Monday was not the first time that the mayor wrongly shut down a council discussion, over my protests, when a single councilmember "called for the question". The last time this happened, I knew she was mistaken and I said that on the record; but I did not stand up until the attorney opened the rulebook the way I did on Monday night.

However, the public record shows that an astute and articulate Renton citizen clearly warned the mayor in writing that she violated Roberts Rules of Order the previous time she did this. I don't know why she thought she could get away with it again.

( here is the warning she received )

When we were having the debate about whether the council should review city contracts between 20K and 50K (see my previous posting below), we were covering a lot of ground in our debate. Don Persson explained it was our duty to make sure we knew in advance where money was being committed; I agreed and pointed out we could easily and swiftly approve contracts as consent agenda items if they were provided to us in advance of our weekly council meeting. But Dan and Terry kept insisting that for the fifty annual contracts between $20,000 and $50,000, the council should not see them, and that Don and Denis and Marcie and I must simply be untrusting. I went on to point out that often the issue is priorities more than trust, e.g. when we spend money for new economic development studies it should be for areas of interest to the council....the mayor and staff may not know what we want. The debate went back to Terri, Don, Dan, and Denis a few times, and then I began asking for the floor again but not getting recognized. Then the mayor recognized Toni, who said that our finance director does a good job keeping receipts (which is true, but a bit beside the point), but then she closed by saying something unfortunate along the lines that we must just all be idiots, and she "called for the question."

The mayor smiled and tried to end the debate, but I did not intend to be denied my opportunity to speak or to let the idiot comment go unresolved. So I declared a point of order, and pointed out that "calling for the question" does not stop debate by itself...it is a motion that must pass in order to stop the debate. Dan Clawson, an attorney and council member immediately responded that I was wrong, as did our city attorney. I reached for my guide on Roberts Rules of Order, stood up to present the facts to the city attorney, who could now tell by my demeanor that she must be mistaken. The chambers quieted down as the city attorney read from her copy, while I read along silently on mine; calling for the question needed a "second," and a two-thirds vote to pass. The attorney then declared the motion which called for the question dead for lack of a second. I then asked for the floor, but before the mayor recognized me, Terry Briere called "second", and the mayor recognized her "second" even though the motion was already dead.



While I rightfully should have had the floor, I did not make a fuss because I knew the motion would not get two-thirds of the council's approval after the majority had all just been called idiots.

So, we took a vote on the "call for the question," which predictably received three yes votes, and four no votes...my colleagues were ready to let me finish my comments. But instead of declaring the motion dead, the mayor asked the clerk to determine whether she had the necessary two-thirds vote to end debate! I guess the math got away from her...she was not sure if 3/7 was as high as 2/3! The clerk sighed and said, no, the motion did not get two-thirds of the council's support. At this point my patience was growing thin, and I asked for the floor one more time. The mayor, looking angrily frustrated, panned around the council seemingly looking for some way she could change the situation so that I would not be allowed to speak....I felt like if there were a fire alarm lever behind her she may have pulled it. I asked again for the floor, pointing out I had now counted four times in a row that she refused to recognize me even though the majority of council members would have liked to hear what I had to say five minutes earlier. Crestfallen, she finally recognized me "...Misssterrrr Cooorrrrman..."

I kept my comments brief, pointing out that none of the council were idiots, and that all all seven of us have made valuable contributions to contract language in the past. We can improve these contracts, and give service to the taxpayers, merely by the seven of us taking a look at them in our council packets. This was not an issue of winning or losing power so much as a way to use eight elected officials to the taxpayers full advantage. Toni Nelson then clarified that she had not meant to call us idiots, and Don's motion to review the contracts passed 5 to 2 on a roll-call vote. Yay!

Here's a new area of stunning conflict. When we approved our 150 million dollar budget last fall, we smartly included twenty thousand dollars for use by the city council in seeking third-party legal opinions if we find ourselves in disagreement with the Mayor's office. I have to credit my wise colleague Don Persson for recommending this line item in the budget, and astute colleague Denis Law for pushing it along. It was our intent not to use the whole amount, and only to use any of the funds in cases that would put our usual city attorney Larry Warren in a difficult situation. The council agreed at the time that the money could be allocated by the Council President, based on a request for outside legal council from any council member. Simple enough.

Then on April 17, when I made a motion to stop the mayor from interrupting the public as they were speaking at a hearing, the mayor ruled my motion out of order based on her accusation that I was trying to break the law. Not long afterwards, others suggested to me that it was time to seek an outside legal opinion. After all, the mayor accusing the council of breaking the law seems like a clear time for an outside opinion, wouldn't it seem? Don Person and I worked though all proper channels, secured the legal opinion, and guess what....the mayor did not need to interterrupt the speakers who were worried they would lose their homes due to a zoning change. Yep, yours truly was not breaking the law by letting the public address their elected representatives at a public hearing. Amazing. I guess the US Constitution does mean something. But that's the predictable part, here is the the interesting part....

On Thursday we discovered that the mayor was deliberately refusing to perform her administrative duty of signing the check for the outside attorney. Even though it was a council approved expense, it was authorized in the budget and she had no legal veto right, she simply refused to perform her job. In the best case her pride got in the way of her doing her duty; in the worst case she wants to be able to wrongly accuse without apology or repercussions. In any case, I was ready to let this bounce off, but others on the council are not feeling so generous.

We'll see what happens next. Stay tuned!