vibinc

In yesterday’s Executive Session of the Memphis City Council (audio link) the resolution establishing a Charter Commission was discussed. For those of you following along, the Shelby Co. Commission approved the resolution on Monday by a vote of 9-2 with one abstention.

The City Council decided to hold the resolution until their meeting on September 15th so that some of the concerns of the members could be addressed. I’ll have more on what those concerns were specifically, but the issue that seemed to get the most play was the charge that too many decisions had been predetermined and that this means the process hasn’t been transparent.

To be fair, I didn’t go to any of the listening tour meetings, and apparently, neither did many of our City Council members. I wasn’t involved in the drafting of the resolution, though I have read it and researched the law it references. For that matter, I haven’t paid much attention to the website that Mayor Wharton has had up since March (possibly earlier) on the subject. But just because I either wasn’t or haven’t been involved in many of the structural steps to bring this resolution forward, doesn’t mean that the process hasn’t been transparent. It means that up until recently, I haven’t been paying attention.

There seems to be a persistent belief in this community that if even one person feels they are excluded from the process, that the process has been somehow opaque. This is simply not the case.

So far, there are three, AND ONLY THREE THINGS that have happened with the concept of a Metro Government in Shelby Co.

1. There has been a listening tour attended by, including 15 Town Hall meetings across the County.
2. A resolution to establish a Metro Charter Commission has been drafted for the County Commission and adopted.
3. A nearly identical resolution has been drafted and introduced to the Memphis City Council.

That’s all.

The provisions used in the resolution are consistent with the Metropolitan Government section of the Tennessee Code. This section sets the groundwork for such an endeavor.

The decisions on how, within the limits of Tennessee Law, the Charter Commission will be set up is up to the drafter of the resolution, but since this resolution had to pass BOTH the City and County government, of course there had to be a decision made on many things including appointed versus elected charter members.

That’s not opacity, that’s part of the process of drafting a resolution binding two governments into a Metro Charter Commission and being mindful of all the circumstances surrounding the process, including the date upon which to hold the election.

At the end of the day, this process has been as transparent up to now as possible. Charges that it hasn’t are simply not true. Knowing that something is happening but making a choice to either not participate, or educate yourself on the issues is not a lack of transparency, it’s a lack of intellectual curiosity. The process shouldn’t be blamed for that, but it certainly is good cover for those who chose not to participate.

I probably shouldn’t gloat, but apparently I was right about at least one thing. From the Memphis Daily News:

But Halbert told reporters Thursday that it was an inquiry on whether or not Lowery could vote to set a special election date in July since Lowery stood to become acting mayor. She and several other council members said it might be a conflict of interest.

“While I personally may not have classified my inquiry as an investigation, I noted, it very well may have been just that to the legal department,” Halbert wrote in an email the day after Jefferson made his claim in court. Jefferson refused to say what his investigation is about on the advice of his attorney, Ricky E. Wilkins.

Halbert may have a “bugaboo about ethical conduct” as Bob suggests in the comments of yesterday’s post, but she wouldn’t know an ethical dilemma if it stood beside her and offered to buy her lunch.

Lowery’s right in the MDN article, it was his “responsibility” to vote on the matter. That Lowery and Halbert were on opposing sides of the issue has NOTHING to do with the ethical nature of his vote, or ability to vote. That we’re still debating his prior ability to vote on a Council matter says a lot about the people who are working to undermine him.

In the meantime, City Attorney Elbert Jefferson, as the “chief ethical officer” of the city, is asserting his “privilege” over the very Executive he serves. That’s an interesting proposition. Of course, there’s a lot about this whole business with Jefferson that’s interesting.

First of all, in the lawsuit against Lowery, Jefferson sued Lowery personally, not in his capacity as Mayor. Why? Because Ricky Wilkins, Jefferson’s Attorney, works for the city too, and could not sue the executive he serves. That’s a conflict of interest. Also, Jefferson probably wanted to delegitimize Lowery, the Mayor, in the process. Personally, I think the judge should have thrown the damn thing out saying that Lowery, the man, hadn’t done ANYTHING to Jefferson, and that if Jefferson had a gripe, he needed to sue the City.

That’s not what happened. The judge ruled that the Mayor could not dismiss a Director without Council approval, which he conceded at the City Council meeting on Tuesday. We knew this. Why didn’t Lowery just concede defeat and move on? Because Jefferson is also seeking monetary damages against Lowery, the man, not the office of Mayor.

Then there’s the whole ethics thing. The article talks about the Ethics Commission, which DOES NOT EXIST in any tangible way. From the article

But the city’s ethics commission has never been established. Its members have yet to be selected because city council members have had difficulty finding one member who is a retired jurist, one of the requirements for the commission.

So in the absence of an “Ethics Commission”, how does the “Chief Ethical Officer” address ethical concerns independently? Does he even address them independently, or can he use his position as a personal political witch-hunt for whatever purpose he deems necessary? One would think an independent council that required City Council approval would be the least biased way to address concerns, in the absence of a Commision. Who knows?

Nobody does. Not one single freakin’ person I’ve talked to knows shit about anything. The Ethics rules adopted are a start, but without the Commission, what does it matter? If the City Attorney is the “Chief Ethical Officer”, who does he report to? A mythical commission? Leprechauns? Unicorns? Ed. Note: This Morning’s CA reports that Jefferson is sending the ethics matters to outside legal Counsel.

The charter is vague on a lot of things, but one thing that is crystal clear is that the Mayor, whomever that is, appoints division heads with the consent of the City Council as affirmed by Judge Evans’ decision.

Sec. 35. Chief executive officer; appointment and supervision of all divisions, boards, employees and city officers; to devote entire time to office.
The Chief Executive Officer of the City of Memphis shall be the mayor, who shall be vested with and exercise the executive and administrative power of the City, shall be authorized to administer, supervise and control all divisions, boards, agencies, offices and employees of the City and shall see that the ordinances and provisions of the Charter are observed, except as otherwise specifically provided. Such administration shall be conducted by and through divisional directors under the supervision and control of the mayor, as provided herein. He shall devote his entire time and attention to the duties of his office.

Subject to provisions of the Charter including civil service regulations thereof, and ordinances, the Mayor shall appoint and when he deems it necessary for the good of the people, may suspend or remove any employees of the City of Memphis, including any appointive officers or department heads provided for by or under the Charter. The Mayor may delegate to any appointive administrative officer the power to appoint, suspend or remove subordinates in that officer’s division, department, office or agency subject to such conditions and limitations as he may prescribe.

The Mayor shall appoint the members of all boards and commissions, said appointments to be made with the approval of a majority of the Council; the removal of all members of boards and commissions shall be effected in the same manner and subject to the same procedures provided for directors. Members of Boards and Commissions shall continue in office until their successors have been appointed and approved.

That said, some reports have noted that Evans instructed the Lowery, the man (because remember, neither the Mayor NOR the City was being sued) that Jefferson couldn’t be suspended without “a serious infraction or incident.”, which is clearly contrary to the section listed above (though the CA report says state law has supremacy here).

So what’s the solution? Lowery has to get enough votes on the Council to get rid of Jefferson, which is about as likely as me winning the lottery and moving to a tropical island with a bunch of hot models or something. Or he can drop it, and let the next Mayor deal with it. If he does that, he needs to be ready to do nothing more than cut ribbons, because there’s no way in hell he’ll bridge the gap to win the election.

So what’s this all about? Money probably, power likely, but I can’t prove either. Money starts wars and fights and lawsuits, so it stands to reason that it would be, at the very least, part of the reason. Power is one of those things that everyone wants, or thinks they have until they find out they don’t.

In short, this shit is dirty, one way or the other, and Myron Lowery isn’t the one suffering (though he might disagree on that point), but the citizens of Memphis and the office of Mayor, who Jefferson is SUPPOSED to serve. What is his agenda? How many more agendas will emerge?

We’ve got 70 days before the election to find out.

Yesterday, in the Commercial Appeal’s Eye on Memphis blog former City Council member and possible Mayoral candidate Edmund Ford Sr. was quoted saying,“People are very tired in this city.”…”You know why?” he said. “Everything that’s happening, people think that people are asleep right now but they’re watching. Hey, they’re sitting and watching everything.”

I think Ford’s right, people are tired, but they’re watching with a weary eye toward both the Mayor Pro Tem’s office and the City Council.

It’s not because either has necessarily done anything specific to warrant this feeling, but the cumulative effect of a contentious few months, including a transition at the executive level for the first time in 18 years. People here aren’t practiced in accepting new leadership, particularly when that leadership may only last 90 days. Now Memphians are being asked to accept as many as three possible transitions over the next 3 years…one now, another one is likely in 90 days, and the possibility of third in 2011. That’s a lot of potential change for a city that hasn’t had much of any in nearly a generation.

Early Missteps

Myron Lowery’s tenure in the 7th story office of the Mayor may only be in its infancy, but already people are questioning his judgment. This should come as no surprise, since Herenton basically set up these questions himself with his July 6th letter changing his date of retirement, and his public statements charging that Lowery was putting the cart before the horse.

In all honesty, Lowery hasn’t been very politically astute in some of his early actions. From his calls early last month for a shake-up at City Hall, to his fumbling of the removal of City Attorney Elbert Jefferson, Lowery has put himself in an unnecessarily adversarial position to at least six members of the council. This is exacerbated partially because of his role as the swing vote in the vacancy resolution, and through his moves that some argue, are designed to subvert Council action on the issue of the City Attorney.

The truth of the matter is that there are only 11 votes in play for the City Attorney issue. Strickland must recuse himself due to pending litigation. That means that it takes 6 votes on the Council to remove Jefferson. Only 5 are a sure thing. Lowery’s decision to roll the vote until August 18th, gives him time to either let the court decide, or build a case against Jefferson. That case, if strong enough, could shift that sixth vote to his side.

Residency Questions

Lowery didn’t help his cause ANY by announcing Jefferson’s replacement would be a person that doesn’t live in Memphis. Because of the City’s residency requirement, all city employees are required to live within the city limits. New hires, that are not temporary employees, have six months to establish residency. This is a problem because Lowery’s tenure may only last 3 months. By appointing someone that lives outside the City limits, Lowery has opened the door to be treated, and have his appointments treated as temporary. Division Directors, like the City Attorney, are not temporary employees, whose offices are authorized through the charter as that serve at the pleasure of the Mayor with approval from the Council.

The Chief Executive Officer of the City of Memphis shall be the mayor, who shall be vested with and exercise the executive and administrative power of the City, shall be authorized to administer, supervise and control all divisions, boards, agencies, offices and employees of the City and shall see that the ordinances and provisions of the Charter are observed, except as otherwise specifically provided. Such administration shall be conducted by and through divisional directors under the supervision and control of the mayor, as provided herein. He shall devote his entire time and attention to the duties of his office. (Section 35 of Memphis Charter)

Despite the potential temporary nature of Lowery’s tenure as Mayor, he is, by all accounts, still the Mayor, and has all the rights and responsibilities of the Mayor at his disposal. The argument, fronted by Council members Halbert and Ware, that the 6 month provision somehow doesn’t apply to Mayor Lowery because his tenure won’t last that long, is a stretch. The residency requirement says nothing about the length of the appointment having any bearing on the hire.

Failure of any officer or employee to comply with the provisions of this section shall be cause for removal or discharge from city employment. New employees shall be allowed six (6) months after the date they are hired or appointed to comply with this section. (Section 190 Memphis Charter)

The residency requirement doesn’t stop members like Ware and Halbert from voting against an appointee. That’s well within their prerogative, but it also doesn’t stop the Mayor, regardless of the amount of time left in his term, from putting forth whomever he wishes for the City Council to approve, residency or not.

Council Connundrum

I’ve already touched on this, but now that the City Council is set in a six/six split, the appointment of Division Directors and the movement of city business is likely to be stuck in a deadlock for the entire tenure of Mayor Lowery. This scenario is difficult for the city going forward. Even though there were only two no votes for the appointment of former Council member Jack Sammons as CAO, any other appointments, or potential replacements of Division Directors will likely be held up by the Council unless a consensus choice, like Sammons, is brought before the Council.

From a political perspective, this can be a plus or a minus for the Lowery Administration. Clearly the city is ready to move forward. Those who would oppose that forward movement can be looked upon as obstructionists. But that assumes that Lowery can muster the same kind of media attention and perception of authority that Herenton demanded.

There is no question that, under a Herenton Administration, a move like the one Lowery made in regard to Jefferson, would have been accompanied with a full menu of the powers of the executive, and dire warnings to the Council if they were to somehow undermine or question his authority. Lowery is hamstrung by the potential temporary nature of his tenure, and the general belief that he will not win the Mayor’s office. Under this circumstance, Lowery has two options, try to build consensus, or play the role of a reformer being held hostage by Herenton loyalists on the Council. I don’t know which role Lowery is most suited for, but certainly he needs to make that choice soon and follow through COMPLETELY with whichever strategy he believes he can accomplish, lest he lose the confidence of his supporters and the city at large.

Election Set

Yesterday, the Shelby Co. Election Commission set the date for the special election. This election will be for the City Mayor, and State Sen. Dist. 31, which was left vacant after the resignation of Paul Stanley (R-KISS), following his intern debacle. The election will be held October 15th with a qualifying deadline on September 3rd and withdrawals by the 10th. This makes the election two weeks sooner than originally scheduled.

Moving the election up doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me, but I haven’t had the opportunity to talk to anyone at the Election Commission yet, so, until then I’ll withhold judgment. What hasn’t been reported on is if this will be a primary election for this seat. I assume it will be a primary, since there’s no time for one between now and then, which means that ANOTHER election will have to be held for Sen. Dist. 31, which covers Bartlett, Cordova, Germantown, and 20 precincts in Memphis.

Assuming that this is a primary election for State Sen. 31, then that could shift who participates in the 20 precincts here in Memphis.

There are already three Republicans vying for the Senate seat; Rep. Brian Kelsey (R-83), Rep. Steve McManus (R-96), and Shelby Co. School Board Chair, David Pickler. This contest, particularly with the entrance of the controversial Kelsey into the race, could activate a large number of Republican primary voters. How this will play out in the 20 Memphis precincts that are represented by Dist. 31 is somewhat unknown. In the 2006 general, the Democratic candidate carried those 20 precincts by 1100 votes out of 15,000 cast. However, assuming there is no contest in the Democratic Primary, or possibly no candidate, this could elevate Republican participation, effectively deciding the seat without a general, which could tip the balance in the Mayor’s race.

It’s a stretch, I know, but should someone like Conrad enter the race, particularly with the presence of a dozen candidates on the Mayor’s ballot, inflated Republican turnout in these 20 districts could turn the tide. In the end, it will probably just help County Mayor AC Wharton.

Which is where I’m going to end this post, because, barring a sex scandal, or credible allegations of something hugely untoward, AC Wharton will be the next Mayor of Memphis. He has all of the elements of a successful campaign in place; money, people and time. He’s been running since the day after the 2007 election, he’s got a huge war chest, and he’s had people out working for him since Chism’s picnic, just days before Herenton announced his original resignation date.

No one else is that prepared, no one else was even in the starting blocks. So while I generally agree with LWC’s analysis of the race, reality is reality, and until someone steps up, it’s his to lose.

UPDATE 2: The Memphis Daily News is reporting that Mayor Herenton is already packing boxes to vacate the Office of Mayor.

UPDATE: As luck would have it, something more popped up while I was writing the post. Apparently an Election Commissioner, Brian J. Stephens, feels that scheduling a special election based on “hearsay, rumor and conjecture” is premature (Councilwoman Swearengen Ware’s word of the day yesterday). Here’s the article at the Commercial Appeal.

As has been reported by every media outlet in the area, the Memphis City Council approved a resolution (pdf) to accept the resignation of Mayor Herenton last night. The problem? He rescinded his resignation BEFORE the Council action. There will, no doubt, be litigation to follow.

I live tweeted the Executive Session (audio), and the Council Meeting (audio starts about 7 min into meeting) yesterday. Folks, it was a barnburner.

The four-hour marathon meeting was punctuated by misunderstandings, snarky comments, legal opinions and probably, a lot of hurt feelings.

I’m going to try to distill the arguments presented, without getting into the normal personalities that dominate city business. I have some opinions, but I’ll wait until after the analysis before I get into those.

What caused the firestorm was a series of letters that; initiated the original resignation process, delayed the official date of resignation, then a third that came just hours after the second rescinding all resignations (pdf). The basis of the debate hinged on whether or not the Mayor could rescind his resignation and whether a verbally expressed intent to resign/retire was legally binding.

According to the testimony from attorneys Wade and Jefferson, it is within the prerogative of an individual to alter or rescind a resignation before that resignation is accepted. What clouds this issue is that the Mayor has expressed verbally that he intends to retire/resign on July 30. This verbally expressed intent was the crux of the arguments presented by many of those who voted for the resolution to accept the resignation.

Many on the minority side of the resolution vote felt that the Mayor should have the right to change that date regardless of any verbally expressed intent or a letter of resignation. Their argument hinged on the reality that the Mayor was elected for a four-year term, and that he had the right to delay his resignation until the end of that term if he so desired. Their argument also seemed to state that until the Mayor actually vacated the office, there was no vacancy.

This is, to my understanding, only partially correct. It is the opinion of both Jefferson and Wade that any resignation is not binding until the Council as a whole approves it. Because the Council had not accepted either the original resignation, or the delay before both were rescinded, there is some question as to whether any resolution to accept the resignation would be binding. Further, there is a great deal of question as to whether a verbally expressed intent would hold up in court should it be litigated.

In any case, 7 members of the 13 member body voted to approve the resolution (pdf). After the resolution was approved it was requested that the minutes of this resolution be approved immediately. This would effectively make the resolution binding even though there is no written resignation. This failed after Boyd changed his vote from yea to nay.

In the end, this was probably the best thing the council could have done under the circumstances. By not approving the minutes, the council left themselves some wiggle room, should the Mayor provide in writing, another letter of resignation with a date other than July 30 between now and their July 21 meeting. At that time the council could amend the minutes of their meeting last night to reflect the new date and the resolution would be legally binding officially noting a vacancy in the Mayor’s office by the date of any written resignation notice that may appear.

The biggest question is, if the Mayor provides no written resignation with a date certain, will the resolution that passed last night be legally enforceable? Hopefully we won’t have to find that out. Hopefully, the Mayor will deliver another letter of resignation, listing July 30th as his “date certain” and the minutes can be approved and all the pain and suffering and bickering will be settled.

I feel confident that this will not happen.

This is where the opinion comes into the post. It is my strong belief that the Mayor will not send any letter of resignation to the Council until AFTER the minutes are approved. This letter of resignation will have ANY DATE other than July 30th on it, just to press the issue.

What’s happening here, and I think some on the council may see it, is that the Mayor is playing with the emotions on the council like a cat plays with, and eventually kills a mouse.

Every provocative move the council, or its members make elicits another swat from the Mayor. From Lowery’s over eagerness to Strickland’s exploratory committee, it all prompts another action from the Mayor.

Think about the Mayor’s most recent statements about how he expects to be respected. Any slight, anything that would diminish the Mayor’s perception of his power as Mayor is seen as a sign of disrespect, from the reaction to the problems at MSARC to AC Wharton’s potential bid for City Mayor back in 2007. All of it, every single bit is designed to reassert that power to maintain that perception.

With all this in mind, the Council, as the mouse in my analogy, would do well to get back into their mouse hole and sit this out until the cat leaves. I’m not saying the Council should not act if the opportunity presents itself. I’m saying the Council should be more measured in it’s actions, working to diminish any perceived provocation, until such time as the Mayor deems he is being respected, tenders his resignation in writing, and the Council has the opportunity to then vote, and approve the minutes of that vote in one fell swoop.

I’m not saying it’s rational, I’m just saying it’s reality as I see it.

I think everyone on the Council, even the ones who don’t seem to have a freakin’ clue as to what’s going on other than a purely emotional response, are trying to do what’s right for the city. I don’t think the Mayor is. As Councilman Collins said last night in regard to another issue, there is such a thing as “too much help”, and right now the Council is trying to help the Mayor out the door too much.

If 7 members of the Council want the Mayor gone, they would do well to allow him to leave. Pressing the issue has always resulted in more pain than necessary. Stop allowing yourselves, as a body to get played by the Mayor. Let him get out the door, then you can kick him if you want. At that point there’ll be nothing he can do about it.

If you’re not tired you’re not paying attention.

Yesterday, Mayor Herenton issued a statement announcing his intention to delay his retirement until July 30th

As the CA reports, and the letter notes, there are, in Mayor Herenton’s mind “important city business matters”, “contractual matters” and, get this, a “friendly lawsuit”. Funny, these things didn’t seem to be an issue when Herenton issued his original resignation. What could have gone wrong? What could have happened?

Yeah, yeah, yeah…It really doesn’t matter because this is where we are now, and while the City Council may have some card up it’s sleeve that I don’t know (like maybe telling the Mayor that they still accept his original resignation and any alterations just aren’t gonna happen) we’re in for an ugly time until after the Mayor vacates the office…if and when he actually does.

While many may call the Mayor’s rejiggering of his resignation the height of political posturing, there is one issue raised by the Mayor that is kind of important. Succession and what happens to what when and where.

Last year when the Mayor put in his resignation which coincidentally was to occur on July 31, 2008, Scott McCormick was the Chair of the City Council and set to take on the duties of Mayor. However, this was under the OLD Charter rules, meaning McCormick would have only served for 20 days, and then been replaced by a person of the City Council’s choosing, or the City CAO, Keith McGee if they could not decide.

Ahh, but that was before the adoption of Charter Amendment 6 last November.

I supported this amendment, because I felt that it was more important for someone that had been elected to SOMETHING to serve as Mayor for the 3-6 months until the next election, than the possibility of having someone who had NEVER BEEN ELECTED TO ANYTHING, serve in the post for as many as 3½ years, depending on the circumstances.

Something I admittedly didn’t think about was the potential conflict of interest for the Council Chairman serving, potentially, in both an executive and legislative role in the event of a Mayoral vacancy.

Herenton is right to bring up this question in his letter.

In times like this I turn to history. Since I haven’t lived here all that long, I’m short on history, so I turn to friends who were. Thankfully, my good friend LWC answered my question in an email:

Oh boy. OK, as I remember, when Wyeth Chandler resigned to take a judgeship in 1982, the Old Charter applied, with Chair JO Patterson serving for 20 days, and then followed by CAO Wallace Madewell.

However, local attorney (and then-campaign manager for 7th District Democratic Congressional candidate Bob Clement) Dan Norwood filed a lawsuit saying that the citizenry would not be served by allowing Madewell to serve until the 1983 City elections.

The court agreed, and forced a special election that coincided with the 1982 November general elections. However, at that time, the 7th District came into the city all the way to freaking MENDENHALL, so the prospect of a black mayor (Patterson, playing the role of Myron Lowery, was up against Dick Hackett and Mike Cody) scared all the East Memphis voters into turning out in record numbers, which in turn sunk the campaign of Clement, and elected Don Sundquist to the 7th District seat. There would be a runoff between Patterson and County Clerk Dick Hackett (this was pre-decree), and Hackett would win, and serve until losing by 137 votes to WWH in 1991.

It would seem, assuming that this account is correct, that the current Charter deals with the problem of “unelected successors” quite well, giving people time to campaign (90-180 days depending). Further, Patterson didn’t have to vacate the seat.

Ahh, but that’s the NEW problem. Before it was just 20 days. Not that big of a deal compared to 90-180.

It seems that City Council Attorney Allan Wade shed some light on this subject today.

In the 6 page opinion Wade deals with a variety of issues, but of most pressing interest, the executive/legislative issue for the “Mayor Pro-Tem” who is the current Council Chair and whether the Council seat held by Mayor Pro-Tem Lowery would be considered vacant. First the vacancy issue:

Ed Note: This document was scanned into a PDF format. I am using screen captures because the text is not selectable.

The argument presented is pretty compelling. Because the Charter dictates that Lowery is to be the “temporary Mayor” for 90-180 days, his seat is not vacant under the rules set forth to define a vacancy. It is clearly an “excused absence”. This goes back to the original “Home Rule” and the more recent 6th amendment to the charter that was adopted last November.

The second issue is a bit more dicey. Even though it is somewhat covered in the prior section, this section gives us even more details as to whether the “Mayor Pro-Tem” can serve in both a legislative and executive capacity.

So, if we take these two opinions at face value, the “Mayor Pro-Tem” is not required to vacate, the conditions of service do not create a vacancy, BUT in serving as the head of the executive, the “Mayor Pro-Tem” would not be able to also serve as a member of the Council.

Now admittedly, this is but one opinion, but it seems reasonable…at least until someone gives me good reason to find otherwise. The arguments are laid out well, and address nearly all of the concerns in Mayor Herenton’s letter. I’m satisfied with this as an explination, but I’ll be happy to read and comment on any dissenting opinions that may be put forth by a legal professional.

This still creates the reality that for at least 90 days the voters of the 8th district will be without one member on the Council. There is no remedy that I’m aware of to deal with this in the Charter. There may need to be a remedy, but as we are seeing with the last amendment, the law of unintended consequences is at play here, and would likely be in play in any future effort to clarify the charter that doesn’t include a “vice-Mayor” or some other elected member of the executive that maintains succession through the executive branch of government.

Ultimately, it’s only Tuesday. The Council meets tonight, and there will likely be a great deal of discussion and hand wringing. I’ll be listening on the web. You can too by clicking here. The Executive Session is scheduled at 2pm, the regular meeting is scheduled at 3:30. The agenda looks light, but I bet it’ll be a hot one!