. We're talking about the people my organization represents." - ----------------------------- [sidebar] The four options * Total repeal of the marijuana petition initiative. Sponsored by council members Jerry Compton, Jan Fisk, Jeff Seifried and John Rush * Remove two illegal portions - the citizen oversight committee and expungement - and increase the fine to $450. Sponsored by Mayor Bob Stephens * Remove two illegal portions - the citizen oversight committee and expungement - but leave the fine at $150. Sponsored by Mayor Bob Stephens * Remove the citizen oversight committee requirement and leave the rest as is. Sponsored by Councilman Doug Burlison (he doesn't want to remove the expungement provision until an opinion from the state attorney general's office is available) - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom