I apologize that I will not have time
before late Wednesday to go into detail about the Council meeting. However from
the voting that took place it is obvious that the Mayor’s party is in control
and that personal loyalties take precedence over fiduciary responsibility to
the citizens.
As expected and that will be gone into in more
detail at a subsequent post every resolution that deserved even the least
amount of questioning as to merit was
approved 4:3. That will be the rule this year.
Every one of those resolutions
received criticism from some member(s) of the public during the commentary period
prior to Council action. None received
positive support from citizens.
An example of why I am discouraged involved
a simple no earthshaking matter of the Council’s 2013 rules of Order. Although
as printed they contain many omissions or irregularities, some of which could
possibly lead to charges over the legality of the Council’s action and could
wait one month to be clarified the Council voted 4:3 to defeat a tabling motion.
I wonder how many of the Councilors would
take an oath that they have read the 2013 version of their own rules. The
Corporation Counsel who appointment was unanimously approved at the meeting
referred to articles that were present in the 2012 RO but were altered or
inadvertently omitted in the 2013copy that is attached to the Resolution. The
fact that we “have always done it” and the State Law permits voting by “speakerphone’
if the rules the Council approves states only that a councilor must be physically
present in the chambers and speakerphone vote is illegal.
On the surface the whole issue would be nonsense;
however if the Council members are willing to accept procedure illegalities
could one not question
their willingness to not ignore fiscal
irregularities?
This boo-boo can be corrected by amending
resolutions next month.
If last night was any indication, they couldn't even take an oath to uphold the city's Municipal Code without it being a lie. There seems to be no puddle of conflicted interest they are unwilling to dive into.
ReplyDeleteDoc the same rules of order have been passed for as long as I have been coming to meetings. Councilmen Mapp passed them last year, and Council women McWilliams passed them as a 2 term President. I always agree with you on your views, but this one I think is wrong.
ReplyDeleteAs I sat in the audience last noght and watch Mr. Mapp go on and on about what was wrong in the Rules of Order, i said to myself why didn't he fixed them under his watch??????
I will say to council women Rivers or let me correct myself council President Rivers take what have been said about the rules of order and make the correct changes so that it will be done correctly on your watch.
Renee
Renee, At the agenda session I pointed out that there weree many errors in their RO that had been ignored for years but approved because as with many resolutions many Council members either don't bother to read or don't understand.
ReplyDeleteIhad pointed out that if the speaker vote was not specifically mentioned all those votes passed with such voting could be challenged as illegal and potentially subject the city to money damages.
I do not want that t o happen an is one reason I brought u p the matter. Council President Rivers was concerned enough to look into it. I think the Corporation Counsel's advice is wrong.
As to the New Dems; that too have been guilty of the same fault. Mapp did read thye rules after my comments (something which should not have been taken for granted in the past) and his recommendation was in the best interests. Unfortunately if he is going to call something black there is a core that will call it white.