URBANA – The Cunningham Town Board voted Monday night in special session to put one advisory question on the fall ballot but refrained from filling the ballot with two other questions.

The Urbana City Council, acting as the town board, was expected to put three questions on the Nov. 4 ballot to forestall an effort by local activists to force two advisory referendums in November, since three is the maximum number of referendum questions allowed.

The ballot question the board approved Monday will ask if motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians in crosswalks should be restricted from using cell phones.

The other two questions would have essentially asked voters if they support the status quo in regard to the local election system and in providing township financial and assessment information to the public. The board deferred action on the election question until after a town meeting June 30 and directed staff to come up with proposals to improve financial transparency.

A group of local activists, who call themselves Urbana Citizens for Instant Runoff Voting, want to put a question on the ballot asking if voters want the city to switch to instant- runoff voting for city elections, in which voters would rank the candidates in order of preference. They also pressed for a ballot question asking if the city and township should post financial records and contracts on the Internet.

They intended to push for getting both questions on the ballot at the special town meeting June 30, prompting the town board to call its own special meeting Monday.

Durl Kruse of Urbana advocated the instant-runoff question and praised the board for its forbearance in not stuffing the ballot.

"I think it's a wise decision and good for the community," he said. "I think calmer heads prevailed tonight on the board."

The other proposal, for financial transparency, was put on hold by activists when the board directed city and township staff to take steps to improve financial transparency.

Diana Visek of Urbana, who pushed for the financial question, said she was reassured for the time being by council members' promises that they would put as much financial information on city's Web site as they can.

"I am satisfied," she said.

The board passed a motion Monday directing city staff to prepare policies for financial transparency for the city and the township. But Visek said if those results are unsatisfactory, she will try again next year to get the question put on the ballot.

City comptroller Ron Eldridge said the city recently posted its annual treasurer's report on its Web site, showing every city expenditure during the past year.

The board's actions Monday set the stage for a showdown June 30 over the issue of instant-runoff voting; Kruse said he and others will still press to get it put on the ballot at that meeting. But he also said he expected Urbana Democrats to attend the June 30 meeting and try to defeat the measure.

"They've taken every step so far to try to stop this," he said, "and I can see no reason for them not to now."

Local Democrats packed the annual town meeting April 8 and outvoted Greens, Libertarians and other activists' efforts to place the instant-runoff-voting and financial-reporting questions on the fall ballot. Activists responded by obtaining 28 petition signatures requesting a special town meeting and got it scheduled for June 30.

Local Democrats said privately that they oppose instant-runoff voting and would feel compelled to mount an organized campaign against the advisory referendum, diverting them from local and national elections.

"Instant runoff is confusing to voters, which makes it harder to turn people out, and it's fundamentally unfair because the candidate with the most votes can lose," said Esther Patt, a former Democratic council member in Urbana. "I think that's wacky."