The first bit of tension to be to be touched upon was the legal question surrounding Mrs Panto's appointment/reappointment to the Charter-made Council seat. We were taken all the way to the end of the table for the ruling. Now keep in mind that the appearance of familiarity; the appearance of a conflict; or the appearance of collusion are not against the rules or the law-- so they may not (of course) be key considerations as we make decisions. And they weren't... Furthermore, any talk of such nonsense will be duly ignored. Mrs Panto's appointment was cleared by the Assistant Solicitor (you see for this ruling the "Solicitor" was too close to the Mayor).
I feel so stupid.
Later in the meeting Roger Ruggles was appointed to Councilman Dan Corpora's vacated seat. There was angst and controversy surrounding the procedure used there to. Mind you, all of the protest, angst, and controversy was sponsored by the same group of advocates/trouble makers (depends on your vantage point).
Now, we could have appointed both Mrs Panto and Mr Ruggles with the very minimum discomfort with just the tiniest bit of thought.
First; the procedures and steps to fill the vacancies should have been posted and made available for everyone's review shortly after the elections.
Second; the charter transition committee should have been convened to go over the FIFTY ONE PAGES of the charter, and address the transition issues like 2.05 (c).
Third; Roger Ruggles should have been voted into the Charter-made position.
Fourth; Pam Panto should have been voted through the vacancy Dan Corpora created.
Yes, there would have still been grumbling over Mr and Mrs Panto serving together, but there would be far fewer elephants in the room.
City Grade for the period of 01/02/08 through 01/09/08
Audio (1 hour 27 minutes 10Mb)