REQUEST FOR STATE HELP

The most important resolution on the agenda was the Council's resolution regarding asking the State to appoint a temporary CMFO until Administration can find a suitable candidate. Of course the Administration opposed that resolution as the Council's usurping the Mayor's right to appoint officials.

Council President McWilliams pointed out that it was the Council's responsibility to be not only concerned but actively involved in the city's finances. The Council has the mandate to make sure that all controls are in place and not to do so would be a failure of fiduciary responsibility.

By Charter it takes a simple majority of the Council, not quorum, our 4 members to pass a resolution. Councilors Rivers and Carter were not in attendance at the start of the MONTHLY MEETING. Councilwoman Carter arrived at 9:45pm, however the vote on R191-10 was finished at 9:40pm.

I had predicated to my neighbors that the vote would be 3:2 in favor and the resolution would die due to a lack of a 4th vote. It was obvious that McWilliams ,Storch, and Mapp would rightly vote in favor of the resolution. It was also a given that Reid would vote No. Councillor Burney explained that although he was in favor of the resolution that he found fault in the "Whereas es" including the fact that there was a still open 3rd 90 day extension by the State expiring on July19 to fill the CFO slot, so on that basis he would vote No.

Assuming that Councilwoman Rivers would cast a negative vote that important vote on the resolution , Yea or Nay. would fall upon Councilwoman Carter's shoulders. We will never know what her position was for unfortunately she did not arrive at the meeting until after the voting.

The protagonists missed two opportunities to put the vote to a real test if that were their purpose. Or they may be unfamiliar with common Parliamentary procedure. By a simple majority vote the resolution could have been 'tabled" until the end of the meeting when it was known that Carter would be present and her vote counted rather than be a negative one by default.

The other procedure that apparently no member of the Council wished to evoke is based on the Parliamentary fact that action on any motion is not finalized until the meeting is adjourned. At any time prior to that moment a voting member of the body (Council) can request that a motion -passed or failed- be placed on the table for reconsideration by majority vote. Obviously no one wanted to make this an option.

What is ignored by both parties is that the proper management of the City's finances is the Public's concern.