Last night was an interesting meeting as the Common Council declined to reconsider the vote on the Parade Ordinance that was taken in May.
If you recall, I asked the Council to revisit the issue at this months meeting because I had voted on the underlying motions and those votes were not allowed under our City Charter.
Having said that, there are two ways in which a vote that is improperly cast can be changed after the vote is taken.
1. Challenge the vote at the meeting. If you remember, a Councilman did that and then withdrew his challenge.
2. A motion to reconsider. According to our Code of Ordinances, a motion to reconsider must be done at the meeting in which the improper vote happened, or at the next Council meeting.
So, that brings us to last nights meeting. Mr. Cavo moved that we reconsider the vote on the Parade Ordinance, it was seconded, and then Mr. Rotello moved that the motion to reconsider be sent to an ad-hoc committee. (Are you following this?)
Here in lies the problem. While Mr. Rotello can send the motion to reconsider to an ad-hoc committee, the net effect of that would be that the Parade Ordinance vote from last month would stand and the ordinance would be adopted (because the motion to reconsider was not voted on at the next succesive meeting per our ordinance).
After consultation with our legal department during the executive session outside the council chambers, they agreed that I was right. I also believed that this was not Mr. Rotello's intention and felt that while I would be well within our process to adjourn the meeting, it would not be fair to members of the Council who would want this issue reconsidered. It is my duty to inform members of the consequence of their motions.
Once I informed Mr. Rotello what the net result of his referral would be, he withdrew is motion, we then followed through on the vote to reconsider which failed by a 11-8 margin.
So what does all this mean? It means that the vote from the May meeting in which the Council adopted the Parade Ordinance on a 10-9 vote stands.
I will have more on the ordinance in another post (I am exhausted) since there is a lot of misinformation on both sides about what it does and does not do.
But it will do one thing right away, remove the unfair practice of billing some organizations for police coverage, and not billing others.