Monday nights bloated agenda included after one was added a total of 38 resolutions of which 29 were on the printed Consent Agenda or almost 80%. Councilors and the public requested removal of an additional 8 items from the Consent Agenda and there were questions asked about an additional 5 or 6 Resolutions that remained on the Consent agenda despite the Council's rule that they were not subject to discussion. The final Non-Consent Resolutions were about 43% of the total number which should be the norm for a business meeting.
The resolution about the banner hanging on the front of the city hall produced discussion with a great deal of discombobulation about the origin of the request. If it was from an individual employed in City Hall or from a person acting in an official city capacity. There are insurance requirements to be met before approval to hang a banner could be granted, unless it was an official request from the municipal government.
Although the assistant city clerk or Corporation Counsel could not answer those questions it was passed with one abstention pending a response from Corporation Counsel today.
A resolution to approve the appointment of the Registrar of Vital Statistics was surprisingly defeated by a 3:2 vote (two members were absent). Although that office ha been the subject of a blog on Monday the Councilors assured that it had had no impact on their decision. No explanation was given for the "no" votes.
The Resolution authorizing the submission of a "PARIS grant" application for $102,000.00 passed this April 13th. It was explained that although the deadline was March 16th it had been met by electronically submitting the application on time! The grant which will be used for record's shelving and a "Record's Manager. The location for this is not stated in this post facto resolution but by inference it is to be in the City Clerk's office.
A resolution for submitting an application for $302,272.00 to the Dept of Human Services Division of Addiction services 2009 program but intended for 2010 FY operation of the Dudley House was approved.
The big discussion centered on the $6,000.00 appropriation for the downtown concerts. I wrote about this earlier under Procedures. There is little question that it will be approved providing Council gets answers to outstanding questions.
The first two sessions under the new format have proved too long and have created situations in which either Administration will have to delay action or the Council will be put into the position of rubber stamping something that has already been acted upon. Either one could be the source of a potential catastrophe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Didn't the administration not follow the rules in getting approval for the banner? I thought that no presubmission of the picture was given, and the banner was put in place without prior council consent.
ReplyDeleteDid the council just sanction the administration being above the rules?
5:10 PM,Councilman Mapp raised the question whether the requester for the b anner who works in the Mayor's office did it as an individual in which case there has to be a certificate of insurance. If she was acting at the requesty of Administration the City would have complied with the law under its self insurance progaram and no Certificate would be required(Corporation Counsel Williamson).
ReplyDeleteMapp then moved to table the resolution which was never second and thus died- not failed as was announced. The Corporation Counsel during the discussion after Mapps motion which was not second said that he would investigate by today and ascertain whether the request came from an individual or not.If it was not from the Administration then the city "would take appropriate action including the possibility of removing the banner".
Disregarding the fact that there is a an upcoming election in which the Mayor is a candidate for reelection it would appear to me that there is an ethical issue involved if the Mayor's office made the request for a self laudatory banner to be place on the City Hall.