RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Another update on the City Council postponement announced earlier this evening … the meeting has now been rescheduled immediately for tomorrow, January 13th at 5:00pm. It sounds like the entire purpose of this special meeting is to consider nominations for the two vacant City Council seats.
Anyone planning on attending? Or tuning in from home?
I have insider information that her pick had something to do with Andy Samberg.
The ABC6 newscast covered part of Tyson and Tavares’ 10am news conference. Carole Luper was covering the story “LIVE – DOWNTOWN COLUMBUS”.
Here are two interesting quotes from the news conference:
Tyson: “And until we come up with a process that is not meant to be divisive and we can hear the qualifications of the applicants… then I don’t know if there will be a vote this evening.”
Tavares: “I don’t think we should revert to old-school politics and ramming through a decision based on what’s in the best interest of some and not the city.”
Well, sounds pretty clear to me:
[quote]Tyson and Tavares said they each were considering as many as eight people for appointment to the seats when they learned that Council President Michael C. Mentel and council members Hearcel F. Craig and Andrew Ginther all favored the same two candidates.[/quote]
http://dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/01/13/appoint.html?sid=101
I hope Tavares overplays her hand foolishly enough that her assfoolery gets the exposure it deserves.
whatever dude…score one for the smoke filled room and Stalinism.
/insert crazy rant to oppose whatever is being discussed and talk about public access television instead.
nice…I miss ACTV 21 and the goofy/wonderful public access shows….Angsto the Clown was way over the top…Damon Zex is still boring, and who was the goofy smoking kid and his tales of following Watershed around….enjoyed many of the local public affairs programs…..too bad the city is scared to bring it back, because it doesn’t have the lawyers or intellect to be able to keep soft porn and hate speech of the tube.
Smoke filled rooms – maybe.
Stalinism? C’mon
power politics baby…an argument ad absurdeum sure, but this is the interwebs.
Come on now lazy, it was a good enough process for Tyson when she was appointed…it was a good enough process for Tavares when she was appointed…the only reason it’s not a good enough process now is because they aren’t getting who they want.
p.s. Ask yourself if you really believe they’d be holding this press conference or launching these objections about the process if they were getting the nominees they supported confirmed.
The most interesting line in the article Core cited was the last: Tyson and Tavares believes it takes four votes to confirm an appointment (in other words, together, they have veto power). I’m wondering why they believe that; is there actually a city charter provision or ordinance about this? I’d think there’d have to be something written somewhere.
Have there ever been 3-2 appointments?
Instead of holding that press conference, Tavares and Tyson should have addressed these issues in last night’s meeting. Oh wait, they both cancelled.
The Dispatch article said the council believes that they need four votes to confirm. Isn’t that something that should be known? Or are three votes enough with only five council members seated?
My gut instinct tells me that you need a majority of those present and voting. Ergo, four votes to fill one vacancy (because a 3-3 tie isn’t a majority), but three to fill two. Otherwise, if by some act of God or fate there were three council vacancies open at once, all three would have to be filled 4-0. If there were four vacancies, it would be physically impossible to fill any of them.
Funny thought: If they can’t confirm two people at once, they might technically have to appoint one person first with three votes to bring the council roster to six, and then fill the second position with four votes on the new six-member council. I doubt it actually works like that, though.
Actually, it’s more interesting than that.
If a City council member should die, resign, or be removed from office during the term of office, the successor shall be appointed by Council to serve until the first day of January following the next regular municipal election. If such election be the time for the regular election of the council member, a council member shall then be elected to serve for a term of four years; otherwise, for the unexpired term. Vacancies in the council shall be filled by the council; provided, however, that, if the vacancies in the council are not filled by the council within thirty (30) days from the date following the occurrence of such vacancy, the mayor shall have in all future balloting a vote on the question of filling such vacancies; provided, further that any vacancy resulting from a recall election shall be filled in the manner hereinafter provided.
Four is a quorum. The Code doesn’t say anything about how Council decides to fill vacancies, just that it does.
Unfortunately, we have lost the two Council members who most saw the whole City as their consituency. The two members who have the most narrow view of who they represent want stack things their way. This is the worst possible time to have a Council like that.
A.
So, while 4 members are a quorum for purposes of confirming a Council Member, if Tavares and Tyson stonewall for 30 days…the mayor becomes the 4th member of the quorum.
Four members is a quorum for anything.
That is what it looks like. Which is why I suspect that what T&T are doing is grandstanding with an eye towards votes down the road. Just what we really, really need.
A.
right, but specifically in the case of vacancies, if they DON’T reach a quorum within 30 days…the mayor becomes 6th vote, and frankly I am pretty optimistic about who he’d be voting with ;)
Yep.
I think they should alter the Charter and let MaryEllen serve.
A.