Among the many important decisions facing us as a community this November, is the issue of several proposed amendments to our county charter.
Much has been written about the process by which these amendments were composed, aside of whether each is a good idea or not.
In a subsequent column we will discuss the merits of each proposed change, but here, let’s talk about the process itself, and specifically logrolling, because we want to correct some erroneous comments in this area.
Logrolling is the practice of combining multiple unrelated topics so that different constituencies will vote for the “whole,” although they only support a “piece.”
Most of the discussion about the structure of the ballots relates to whether the four proposed amendments constitute “logrolling.” However, the key word that distinguishes logrolling is “unrelated,” not “multiple.” For example, a citizen initiative to clamp down on loose dogs (a leash law, fines for not cleaning up after your dog, fines for excessive barking, etc.) would certainly not be considered logrolling because the multiple parts of the initiative form a consistent multi-pronged approach to address a community issue.