Report: City Council Special Meeting
Although I was unable to stay to the end of Tuesday's special called city council meeting, I did sit through the first 25 minutes. Here is my report.
Granted, Mr. Dan Coffey, esteemed representative on council from the 1st District, was on his best behavior, but leading a charge based on confusion and an inability to read documents is no substitute for representation.
As a body, the city council, perhaps rightly, is bitter that they were left out of the decision to grant a contract for household waste collection. They were in fact, excluded from the decision. And they didn't like being informed at the same time the rest of us were.
In fact, this operational decision is an administrative one that they all know was in the proper purview of the city's board of works. Some, perhaps most, regret that the sanitation department as we know it is being restructured to the point of being unrecognizable. Like the mayor, they dearly wished that it wouldn't come to this point.
But, embarrassed that they did not have advance warning about the decision, they struck first and asked questions later. Council president Gahan objected to the mayor's characterization of the decision as routine, as no different from any other letting of a contract. And he's right. It is different. But when Mr. Gahan offered to put words in the mayor's mouth - "Let me get this straight, mayor. It's your position that this is none of the council's business, right?"
Garner responded, "It's not my position, it's what state statutes dictate. Contracting is an administrative function."
You'll read other takes on the final decision today. You'll hear rumors. But what happened last night is exactly what the mayor proposed Monday - the council's counsel will take a look at the request for proposals to see if it is in any way illegal. If he agrees with city attorney Shane Gibson, the matter is concluded. If not, another attorney may examine the particulars. Or not.
By a vote of 9-0, the council approved a conference among attorneys to determine if proper procedures were followed. Mayor Garner is firm in his insistence, on advice of counsel, that all the proper forms were followed. The council really hasn't a clue, but wants to have the AFSCME believe they "did all they could" to save the jobs of up to 20 workers.
So, the theatrical presentation by council ended not with a bang, but with a whimper. The ongoing and now nearly $1 million departmental deficit trumps political posturing.
One can hardly blame Mr. Coffey. As an ardent opponent of anything the mayor proposes, it must seem in his best interest to oppose it and to try to muddy the waters by charging criminal conduct. It's not like Dan and James are suddenly going to become buddies.
As for Mr. Gahan, I admit I'm baffled.
The resolution for an "investigation" was ineffective and amateurish. It alleged nothing, but called for an investigation. By whom? It didn't say. To what end? It didn't say.
Now, one source says Anna Schmidt was the drafter of the resolution. Mrs. Schmidt strenuously denies that. And City Clerk Marcey Wisman relates that she took down the resolution by telephone from Mr. Coffey and subsequently wrote down his editings and emendations. That still doesn't clarify its authorship, but whoever wrote it was writing only to create an impression of action. Whoever wrote it must have known that it had NO legal effect. Therefore, it can only be described as political pandering of the worst sort. And by worst, I mean that it purported to hold out hope to a group of men and women who believed that Mr. Coffey could and would do something to reverse the mayor's action. As written, the resolution was such a lukewarm bath that the workers would be fully justified in spewing out the author or authors as hypocrites.
Just because someone says he's your friend doesn't make it so.
Granted, Mr. Dan Coffey, esteemed representative on council from the 1st District, was on his best behavior, but leading a charge based on confusion and an inability to read documents is no substitute for representation.
As a body, the city council, perhaps rightly, is bitter that they were left out of the decision to grant a contract for household waste collection. They were in fact, excluded from the decision. And they didn't like being informed at the same time the rest of us were.
In fact, this operational decision is an administrative one that they all know was in the proper purview of the city's board of works. Some, perhaps most, regret that the sanitation department as we know it is being restructured to the point of being unrecognizable. Like the mayor, they dearly wished that it wouldn't come to this point.
But, embarrassed that they did not have advance warning about the decision, they struck first and asked questions later. Council president Gahan objected to the mayor's characterization of the decision as routine, as no different from any other letting of a contract. And he's right. It is different. But when Mr. Gahan offered to put words in the mayor's mouth - "Let me get this straight, mayor. It's your position that this is none of the council's business, right?"
Garner responded, "It's not my position, it's what state statutes dictate. Contracting is an administrative function."
You'll read other takes on the final decision today. You'll hear rumors. But what happened last night is exactly what the mayor proposed Monday - the council's counsel will take a look at the request for proposals to see if it is in any way illegal. If he agrees with city attorney Shane Gibson, the matter is concluded. If not, another attorney may examine the particulars. Or not.
By a vote of 9-0, the council approved a conference among attorneys to determine if proper procedures were followed. Mayor Garner is firm in his insistence, on advice of counsel, that all the proper forms were followed. The council really hasn't a clue, but wants to have the AFSCME believe they "did all they could" to save the jobs of up to 20 workers.
So, the theatrical presentation by council ended not with a bang, but with a whimper. The ongoing and now nearly $1 million departmental deficit trumps political posturing.
One can hardly blame Mr. Coffey. As an ardent opponent of anything the mayor proposes, it must seem in his best interest to oppose it and to try to muddy the waters by charging criminal conduct. It's not like Dan and James are suddenly going to become buddies.
As for Mr. Gahan, I admit I'm baffled.
The resolution for an "investigation" was ineffective and amateurish. It alleged nothing, but called for an investigation. By whom? It didn't say. To what end? It didn't say.
Now, one source says Anna Schmidt was the drafter of the resolution. Mrs. Schmidt strenuously denies that. And City Clerk Marcey Wisman relates that she took down the resolution by telephone from Mr. Coffey and subsequently wrote down his editings and emendations. That still doesn't clarify its authorship, but whoever wrote it was writing only to create an impression of action. Whoever wrote it must have known that it had NO legal effect. Therefore, it can only be described as political pandering of the worst sort. And by worst, I mean that it purported to hold out hope to a group of men and women who believed that Mr. Coffey could and would do something to reverse the mayor's action. As written, the resolution was such a lukewarm bath that the workers would be fully justified in spewing out the author or authors as hypocrites.
Just because someone says he's your friend doesn't make it so.
posted by All4Word at 10:40 PM
1 Comments:
Over at The Random Objection Generator, "concern taxpayer" is taking credit for the wording of the resolution. Of course, if CT is who he claims to be, he's incapable of the wording used. If not Mrs. Schmidt, then others among the Luddites have experience in this area, being semi-professional litigators, anyway.
Post a Comment
<< Home