|
Who can stay and who should go |
|
|
Thursday, 31 January 2008 |
|
By Ken Koerner
Register Staff 1-29-2008
A sense of deja vu may have felt inevitable during the City Council meeting on Jan. 14. Consecutive items on the agenda dealt with two separate, though quite similar, Public Works proj ects.
The first of those agenda items dealt with the South Second Street Improvement Project (details reported in the Inyo-Register, Jan. 22). The very next item before the council involved Road Improvements Project A.
Beyond talk of pavement, gutters, and taking out and planting trees, there was something else rather unique these two agenda items shared in common. Who could stay and who should go …
Mirroring a circumstance encountered when two council members had to leave the chambers during consideration of the South Second Street Improvement Project, the Council was again advised by City Attorney Peter Tracy that there were members that “either lived within 500 feet of the proposed projects’ location or held a financial interest in a property within that range.”
However, in this instance it was now three of the five council members that were included within that limitation. In order to maintain compliance with the California Fair Politics Guidelines, Tracy advised Council members Bruce Dishion and Mayor Frank Crom – both of whom had to remove themselves from the council chambers during the prior agenda item’s proceedings – and Councilwoman Susan Cullen, would not be allowed to participate to ensure there could be “no potential for a conflict of interest.”
This increased number of officials “having to go” added another complication to the procedure, advised Tracy, as there would then be “an insufficient number of seated members to allow for a sufficient number of members being present under other guidelines to conduct further business in this matter.”
Tracy advised members further that, foreseeing such a situation might occur in some instances, the California Fair Politics Guidelines had a remedy that must now be followed … the three “excluded” members, explained Tracy, would “have their names written on slips of paper and those pieces of paper will be placed in a cup, and one name will then be drawn from the cup by the council’s clerk.” The member whose name was pulled from the cup, Tracy said, “would then no longer be disqualified and would be allowed to return to the chamber in order to officially participate in any action taken on this item.”
Having been so instructed the three council members removed themselves from the chamber and Clerk Denise Gillespie pulled a name from the cup. That being accomplished, Councilwoman Cullen was notified her name had been drawn and she returned to “official status” in the chamber.
Since there were no public comments being offered in the chamber, a motion was then made to approve the “negative environmental declaration” for Road Improvement Project A, a vote was taken and the agenda item was finally approved.
With that matter of business having been concluded, Mayor Crom and Councilman Dishion returned to the chamber and the wheels of government rolled on down the road toward the next agenda item.
All of the council members present were allowed to then remain in their seats and participate in the rest of the evening’s business.
|
|
Last Updated ( Saturday, 08 March 2008 )
|
