City Council and legislation concerns…
17 Mar 2008
I was given a copy of a memo sent to Toledo City Council by Councilman Joe McNamara which stated:
President Sobczak has refused to put legislation I drafted on the agenda. Using his position of leadership to block an issue from Council’s consideration raises serious concerns. Democracies die behind closed doors.
We have less than two weeks to pass the budget and, therefore, we should be focused on it. But the decision to block legislation is an issue that Council needs to address at the proper time.
While I agree that the budget is a priority…I think this is important to point out on the topic of legislation being kept off the agenda:
Thank goodness for the internet age… when someone makes a promise, it’s recorded forever
Good work GCJ!
March 17th, 2008 at 1:40 pmWhat? You mean Joe can’t trust the word of a fellow Democrat?…Business as usual in Toledo, Ohio.
March 17th, 2008 at 1:47 pmThere’s a $6,000,000 difference between the legislation Sobczak supports and the legislation he’s blocking. That is, an additional 6m from taxpayers. Look for Webb to offer an amendment increasing minority participation goals to try and garner the votes needed for the 6m-plus plan. Lots of money on the table = power politics from Sobczak, Finkbeiner & co.
March 17th, 2008 at 1:52 pmThat’s true Frank, for me the issue is it wouldn’t matter if there were no public dollars involved, when someone makes that type of a commitment, they should keep it. There is no reason to keep legislation off of the agenda other than from a legality standpoint which is not an issue in this situation.
However, since there is a potential savings in this case, it’s even more important that it at least be discussed. I’m advocating for exactly what Mark said would happen to happen, that “everybody’s legislation be given fair consideration”.
I know the budget is a priority right now, but this situation needed to be made public in my opinion…
March 17th, 2008 at 2:12 pmFrank,
You gonna send me a check for my share of any tax-payer money you manage to save? Didn’t think so. Just play nice with your fellow Dems and keep your tax revenue enhancement ideas out of the private sector.
That’s all I ask.
March 17th, 2008 at 2:14 pmLR,
March 17th, 2008 at 3:32 pmI hope you don’t mind, but I linked to your entry here over on my Roland Hansen Commentary Toledo City Council: A Balancing Act.
Roland, I don’t mind – you are always welcome to link my posts.
March 17th, 2008 at 3:33 pmI can only imagine the HELL you’re going through behind the scenes for this post, but I commend you for putting this out there! It’s nothing new that a politician does the complete opposite of what they say they are going to, but it’s one of those priceless moments when you discover that you actually have them on video stating what they promise to do!
But, it’s politics as usual in Mudville, isn’t it?
March 17th, 2008 at 3:43 pmVoR,
I ask for more than that, our government only works when the system of checks and balances that were created truly exist. I’m not naive enough to believe that campaign promises will always be kept, but when it comes to promises relating to actual job duties, it should be kept.
Holly, I think it’s important that those we elect know we are paying attention. Video does say a lot more than print when it comes to situations like this.
March 17th, 2008 at 4:18 pm“A picture is worth a thousand words”….. so that puts the Video at what????…lol. Lisa, you are a true believer and that’s the most important aspect to what you do. It’s why you are fair(even when you don’t want to be), and that’s why you are trusted.
If the Fink Show and Sobczak are not happy with the “Results”…ho hum.
A promise not kept by 1 or more of the “Show” I’m shocked! Schocked I tell ya.
March 17th, 2008 at 7:52 pmCan someone tell me what this “legislation” is?
March 17th, 2008 at 7:53 pmsplitting a contract on the sewer project to save 6 million
March 17th, 2008 at 8:17 pmnaturally…it’s a “Union” thing
March 17th, 2008 at 8:19 pmWell, he said “should” not will, on the legislation and when he gets to be Council President.
Point being, the use of the word, should, differs from will. So what did he promise? One piece of legislation is presented and he objects for reasons not stated and further what is the legislation presented and objected too?
“We have less than two weeks to pass the budget and, therefore, we should be focused on it. ”
The budget numbers were given to Council, when? November of last year?
Sure there had to be a vote in the interim, but what was being done all the while with the information given to the council?
Quick read of council rules, there is nothing granting the chair the power it wields to block legislation nor in the charter, quick read.
Viva! Business As Usual.
March 17th, 2008 at 8:27 pmThis is not general fund legislation. If they would come up with legislation or real solutions saving the general fund money then that should not be held up. Give it time fellows, legislation is like wine, it takes time. Seriously, definitely interested in saving sewer fund dollars as we are being taxed (fee-ed) heavily every quarter for this big sewer project.
March 17th, 2008 at 8:33 pmShould is the plural of shall:
1. plan to, intend to, or expect to: I shall go later.
2. will have to, is determined to, or definitely will: You shall do it. He shall do it.
3. (in laws, directives, etc.) must; is or are obliged to: The meetings of the council shall be public.
No real difference between “shall and will” or “should and would”
March 17th, 2008 at 8:35 pmThe legislation that is in question if we are going to make that the issue (which to me it didn’t matter which legislation) would take time if approved since it was a resolution of council to obtain a legal opinion related to a question on the contract. Depending on the outcome of the legal opinion created the opportunity to save 6 million dollars if I understand it correctly. Hence, time is a factor and putting if off until after the general fund budget was done would create an issue with the time frame for awarding the contract.
That’s why it was asked for it to be on this particular agenda…
March 17th, 2008 at 8:40 pmDave, in my opinion, nothing should be held up, whether it involves general fund or not, that’s the key aspect to this. If someone puts legislation whether an ordinance or resolution that the majority of council isn’t going to support then that’s how it’s supposed to be decided…
That was one of the issues that was given as why the switch from Michael Ashford was pushed, it was said he kept legislation from the administration off of the agenda, which is why…Mark made the statement he did on January 2, 2008 and from what I was told, Rob Ludeman did not keep legislation off, even if he didn’t agree with it. If it’s wrong it’s wrong…no matter who’s doing it and who it’s being done to.
March 17th, 2008 at 8:46 pmI agree…it’s not “issue” related as much as it it’s about Mark breaking his promise in general and in fact. It doesn’t matter if the legislation is about Contracts, Cotillion Girls or Toilet paper…he made a promise and a man is only as good as his word!
March 17th, 2008 at 8:50 pmIt goes to intent and usage, not the literal meaning or reading of the word.
“1. pt. of shall.
2. (used to express condition): Were he to arrive, I should be pleased.
3. must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that.
4. would (used to make a statement less direct or blunt): I should think you would apologize.”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/should
Further down the definitions and usage of the word, we find;
“1. plan to, intend to, or expect to: I shall go later.
2. will have to, is determined to, or definitely will: You shall do it. He shall do it.
3. (in laws, directives, etc.) must; is or are obliged to: The meetings of the council shall be public.
4. (used interrogatively in questions, often in invitations): Shall we go? ”
So, when I wrote he said, should, what I took from his statement, given the fact that he was trying to get into a higher office, was the usage of the word in a non-firm way.
Had he said, the office shall not be used to impede legislation, and not will not be used.
Just a point of view
His words were
March 17th, 2008 at 8:50 pmthe public doesn’t care about all this council presidency infighting stuff..
maybe you could spill all the beans and details that you were given by your sources in your initial post instead of using them as comments later on after people have jumped to conclusions based on very limited information given initially. This would save alot of trouble for your readers.
March 17th, 2008 at 8:51 pm“if we are going to make that the issue”
Issue what issue?
Something is mentioned and it piques interest and asking about it is an issue?
March 17th, 2008 at 8:52 pmIf you want to argue semantics, NC,
March 17th, 2008 at 8:52 pm“maybe you could spill all the beans and details that you were given by your sources in your initial post instead of using them as comments later on after people have jumped to conclusions based on very limited information given initially. This would save alot of trouble for your readers.”
It sure would make things so much easier to understand, given the opening sentence was;
“I was given a copy of a memo sent to Toledo City Council by Councilman Joe McNamara which stated:”
March 17th, 2008 at 8:54 pmFrank referenced the specific legislation, which Dave did as well, that’s the other “issue” behind the “issue”.
March 17th, 2008 at 8:54 pmWhat was in blockquotes is what the memo stated NC:
The actual resolution/legislation was not the issue to me as much as the act.
March 17th, 2008 at 8:56 pm“If you want to argue semantics, NC,”
For goodness sake, the man is a politician.
I read the statement he made, and said to myself, well he wanted to get to higher office and said one thing and did another and where have we seen this lately?
There is no argument about anything.
March 17th, 2008 at 8:56 pmI see “should and shall” the same as “would and will” which to me does not leave it up to debate, you seemed to define should as a possibility rather than something that “will” or “would” be done.
That’s where the semantics came in…
March 17th, 2008 at 8:58 pm“The actual resolution/legislation was not the issue to me as much as the act.”
Well, okay, but when there is information put out, it does tend to cause people to think about what was written and ask further questions.
If I remember correctly, that is referred to, as being an informed citizen.
March 17th, 2008 at 8:58 pmI can’t give you more specific information on the actual resolution, I have not yet been given it beyond what I posted I knew about it. Since that for me wasn’t why I was pointing this out, I didn’t wait until I had that.
March 17th, 2008 at 9:00 pm“# # 3 Frank Szollosi Says:
March 17th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
There’s a $6,000,000 difference between the legislation Sobczak supports and the legislation he’s blocking. That is, an additional 6m from taxpayers. Look for Webb to offer an amendment increasing minority participation goals to try and garner the votes needed for the 6m-plus plan. Lots of money on the table = power politics from Sobczak, Finkbeiner & co.”
What legislation?
March 17th, 2008 at 9:01 pmSemantics??
“It goes to intent and usage, not the literal meaning or reading of the word.”
Well, it depends on what your meaning of “is” is….
(Sorry, I couldn’t help myself)
March 17th, 2008 at 9:02 pmBad Emily…
NC, the legislation Frank mentioned is the legislation that was kept off the agenda…
See Comment #17 for what I know about it.
March 17th, 2008 at 9:04 pmThe usage of words, is fun.
My ex won a suit against a former employer, and one of the keys of success was the word, basically.
When she was speaking to an attorney and retelling the story of the how’s and why, the business did something and the person in charge said basically that is why, what happened, happened.
The attorney and me, both went, basically?
The use of that word, said that was more than was being told. She won, they lost, all because of one word.
March 17th, 2008 at 9:05 pm“Well, it depends on what your meaning of “is” is….”
Didn’t a fellow politician say that?
Or one who was not being forthright as in say one thing and mean another.
Business as usual
March 17th, 2008 at 9:07 pmIn my experience as an auditor for an international registrar, should and shall are not at all the same.
Must, Shall, Should, Will and May
Throughout the organization, when used in the context of actions by this organization or others and to be consistent with standard engineering practices, the following words have specific meanings:
• ‘Must’ is used only where a provision is a statutory requirement.
• ‘Shall’ is used where a provision is mandatory.
• ‘Should’ is used where a provision is preferred.
• ‘Will’ is used normally in connection with an action by the organization, rather than by a contractor or supplier.
‘May’ is used where alternatives are equally acceptable.
March 18th, 2008 at 7:47 am“I had asked Councilman McNamara to hold those up for a week so more discussion could take place,” Mr. Sobczak said. “If the members of council want to have a hearing, we can have a hearing because it’s still in committee.”
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080318/NEWS16/803180356/-1/NEWS
Interesting.
So the legislation proposed is in a committee and being discussed.
This is a road block?
Maybe if there was better time management and not the mad rush to bear the clock, these matters would not be coming up year after year after year.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:32 amIf the question of splitting the bids was raised back in January (I assume the legal question is whether they CAN be split ?) what has Sobczak been doing all of this time ? As coucil Pres. it’s his job to move things along, get answers for his fellow councilmen, etc. Why does he consistently act like a boob ?
So I guess the best possible course would be to split the bid and save $6mil, the next best would be to award the bid to URS as it’s $2mil less than Veatch (against comm recommendation), and finally they could just award the contract to Veatch.
I occaisionally turn board members down on their request to put something on an agenda, for many reasons. I also make sure that my members are familiar with Parlimentary procedure so that they understand the balance of power that exists. Again, Sobczak seems to be in over his head as council president.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:06 amBut jrs, you did not make a promise to put everything on the agenda with the only codicil being that it pass legal. I don’t disagree with you on the Parliamentary procedures or even a clear understanding of the rules of Council. I’ve seen more than a few occasions since I have increased my focus on Council meetings that there is an issue with not understanding the rules and there ends up having to be a delay while they wait for a ruling from the Law Director.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:11 am