On advice from the city attorney, citing charter language,
the proposition to fill place 7, if Maczka doesn’t pull a Slagel, The council
will select a new mayor pro tem, the mayor pro tem will become mayor, and the
council will select the vacated seat of the mayor pro tem vacated to become
mayor.
That is how the charter reads. Or so it seems.
In section 3.10 of the charter it says “All meeting of the
City Council and all committees there of shall be open to the public … and the
rules of the city council shall provide that citizens of the city shall have a
reasonable opportunity to be heard at any such meetings…”
To me that read that all meeting of the council and any
committees or board or commissions shall be open to the public and at each and
every such meeting, there will be time set aside for input from the citizens.
The city attorney takes the stance that the public can only
have a reasonable opportunity to comment at council meetings and boards,
commissions or committees which are composed of only council members. Other
meetings, tough luck. You don’t get an opportunity to speak. See http://dc-tm.blogspot.com/2014/11/irony-is-action.html#more
In section 11.07 of the charter, talking of transfers of
appropriations, it says “The Council may at any time transfer an unencumbered
balance of an appropriation made for the use of one department, division, or
purpose; but no such transfer shall be made of revenues or earnings of any
nontax supported public utility for any other purpose.”
My reading of that is the city cannot take money out of a
non-tax supported fund unless it is for an expense for that fund. The $10
million a year being swept from non-tax supported funds, PILOT and Franchise
Fees, cannot be done. See http://dc-tm.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-official-response-we-are-doing.html
and http://dc-tm.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-is-my-water-bill-so-high-improper.html
for the city attorney’s response about this.
The city attorney takes the stance, if the revenues of a
non-tax supported fund are laid claim to at budget time, then they are not
unencumbered funds, and therefore may be swept from a non-tax supported fund to
the general fund for use as the city pleases.
Following the same logic of the city attorney, where words
don’t really mean anything but what you want them to mean, we could have a
special election for place 7 is Maczka doesn’t take her seat. There is nothing
in the charter that say anything about NOT having a special election in this
situation. The charter does give A way to fill the seat, selection. But is does
not prohibit a special election.
If members of the council wanted to go with the spirit of
direct election, it is within their reach to make it happen. After the
election, two member could resign or not take the oath, and force a special
election by having more than 2 seats empty. I wouldn’t hold my breath for that
to happen. Too much self-interest.
So, let’s have a special election this year.
Their new programming phrase is "you are confused". Or casual observers are confused. Or there is some confusion on _______.
ReplyDeleteThat's an old brain control technique.
Priceless
CDH
How about a concerted effort of concerned citizens to simply recall three or more of the crooks...I mean council members, including whomever slides in as mayor? Or, recall ALL of them? It might be what we need to get things changed at that snake pit and start getting some true representation and responsiveness.
ReplyDelete