My ennui was destroyed when I opened Bernice's blog-Plaintalker II- this morning and read about the notice on the Plainfield site announcing a Special Council meeting called by the Mayor for 7pm Monday May 21; for the purpose of voting on four resolutions that Corporation Counsel Williamson has tried to introduce as walk ons at the time of the (a) Agenda Setting Session and after rejection to consider there at the (b) Council Meeting May 14. Once again Council President Mapp refused to entertain those resolutions since they should have been submitted on the Wednesday before the meeting per adopted.Council rules.
The Mayor through Williamson had threatened to call a special meeting per her rights under the Charter. Although the unwritten intent of that right is for an emergency, there are no restrictions. The Charter states:
2.6 Meetings. Council shall convene in regular meetings at least once each month at the city hall at a time to be fixed by ordinance, except in the event of a public catastrophe or emergency which renders such meeting impractical or unduly hazardous. Special meetings upon at least 2 days public notice may be called by the mayor whenever he deems necessary, and shall be called by the city clerk upon written request signed by a majority of the councilmen. The call for a special meeting shall specify the purpose of the meetings, and no other business may be conducted at such meeting.
The wording of the Charter is ambiguous, the key word is the "AND" . Does it mean that at least 4 Councilors must agree in writing to the Mayor's call, or is that a separate method for calling a Special Meeting? One more reason why the Charter must be revised in depth.
This question may be moot since at least 4 Councilors must be present to provide a quorum. If that number do not show up there can be no meeting. If 4 do show a 3:1 vote will pass the resolutions, since a simple majority of those present is all that is required.
Incidentally my interpretation of 2.6 is that the "AND" was meant to be "OR". The Mayor must be able to act in any true critical situation. Other key words are "MAY" which is permissive and "SHALL" which is obligatory or mandatory..(3pm)
The issue is not the 4 Resolutions which in themselves seem innocuous, but (A) Administration's continual flaunting the Council's rules, and (B) the Administration's stonewalling practice to enact the pay for play policy approved by the Council in 2011.
The two brokers have been retained without a contract and need to be paid for the insurance coverage. The "enabling Resolutions" are perhaps needed but more likely "Lawyer Talk" to prolong the standoff.
Our city charter is out of date and need much revising. This mayor has used the charter to continue to try to force her unethical practices upon the city. The people paying the bills have had enough of this mayor. I hope people wise up at the terrible job this mayor has done and finally vote her out. The mayor is a loser and so is Plainfield because of her.
ReplyDeleteHi Doc:
ReplyDeleteAnytime a simple majority is needed it is a simple majority of the council, meaning 4 of 7. It is not a majority of those present. Therefore, any resolution that receives a vote of 3 to 1 fails for lack of a simple majority.
9:27 PM I stand corrected. Thank you. It is a majority of the Council, not those present.
ReplyDelete