Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />Minutes, Regular Meeting, La Porte City Council <br />September 23, 1985, Page 8 <br />Motion was made ~y Councilperson Lloyd to adopt Scenario 5-A <br />with its requisite o~l~D.g places as tie district boundaries <br />i'or the ne~f~.ve years. Second by Councilperson Waters. The <br />motion failed, 4 ayes and 5 nays. <br />Ayes: Councilpersons Walker, Lloyd, Matuszak and Waters <br />Nays: Councilpersons Pfeiffer, Gay, Skelton, Westergren <br />The Mayor did not vote, but stated that if he had he would <br />have voted against the motion. Councilperson Walker requested <br />that it go on record as such. <br />Motion was made by Councilperson Westerg en that man 1.6 be <br />submitted as the district boundary neap. Second by <br />Councilperson Skelton. <br />M~t~j,~,n was made by Councilperson Walker to table the motion. <br />Second by Councilperson Waters. The motion to table failed, 2 <br />ayes and 7 nays. <br />Ayes: Councilpersons Walker and Waters <br />Nays: Councilpersons Lloyd, Matuszak, Pfeiffer, Gay, Skelton, <br />Westergren and Mayor Malone <br />Councilperson Walker stated at this time that as he studied <br />Scenario 1.6, he could find that the sole purpose behind it <br />was to protect a particular Council seat. He stated he found <br />the map to be very "gerrymiring", to be denying people in the <br />newly annexed area of the city an opportunity to elect someone <br />on Council next April to be their representative, and stated <br />if that map is adopted he would like to go on record as being <br />made aware of any and all communications with the Justice <br />Department and noted under record that he intends to go to the <br />Justice Department with the map. <br />Councilperson Skelton then called for the question. <br />The original motion was then voted on, and carried 7 ayes and <br />2 nays. <br />Ayes: Councilpersons Lloyd, Matuszak, Pfeiffer, Gay, Skelton, <br />Westergren and Mayor Malone <br />Nays: Councilpersons Walker and Waters <br />