Voting for a Vote

referendum on Confluence may be headed for ballot

Tom Giffey |

BOXING DAY. Referendum committee leaders Mike Bollinger, left, and Judy Olson, right, drop off a big box of petitions for Eau Claire City Clerk Donna Austad on Dec. 26 at City Hall. The City Council will decide soon whether to let a referendum that could impact the Confluence Project move forward.
BOXING DAY. Referendum committee leaders Mike Bollinger, left, and Judy Olson, right,
drop off a big box of petitions for Eau Claire City Clerk Donna Austad on Dec. 26 at
City Hall. The City Council will decide soon whether to let a referendum that could
impact the Confluence Project move forward.

A citizens group pushing for a referendum on city spending for a proposed downtown arts center says it has enough signatures to qualify the measure for the April 1 ballot, but that doesn’t necessarily mean city voters will get to weigh in on the matter. Even if the proposed referendum makes it onto the ballot – and questions remain about its legality and whether the City Council will OK it – and passes, a second referendum would be needed before the city could spend more than $1 million on “dramatic, musical, or artistic” facilities, such as the Confluence Project.

Confused? That’s not surprising. While some people may have assumed that the petitions circulated by the Citizens Referendum Committee would lead directly to a vote on the Confluence Project, in reality the petitions began a multistage process that may lead to two referendums.

Between late November and late December, the committee gathered the signatures of 4,935 city voters, which were turned in to City Hall on Dec. 26. The petition drive began after the City Council voted 8-3 in October to approve a $5 million conditional pledge toward the $77 million public/private project, which would include a university/community performing arts center and a multiuse building featuring commercial space and student housing. At the time, referendum proponents argued that city voters themselves – not just their elected representatives – should have a say in the Confluence Project.

“If they’re really neutral, why are they using different avenues to stymie the process?” – City Councilwoman Catherine Emmanuelle, questioning claims that the Citizens Referendum Commitee is neutral on the Confluence Project

“I believe people really feel like they’re disenfranchised by government at every level, not just local,” referendum committee president Mike Bollinger said at a press conference announcing the end of the petition drive. While the group legally had 60 days to collect the necessary signatures, they did so in just over a month. In addition, they collected 36 percent more than the minimum 3,619 signatures required by law, largely by going door-to-door throughout the city, Bollinger said.

While Bollinger says the Citizens Referendum Committee is officially neutral on the Confluence Project, he acknowledges that he has personal concerns about the nature of public funding for the venture. The project is a collaboration among UW-Eau Claire, the Eau Claire Regional Arts Council, and Commonweal Development, and hopes to receive funding for the performing arts center from the city and county, too. It would be built on a largely vacant commercial block on South Barstow Street, just south of the confluence of the Chippewa and Eau Claire rivers.

Bollinger said those who volunteered to collect signatures were instructed not to state their own opinions on the Confluence Project but were instead told to say that the referendum was about giving residents a chance to vote. Confluence backers, however, are skeptical of such claims of neutrality.

“I question the intention,” said City Councilwoman Catherine Emmanuelle, who voted to pledge $5 million. “If the true motivation is to stay neutral, why would their Facebook page have an opinion on the landmark decision?” she asked, referring to the city Landmarks Commission’s decision – later reversed by the council – to declare one of the buildings on the site a historic landmark. “If they’re really neutral, why are they using different avenues to stymie the process?”

Beyond such doubts, several practical and legal questions remain. First, City Clerk Donna Austad must certify that the petition is valid, a step she expected to take early in the week of Jan. 6. Next, the City Council will consider the referendum at its Tuesday, Jan. 14, meeting.  In between, City Attorney Stephen Nick will render an opinion on whether Confluence funding can even be the subject of such a referendum – particularly considering the City Council already voted to pledge the money. In November, Nick told the Leader-Telegram that the referendum wasn’t legally eligible for the ballot because it was “too vaguely written, would conflict with city and state laws and would attempt to repeal previous City Council decisions.” However, in a Jan. 3 Volume One interview, Nick said “the question submitted is significantly different than the one that was initially proposed to our office in late November” and that he was still reviewing it.

Bollinger, for his part, said the committee received assurances from its attorney, John Hibbard, that the proposed referendum wording was legally airtight. He called upon the City Council to allow the referendum to proceed. “I encourage the City Council to do exactly what we did: To go out among the people,” Bollinger said at the press conference. “We found a strong sentiment and desire to vote.”

Bollinger said many of those who signed the petition didn’t necessarily oppose the project, but they felt they didn’t know enough about it yet. He said a referendum campaign would give Confluence backers the opportunity to make their case to the public.

However, Emmanuelle said that even if the group has a legal right to pursue a referendum that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do: She worries the controversy is “pitting good people against good people.” And Emmanuelle dismissed the critics’ notion that the public hasn’t been informed about – or allowed input toward – the Confluence Project. She cited at least 17 public meetings where the Confluence was discussed in the past 18 months. “There’s no shoving down anybody’s throat,” she said.

To learn more about the referendum effort, visit ecreferendum.com. To learn about the Confluence Project from its backers, visit communityfortheconfluence.org.