COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING#2

The Gauntlet has been thrown! Council President McWilliams through her Sunday blog and many times during Monday night's Council meeting expressed her displeasure at the lack of cooperation by the Mayor with the Council. I specify "Mayor" not Administration since the latter members can only operate at the pleasure of Mayor Robinson-Briggs.

This conflict came to a head with the Mayor's veto which was sustained by the fact that instead of the 5 needed votes there was only 4 votes to override last month. McWilliams opened discussion on reviving her F.A.I.R. fiscal oversight program which by Council consensus may again be on the agenda in November. Since these are Ordinances unless there is a Special Meeting they could not be adopted before the December business meeting Dec 13,2010. A Mayor's veto could place the time for an override vote into 2011 after the expiration of this Council's life.

During the sometimes heated remarks by various Council members, Councilor Reid again defended his no votes as being the result of a firm conviction that the two Ordinances would cause a large increase in work for the involved employees. Once again and even in stronger terms he criticized the Administration for its failure to have the critical (CFO etc.) personal in place. He stated that if those posts were filled by qualified individuals the proposed Ordinances would be counter productive.

Councilor Burney expressed his objection to the "bill review" procedure and recommended that a list of all contracts signed and purchase orders issued plus a list of all purchases made outside central purchasing review instead. The documents to b e submitted semi monthly to Council membership. The members would only have review and "call to attention any that fell out norm.

The Councilor is to be complimented for producing enough copied of his proposal to include the citizen attendees. To have a document in hand can give better understanding and is part of transparency.

After much talk it was decided to submit both to Administration for their opinion which would be less disruptive. It is not anticipated that the City Administrator would find either agreeable. McWilliams emphasized that the intent was for the Council to fulfill its fiduciary responsibility.

There could be a Parliamentary question if a new legislative body could reconsider a veto. Legal opinion would be needed but I believe that in effect un-enacted legislation expires with the life of the legislative body.

Bedsides the frustration of the Council's majority with the Administration's fiscal policies including three years lack of a CFO and prolong vacancy in the Director of Administration and Finances position , the conflict has escalated over the operation of the Recreation Division.

During 2010 controversy between residents and Recreation Supervisor Wynn reached a point of frequent mass citizen's appearance before the Council seeking redress. This resulted in a summer rebirth of the Recreation Committee. After 90 days the Committee frustrations resulted in a recommendation that a 7 member commission with 2 alternates be formed.

Since such a commission created by ordinance would have "authority" powers with overall program supervision and allocations the present division would be subservient to it and not to Administration. Understandable Administration has expressed its opposition. I am cloudy on whether Council agree to consider the Commission concept next week or if it will be on the November agenda.

I have a major problem that neither the present committee (and Council) or Administration's Recreation Division can accept the fact that "Recreational activities" are more than athletic group sports. in our attempt to defuse the gang situation all other after school and weekend activities including "clubs" must be considered. All other usable facilities including "Ys", religious organizations etc. have to become involved and under an overall umbrella.

It should be understood that everything takes funding a commodity in which we have a major deficiency. But we should not be interested solely in short term goals but the community 5 or 10 years down the road. WE can not reach any goal by procrastination. We must start today even if results may not appear for years. There has to be a beginning before there can be an ending.

As to the "Gauntlet"; the Council President reiterated that the sole responsibility for the agenda is in her hands. If Administration persists in withholding information she will refuse consideration of any proposed agenda items except essential to the city's operation.

I cannot do any commentary on the Ordinances and Resolutions that were voted on since I had to leave when they were open for Council discussion. I should have time to review some before Tuesday's meeting.