 |
 |
At the meeting of 10/28/25 Andy Shaffer, in his comments, did a quick calculation: There are roughly 2400 residents in Rangely and about 1/3 are adults. So half the adult population is 400. He went on to say that if I bring enough people to the meeting against the Flock cameras, that is what the Council needs to see.
"Enough" is a wiggle word. Presumably enough meant half the voters. It would be impossible to get 400 people in the room at one of the meetings, so I suggested simply putting the issue on the next ballot. Andy clarified what he meant thinking that I quoted him as saying that enough meant 1/3 of the voters. In fact I quoted Andy as saying that the Council needed to hear from 1/3 of the population (the total number of voters). I could have been more clear by saying half of the third of the population needs to be against having Flock cameras in town. Andy made it clear exactly what he meant: One third of the town is adult voters not one third of the voters. So it would have to pass by a majority of the vote. The result of the discussion was that the Council would discuss putting the question on the ballot with the town attorney.
Of course if the Town Council refuses to put the question on the ballot, it can be put there by the people. That is an unnecessary burden on those opposed to the cameras. The Town Council has no idea what the voters want. How many times have you heard that none from the public have attended any of the meetings or work sessions to express their opinion? If they genuinely want to do what the voters want, they will put it on the ballot and find out.
My follow up with Lisa Piering, the Town Manager proved disappointing...
|
|