July 09, 2004
(Updated) Code Provision Scuttled Proposal On Police Bureau
We Read The Code, Missed The Provision
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
Indeed, we've now been pointed to the precise bit of City Code which requires that the Commission In Charge sign off on bringing legislation before the City Council, a requirement reported in today's Oregonian. Funnily enough, it's in a section of Code -- 3.02.040 Rules of the Council -- which we in fact did read last evening. But somehow, we managed to read right past the relevant bit.
Down under E. Preparation of Council Agenda, this part of the Code specifies that "Matters being placed on the agenda shall be ... [s]igned by the Commissioner in Charge or the City Auditor or a designee for whom an authorization has been filed with the City Auditor."
So it would apppear that it is not the Charter being used to derail the resolution (as conveyed to us yesterday by someone at City Hall), but the above Code provision instead.
It would appear, therefore, that the Mayor in the end is within her rights as the Commissioner in Charge of the bureau in question in this case. As is also pointed out by today's Oregonian, Commissioner Francesconi apparently can attempt to place his resolution on the so-called "four-fifths agenda." Such items must be "approved for placement on the agenda by at least four Council members each of whom will be present when the matter is considered."
So there is a way to countermand any instance in which a Commissioner in Charge refuses to sign off on an agenda item for a bureau in their portfolio, although it requires all of the other members of the Council to do so.
On the legal and procedural issue, then, we obviously must concede that the Mayor is able to do what she did here. And while we managed to completely miss this Code provision, surely Francesconi's office should have some knowledge of the rules under which the Council functions, and therefore should have known that they couldn't place this item on the agenda on their own.
All of which of course feeds directly back into our skepticism (and the Mayor's) over the political timing of the attempted introduction of this resolution.
At the same time, it would have been helpful if the statement out of the Mayor's office yesterday had included within its blunt political slam the Code specifics which led her to declare that Francesconi had no authrotiy to place this item on the agenda. Without that specific, the statement came across as little more than petulance (no matter how much we happen to agree with her political analysis).
And, of course, we still haven't had the opportunity to delve into the merits of the resolution's proposals, and we will get to that at some point here. But we felt it was important to make sure we clarified the logistical situation first.
Further, we continue to believe there should be an easier way to proposed policy for other commissioners' bureaus than having to either obtain the signature of the Commissioner in Charge or secure placement on the "four-fifths" agenda.
Update
Curiously, the KGW report that just aired on the noon newscast reported that the resolution will be on the agenda next week, and made no mention of it being kept off the agenda due to the above Code provision.
Comments (4)
The One True b!X on 09 Jul 2004
For what it's worth, some of this discussion over cross-commissioner proposals is feeding into thoughts and notes I've been compliling about the commission form of government. At some point, I'll sit down and take my novice stab at an analysis of the commission form versus a mayor/council form, but I'm not quite ready for that yet.
Isaac Laquedem on 09 Jul 2004
As I read the code section, the item could be placed on the agenda if the City Auditor would sign it. Maybe as a matter of policy the Auditor doesn't want to step into this mess, but the code does contemplate that the Commissioner in Charge isn't in sole control.
The One True b!X on 09 Jul 2004
That's true, and the Auditor is an independently-elected official. So you're right -- there are actually two ways in which the Commissioner in Charge signature requirement can be circumvented.
doretta on 09 Jul 2004
Seems like the rules are arranged so that the "Commissioner in Charge" is actually in charge--with appropriate checks and balances for extraordinary circumstances.
But let's not be too hard on Francesconi. Having spent the year up until the primary as the heir apparent, maybe he just forgot that he isn't mayor yet.