Rabid Screw Job for the Public *UPDATE*

UPDATE #2: The plot thickens. Within the commissioner packet that each Commissioner gets in advance of next week's meeting, are the minutes (pp. 15 & 31) from the last two meetings, ready for approval.

Click the image below to see how the $2 PUB TAX vote of 7/3/07 is currently recorded therein for all posterity:

It's recorded as FAILED.
Despite the erroneous assumptions of our esteemed Mayor and his cheering section.

This is a big, big screw-up on the part of the City Attorney, too. And if folks want to tell us that the commission was only following legal counsel... fine, we can buy that (to a point).

But here's a little problem with Ahumada. That little provision in Section 14, of Article V of the City Charter? You know, the one that raises the bar for affirmative votes in passing motions? Well, that's based on an ordinance (Prop #7) which passed by public proposition vote in November of 1993. One big guess who was Mayor and presided over presenting these props to the citizens way back then?

You got it.

-.-

UPDATE #1: Next week's agenda is now posted. Item #16 has Commissioner Camarillo calling for a recission of the above $2 tax. One wonders how difficult that is going to be since it never really passed in the first place. Also of slight interest, an evaluation of the City Attorney is scheduled for the executive session.

-.-

ORIGINAL POST: Sometimes a pic says it all.

If these last two meetings of the City Commission aren't classified as clusterf*cks, I don't know what is.

Case in point, the $3 mandatory $3 voluntary $2 mandatory tax (Item #14) (that's right TAX) that allegedly (that's right ALLEGEDLY) passed after over an hour(!) of fruitless deliberation.

Why ALLEGEDLY? Because according to Section 12, Article V of the City Charter:

"the affirmative vote of a majority of such quorum present shall be necessary to approve of any matter."

We got 3 ayes, 2 nays, & 2 abstentions. Where's the majority? (No, not "supermajority" as two commissioners suggest).

Still not convinced? Then check out how Robert's Rules of Order defines "quorum":

"The quorum refers to the number present, not to the number voting. The quorum of a mass meeting is the number present at the time, as they constitute the membership at that time."

Key words are "number present". Despite yet another legal mis-interpretation from legal counsel, this ordinance is a dud. The tax-happy, bleeding hearts of Ahumada & crew will have to re-submit this on next week's agenda. Here's hoping abstaining commissioners stay the course at worst, or vote "nay" at best.