Council Votes to Oppose Petitions

After contentious debate, a divided council voted to take an official stance against the two petitions currently circulating College Park.

Four councilmembers – Patrick Wojahn (Dist. 1), Robert Catlin (Dist. 2), Marcus Afzali (Dist. 4) and Stephanie Stullich (Dist.3) voted in favor of officially decrying the petitions. Christine Nagle (Dist. 1) and Mark Cook (Dist. 3) voted against, and Denise Mitchell (Dist. 4) abstained. Councilman Jack Perry (Dist. 2) was absent from Tuesday’s meeting.

The councilmembers who voted in favor of the measure agreed that though the city is not accustomed to taking a position on issues typically left to the discretion of voters, it is important for residents to know the of what they are signing.

One petition seeks to cap the amount of tax revenue the city can collect; the other aims to eliminate the distinction between rental properties and owner-occupied properties.

 “We have a responsibility to make that clear to people so they understand what it would mean to put this referendum on the ballot and what it would mean if it passed," Stullich said.

Though residents are not obligated to consider the city’s views before signing the petitions, Wojahn said that constituents may appreciate the city’s insight.

 “Our opinions as people who work very hard for the city may be relevant to people. If it does influence the way that people decide on this matter, so be it,” he said. 

But Mary Cook, a former member of the city council, took the stand and disagreed, saying that for the council to pass the measure is a hindrance to the democratic process.

“Do remember that you’re not here to direct us residents. We’re here to direct you,” she said.

Councilmember Christine Nagle also agreed that the city was overstepping its bounds by opposing the petitions, adding that the council should wait to take a position until they know whether or not the referenda will even be added to November’s ballot.

 “Why are we taking a position? Why are we coming out as a council and putting this resolution forth?," she asked. “If it’s a matter of just passing out info to residents, we’ve already done that, and we’ve done it well. I think it sets a bad precedent, and it could have chilling effect on our residents in the future.”

Ultimately, Nagle was overruled.

"We work for the voters. We work for the residents," Stullich said. "The democratic process is what it is, and of course we’re going to follow it. That doesn’t mean that we should muzzle ourselves.”