I didn't see an ability to comment on the agenda item that I wanted to comment on, so I hope you don't mind me commenting here. I'm commenting in reference to agenda item #2 about the Pledge of Fair Campaign Practices. I'd also like this comment read into record.
As someone who has run for a city council seat, I personally think it is poor optics for someone who is up for reelection this year to propose changes to anything surrounding our elections, although I'll admit this is a tamer version of a proposal as it relates to a pledge and not an ordinance/resolution. Something similar happened in 2021 when the council voted on ranked choice voting. I believe that the council should be very careful about changing anything surrounding our elections during an election year because changes made have historically benefited incumbents. Again, think of the message this sends to your constituents.
In addition, I find it odd that a large part of these proposed changes reference "attack ads" and the desire to make things more civil when by far THE most contentious thing when I was running was the sign ordinance, which was weaponized by candidates and currently sitting council members. In fact, one particular council member made it her personal mission to go around the city and report any signs she thought were placed illegally to code enforcement. Despite there being signs from ALL candidates that were placed "illegally" as well as many signs for real estate, restaurants, sports groups, etc that violated the same ordinance, the only signs that were reported were for candidates that currently sitting council members didn't personally like or for candidates that were running against those that currently sitting council members had endorsed. I personally think Sandy City's sign ordinance violates candidate and resident first amendment rights and walks a dangerous line and urge the council to reconsider it, especially if you'd like future elections to be more civil.
I've also never actually seen an attack ad run in Sandy, not like the ones we get from the state and federal elections. And I think it's important to recognize that disagreeing with someone on something and talking about it isn't an attack, it's just discourse.
I appreciate you taking the time to read/hear my comments.
I didn't see an ability to comment on the agenda item that I wanted to comment on, so I hope you don't mind me commenting here. I'm commenting in reference to agenda item #2 about the Pledge of Fair Campaign Practices. I'd also like this comment read into record.
As someone who has run for a city council seat, I personally think it is poor optics for someone who is up for reelection this year to propose changes to anything surrounding our elections, although I'll admit this is a tamer version of a proposal as it relates to a pledge and not an ordinance/resolution. Something similar happened in 2021 when the council voted on ranked choice voting. I believe that the council should be very careful about changing anything surrounding our elections during an election year because changes made have historically benefited incumbents. Again, think of the message this sends to your constituents.
In addition, I find it odd that a large part of these proposed changes reference "attack ads" and the desire to make things more civil when by far THE most contentious thing when I was running was the sign ordinance, which was weaponized by candidates and currently sitting council members. In fact, one particular council member made it her personal mission to go around the city and report any signs she thought were placed illegally to code enforcement. Despite there being signs from ALL candidates that were placed "illegally" as well as many signs for real estate, restaurants, sports groups, etc that violated the same ordinance, the only signs that were reported were for candidates that currently sitting council members didn't personally like or for candidates that were running against those that currently sitting council members had endorsed. I personally think Sandy City's sign ordinance violates candidate and resident first amendment rights and walks a dangerous line and urge the council to reconsider it, especially if you'd like future elections to be more civil.
I've also never actually seen an attack ad run in Sandy, not like the ones we get from the state and federal elections. And I think it's important to recognize that disagreeing with someone on something and talking about it isn't an attack, it's just discourse.
I appreciate you taking the time to read/hear my comments.
Thanks,
Katie Johnson
District 1 Resident