A Special City Election for the Removal of Selectmen Chairman Daniel Freitas
Filed: February 9, 2010 | Date Published: February 9, 2010.
This morning, February 9th, the elections board of the City and County of Denver set a special election date for the special ward in the city and county seat of Denver.
The first voter to sign up for the special election is scheduled for the first Monday of June, 2010. The second will be on the first Tuesday in November 2010.
The voters of the special ward will make up the 11th seat in the Colorado senate next year, with 6 members of the senate elected from the special ward.
In addition, voters will make up the 8th seat in the state senate, with 13 people nominated and elected from the special ward.
The special election will also include the entire board of city commissioners and all of the mayor’s appointees from the city of Denver.
The Denver mayoral elections were held the other day and we had some interesting happenings. For instance, John Suthers, an independent from the Denver city council made an appeal. A number of folks are upset because Suthers is a Democrat for a district in Denver that covers all of the city except the eastern suburbs, which are solidly Republican.
Suthers received a letter last week, by a group called the Denver Independent Mailing list, that was sent to the mayor. They claim the election is illegal. Now it is the mayor’s job to decide who will be on the ballot.
I had a chance to talk with the president of Denver’s Democratic Party today. He informed me that he has an appeal to make. The appeal is that the election is not legal because it doesn’t follow the form of an election.
It is not required that there be a polling place or even an election notice. This is a ballot initiative.
The way the ballot initiative will work is that at least one party, and possibly both party members in the district, will sign up for the ballot. Both parties, and possibly other parties, need to sign the ballot.
A special city election for the removal of selectmen Chairman Daniel Freitas.
Article Title: A special city election for the removal of selectmen Chairman Daniel Freitas | Programming. Full Article Text: The Board of Selectmen has the authority to call a Special City Election to remove the Chairman of the local Planning Commission.
It’s the same story as every other Selectmen office from the last 100 years. The Board of Selectmen has the authority to call a Special City Election to remove the chairman of the local Planning Commission.
I don’t know if I’ve ever seen an election where that went so poorly for the candidate or the entire election.
The other day, I noticed a very prominent sign on the back of the City Clerk. The sign read “It’s the same story as every other selectmen office from the last 100 years. The Board of Selectmen has the authority to call a Special City Election to remove the chairman of the local Planning Commission.
I thought to myself, I know this city, and every one of those City Commissions and Boards have the same problems year after year – we have a City Clerk who is very corrupt, and the City Council members who have the same corrupt ways as every other officer and councilman. And yet, they have the same issues with Council elections, with City Council meetings and the agenda items they put on the agenda to try and keep the Council from voting, because they know it only brings the City Councillors more power.
But then, this thought clicked in my head.
So, I’ll start with the Council. When I see a Council meeting, I’ve never seen the City Council so badly run. And yet, they claim to represent the residents of North Vancouver. In a recent council meeting, Council chair Andrea Horwath made a statement during a discussion about an issue that is very important to the residents of North Vancouver but rarely mentioned in other communities.
The Fairhaven Board of Supervisors.
Article Title: The Fairhaven Board of Supervisors | Programming.
Honeywell Inc. and the Fairhaven Chamber of Commerce were sponsors of the 2019 Fairhaven Business Expo. Please click on this link to visit the Fairhaven. com website.
This event is sponsored by Honeywell Inc. and the Fairhaven Chamber of Commerce.
Honeywell Inc. and the Fairhaven Chamber of Commerce will be showcasing Honeywell’s latest engineered solutions for the commercial and construction markets in the Fairhaven area. This includes the development of new building envelope systems, a new LED lighting solution for commercial and residential uses, advanced LED lighting solutions for construction, and the installation of Honeywell’s latest industrial lighting solutions.
The Fairhaven Chamber will also showcase Honeywell’s new energy solutions for the commercial and construction markets that include a new roofing solution for commercial and industrial applications. Honeywell’s new roofing solution enables the rapid application of the product’s high performance, low maintenance benefits to the construction and commercial roofing market. The new roofing solution will also feature the integration of Honeywell’s new LED lighting solution for commercial and industrial applications, allowing contractors to meet their energy savings goals.
Honeywell Inc. and the Fairhaven Chamber of Commerce will also showcase Honeywell’s new LED lighting solutions for construction applications. Honeywell’s new LED lighting solution will include the installation of Honeywell’s new LED lighting solutions for new and existing buildings.
Commentary on a motion by Espindola and Silvia
In the previous article “Concluding thoughts on the implementation of the MMSG’s”, we referred to a motion by Espindola and Silvia that the motion and that it is not accepted by the Assembly. This article will address one of the arguments stated in the motion that the text of Article 2 should be removed as is. It will be argued that the text of Article 2 is ambiguous because it uses the present tense of “in the presence of” to refer both within and outside to the Assembly. For instance, the word “presently” can refer both to the Assembly’s presence on this day as well as to that of the Senate. As such we should remove the text of Article 2. The argument can be expanded as suggested by Espindola and Silvia. We note that in the case of the House and the Senate, “as” indicates the inclusion of the House as opposed to the Senate. Although the text is in dispute over the meaning of the word “in the presence of” in the text of Article 2, it is most likely that the Senate and the House will each accept the text of Article 2 as is. It would seem that this is a debate that will take some time to work out.
The President of the Assembly.
The President of the Assembly invites the Senate to consider this motion and all the objections raised by Senators and the Assembly, to the effect that “Article 2 of Directive 2014/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on information society, data protection and rights of privacy shall be repealed with immediate effect”.
In the opinion of the President of the Assembly, for the reasons set out in the previous article and that there is a broad consensus among the Members and, in particular, on the Senate side, the motion should not be adopted as it is not necessary to implement the directive in practice.
The President of the Assembly shall inform the Members that the motion is being referred to the committee of the Assembly and will be discussed in the committee of the Assembly.