Maybe it’s just me, but this Theo article from today, on clamping down on Communications to Council, seems a far cry from this Communique item from 2004, on establishing Conversations with Council.
Meanwhile, doesn’t the Mayor’s refusal to permit the pulling of all items on the Consent Agenda into the Regular Agenda (as reported in the article), in fact violate the provision of City Code — “[a]n item designated for the Consent Agenda may be removed from the Consent Agenda by a Council member or any individual prior to Council vote on the Consent Agenda” — which governs the Consent Agenda?
Addendum: If someone were to press the latter issue, I’d predict one of two outcomes.
Either someone will produce documents drafted under the Auditor’s authority which contradict, rather than implement, the relative portion of City Code.
Or, the City Attorney would issue an opinion which (in a “it depends what the definition of ‘is’ is” sort of way) defends the Mayor’s action, because, generally speaking, the City Attorney almost never sides with a citizen in Council Chambers against the desires of Council.
