Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Would somebody please fix this poor man's chair?!?!?

To Marky Mark.......

Aside from Nathan Morgan bringing up the Charter Conflict, did anybody else catch anything good during the work session/council meeting?

(I'll be honest, I don't even know if anything I've written so far has made any sense because my son is watching this in another browser on the screen and I think my brain has been jostled loose by this kids voice....soooooooooooo, when does school start back again?)


  1. The slumping reminds me of the late, great William F. Buckley, Jr. It used to crack me up how physically languid he was while being intellectually fierce.

  2. I don't know that Solomon is intellectually fierce - maybe just fierce. Certainly, in his choice of clothes. The guy needs to stay away from seersucker! Someone please call the fashion police.

  3. William J. 'Bill' McCalpinAugust 7, 2009 at 11:14 PM

    Destiny, I wouldn't qualify what Nathan Morgan said that evening as "good" (but perhaps you didn't meant to imply that).

    I took notes on what I heard Nathan say.

    "Concerning Consent Agenda item 5.B on the Glenville Tank Rehabilitation Project. [note: see http://www.cor.net/WorkArea/linkit.apsx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=10591 if I typed this correctly]
    Section 21.02 of the City Charter states that no contract shall be entered into by the City Council until after the appropriation." He believed that Consent Agenda item 5.B violates this section.

    Dan Johnson (Deputy City Manager) replied as follows, "the C.O. (Certificate of Obligation) will not be done until after the new budget is approved in a few weeks, so this action is legal. All we are doing now is advertising for bids."

    If you read the Charter at this link [www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=10221&sid=43 then click on "Part 1 Charter" to explode it, then look for section 21.02], you will see that it clearly forbids the City from entering into a contract until after an appropriation is made...except, as Dan Johnson said, the City was looking for bids, not a contract.

    Later in the section, it does say that "after approval by the City Council, advertisements for the proposed work...shall be made", but when you read and reread the section, "approval" clearly refers to the "advertisement", not the contract or appropriation.

    So, I believe that Mr. Morgan was wrong to complain about this issue, but I don't expect anyone to take my word for it, but to read the actual words of the Charter and not just Mr. Morgan's mistaken representation thereof. Read the Charter for yourself and decide whether 'advertising' for a future project is actually a violation of the Charter...I think you'll find it's not...


  4. Wow Bill! You're going way back in the archives.

    Thanks for the Charter info!