Monday, August 17, 2015

Update: Today's City Council Meeting...Handicapping the Vote

On the motion to add a No Confidence Vote to the Thursday Agenda here is my take on who the Council will support...the Citizens or the Mayor and his Tattle Tale:


  1. Wu - Tattle Tale (Wu will hem and haw and then say its a tough one and vote for the Mayor)
  2. Myers - Citizens
  3. TerhaarTattle Tale
  4. JohnsonTattle Tale
  5. Wingate - Citizens
  6. Spencer - Citizens (only because its his district)
  7. Cannada-Wynn - Citizens
  8. Bare - Citizens
This vote should be unanimous for the Citizens but Council (as a body) is spineless against the Mayor.  Even the Mayor can count to 5.

Mayor should have dealt with his misbehaving busy body before it got to this but that would be "leadership".

Motion fails 5-3 (six votes required)
________________________

Results
  1. Wu - Mayor but Flip Flopped to Citizens (even gave his impassioned statement exactly as I stated)
  2. Myers - Citizens
  3. Terhaar - Mayor
  4. Johnson - Mayor
  5. Wingate - Citizens
  6. Spencer - Citizens
  7. Cannada-Wynn - Citizens
  8. Bare - Citizens
It is on the agenda.


1 comment:

CJ Lewis said...

From Hayward's standpoint, it's probably better to force the issue to a head on Thursday and be done with it. He and Olson can skip the meeting and let Barker play the role of Acting Mayor. There is no "Upside" to dragging this out.

Under the City Council Rules and Procedures, the motion on the floor today is not to approve a vote of No Confidence but only to add Bare's item to Thursday's regular agenda, "The only action to be taken at an Agenda Conference is the determination of whether those members in attendance believe that sufficient information has been provided in the Agenda Package for the Council to at least begin consideration of an item at the next regular meeting."

If you read the rules carefully, the only criteria Council members may consider in voting for or against adding a new item is if they have sufficient information as described above. However, anyone who votes NO has been living in a bubble. That vote needs to be a supermajority of the entire Council, six votes. As a serious inconsistency in the rules, it only takes "[a] majority of the members present at the agenda conference" to "approve the final agenda to be presented to Council at the next regular meeting. The vote requirements should be based on the number of Council members present or the total size of the Council but not one measure used in one case and another in another case.

Section 2.06 and Section 2.08 need to be reconciled. Under the current rules, if there are only five Council members present, "Add-On" Items cannot even be considered because you need a minimum of six people present to vote YES. This seems even more proof that Council President Lila Cox had no idea what she was doing and no one even checked to ensure that the rules were internally consistent.

The "fall back plan" is that Bare can put the item on the September agenda, dragging it out another month in the media, or any three Council members can at any time call for a special meeting to consider Bare's item. All they have to do is notify the City Clerk. They could do so today during the Agenda Conference, anytime in the next few days or even during the "New Business" segment of Thursday's meeting. The special meeting could be held on Thursday before the regular meeting.