Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
It's not like somebody's gonna die because he couldn't figure it all out before the Friday news cycle closed.
Or a rogue tunnel-loving lawyer in his office?
There's a difference.
Like overwhelming debt for all Seattle citizens for a tunnel we can't afford that doesn't do anything good for our city.
The state and feds wanted anybody to sign in order to 'move forward' even if it wasn't legally binding.
Conlin signed.
It's just a delaying tactic. Who cares. McGinn should have time to read it over the weekend, Conlin can remove his signature, and the Mayor can sign it. If the Mayor doesn't sign, he's playing games to try and thwart the tunnel.
One thing for certain I've learned in the last 27 years.
When the people of Washington make their will known to elected leaders, they follow their wishes to the nth degree.
http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/ea…
Well, maybe not the "nth" degree. I mean, a really high degree. Like 3rd. Or...well, none all all really.
http://www.originalmmc.com/images/Alvy/H…
if he does he can ignore the Council as he pleases. If he does not he is negligent in his duties and that is grounds for removal.
This really isn't about the EIS.
First of all, correction, Mr. Holden: The Mayor does not preside over departments (plural). This is not D.C. According to the Charter's descriptions, Seattle's government is more tribal than tri-partate. Seattle's Mayor only heads the Executive Department, and may, in an emergency, take control of the Police Department. There are several other departments in the Charter (Finance, Libraries, etc.) that each have heads. True enough, the Mayor is certainly stated to have the power to control remove "subordinate officers." (Article V, Section 2). However that's different in some important ways from a "department head"--mostly in that the Mayor is unable to both appoint and remove without Council say-so. That which sort of pushes them out of the "subordinate" category. Rather it's the Council who seems to have more power to rearrange departments etc. as well as appoint officers if the Mayor's too lazy to do it (Article III, Section 2; Article V, Sections 3 & 4).
Now about the $&*&%#& Tunnel of Death... I think Holmes may well have been on acid when he wrote whatever that is! I'm a little surprised they released that. He seems to be bringing up the legalities of the relationship between the City and State, or the Council and the Depts of Transportation, but that wasn't the question. So it likely really means, "Look at that bird!"
Anyway, Article IV, Section 14 of the Charter grants the Legislative Department (a.k.a., City Council) power to control vacation/improvement of bridges viaducts and tunnels. From this text, I don't think there was a problem with Conlin signing off on an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a proposed project--but it's unclear what exactly is supposed to happen here beyond that. According to the text, the Council isn't allowed to say "Just build it! Money is no object!" Article IV, Section 21 prohibits the Council from putting us into unspecified debt "or obligation of any kind." So if that's what's happening, that shouldn't be happening.
To answer someone's question, the Charter does not allow a 'pocket veto'. Just a veto. If a Seattle Mayor sits on an ordinance from the Council for too long it's considered a done deal (Article IV, Section 12). As for McGinn's duty here--presuming these little nebulous pre-agreements and resolutions make up a valid municipal contract, the Mayor has a duty to make good on it. However, to my understanding, we're not there yet. If that's so, there's no duty for the Mayor, therefore no violation of duty (doing what the Council wants is not a duty)--which is one of only a few reasons the Mayor can be removed. (See Article V, Sections 7 & 10) Of course there's always "moral turpitude" but I really don't think it applies here... to McGinn, anyway. :P
Oh, but folks! Look! A possible loophole, but I'm not sure... Article IV, Section 1 seems to suggest that the vote we held on the tunnel should be binding. Anyone remember that? Stands to reason that a public vote AGAINST a tunnel option (as well as replacement) should not just have been political masturbation. Nope, it would be much more satisfying if the legislative power as invested in the citizens of Seattle would have prevailed. Among the sectons on initiative/referendum (Article IV, Sections 1.A-1.K), I see no provision for a mere "advisory vote." It's either an ordinance or not. The Council would then still have the power to reject or accept it, as-is, or pass an entirely different ordinance on the same subject. Problem is I don't remember it going down like that... If I had money and time I would definitely pay more attention to that.
Totally unrelated... I notice that contracts for publication of the "city official newpaper" (official announcements) are supposed to be granted through a bidding process "from the daily newspapers of general circulation in the City at least six days a week." (Article VII, Section 3) Can anyone recall any more than one paper that even does that anymore? I miss the P-I. Pax.
Christal Wood, J.D.
First of all, correction, Mr. Holden: The Mayor does not preside over departments (plural). This is not D.C. According to the Charter's descriptions, Seattle's government is more tribal than tri-partate. Seattle's Mayor only heads the Executive Department, and may, in an emergency, take control of the Police Department. There are several other departments in the Charter (Finance, Libraries, etc.) that each have heads. True enough, the Mayor is certainly stated to have the power to control remove "subordinate officers." (Article V, Section 2). However that's different in some important ways from a "department head"--mostly in that the Mayor is unable to both appoint and remove without Council say-so. That which sort of pushes them out of the "subordinate" category. Rather it's the Council who seems to have more power to rearrange departments etc. as well as appoint officers if the Mayor's too lazy to do it (Article III, Section 2; Article V, Sections 3 & 4).
Now about the $&*&%#& Tunnel of Death... I think Holmes may well have been on acid when he wrote whatever that is! I'm a little surprised they released that. He seems to be bringing up the legalities of the relationship between the City and State, or the Council and the Depts of Transportation, but that wasn't the question. So it likely really means, "Look at that bird!"
Anyway, Article IV, Section 14 of the Charter grants the Legislative Department (a.k.a., City Council) power to control vacation/improvement of bridges viaducts and tunnels. From this text, I don't think there was a problem with Conlin signing off on an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a proposed project--but it's unclear what exactly is supposed to happen here beyond that. According to the text, the Council isn't allowed to say "Just build it! Money is no object!" Article IV, Section 21 prohibits the Council from putting us into unspecified debt "or obligation of any kind." So if that's what's happening, that shouldn't be happening.
To answer someone's question, the Charter does not allow a 'pocket veto'. Just a veto. If a Seattle Mayor sits on an ordinance from the Council for too long it's considered a done deal (Article IV, Section 12). As for McGinn's duty here--presuming these little nebulous pre-agreements and resolutions make up a valid municipal contract, the Mayor has a duty to make good on it. However, to my understanding, we're not there yet. If that's so, there's no duty for the Mayor, therefore no violation of duty (doing what the Council wants is not a duty)--which is one of only a few reasons the Mayor can be removed. (See Article V, Sections 7 & 10) Of course there's always "moral turpitude" but I really don't think it applies here... to McGinn, anyway. :P
Oh, but folks! Look! A possible loophole, but I'm not sure... Article IV, Section 1 seems to suggest that the vote we held on the tunnel should be binding. Anyone remember that? Stands to reason that a public vote AGAINST a tunnel option (as well as replacement) should not just have been political masturbation. Nope, it would be much more satisfying if the legislative power as invested in the citizens of Seattle would have prevailed. Among the sectons on initiative/referendum (Article IV, Sections 1.A-1.K), I see no provision for a mere "advisory vote." It's either an ordinance or not. The Council would then still have the power to reject or accept it, as-is, or pass an entirely different ordinance on the same subject. Problem is I don't remember it going down like that... If I had money and time I would definitely pay more attention to that.
Totally unrelated... I notice that contracts for publication of the "city official newpaper" (official announcements) are supposed to be granted through a bidding process "from the daily newspapers of general circulation in the City at least six days a week." (Article VII, Section 3) Can anyone recall any more than one paper that even does that anymore? I miss the P-I. Pax.
Christal Wood, J.D.
First of all, correction, Mr. Holden: The Mayor does not preside over departments (plural). This is not D.C. According to the Charter's descriptions, Seattle's government is more tribal than tri-partate. Seattle's Mayor only heads the Executive Department, and may, in an emergency, take control of the Police Department. There are several other departments in the Charter (Finance, Libraries, etc.) that each have heads. True enough, the Mayor is certainly stated to have the power to control remove "subordinate officers." (Article V, Section 2). However that's different in some important ways from a "department head"--mostly in that the Mayor is unable to both appoint and remove without Council say-so. That which sort of pushes them out of the "subordinate" category. Rather it's the Council who seems to have more power to rearrange departments etc. as well as appoint officers if the Mayor's too lazy to do it (Article III, Section 2; Article V, Sections 3 & 4).
Now about the $&*&%#& Tunnel of Death... I think Holmes may well have been on acid when he wrote whatever that is! I'm a little surprised they released that. He seems to be bringing up the legalities of the relationship between the City and State, or the Council and the Depts of Transportation, but that wasn't the question. So it likely really means, "Look at that bird!"
Anyway, Article IV, Section 14 of the Charter grants the Legislative Department (a.k.a., City Council) power to control vacation/improvement of bridges viaducts and tunnels. From this text, I don't think there was a problem with Conlin signing off on an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a proposed project--but it's unclear what exactly is supposed to happen here beyond that. According to the text, the Council isn't allowed to say "Just build it! Money is no object!" Article IV, Section 21 prohibits the Council from putting us into unspecified debt "or obligation of any kind." So if that's what's happening, that shouldn't be happening.
To answer someone's question, the Charter does not allow a 'pocket veto'. Just a veto. If a Seattle Mayor sits on an ordinance from the Council for too long it's considered a done deal (Article IV, Section 12). As for McGinn's duty here--presuming these little nebulous pre-agreements and resolutions make up a valid municipal contract, the Mayor has a duty to make good on it. However, to my understanding, we're not there yet. If that's so, there's no duty for the Mayor, therefore no violation of duty (doing what the Council wants is not a duty)--which is one of only a few reasons the Mayor can be removed. (See Article V, Sections 7 & 10) Of course there's always "moral turpitude" but I really don't think it applies here... to McGinn, anyway. :P
Oh, but folks! Look! A possible loophole, but I'm not sure... Article IV, Section 1 seems to suggest that the vote we held on the tunnel should be binding. Anyone remember that? Stands to reason that a public vote AGAINST a tunnel option (as well as replacement) should not just have been political masturbation. Nope, it would be much more satisfying if the legislative power as invested in the citizens of Seattle would have prevailed. Among the sectons on initiative/referendum (Article IV, Sections 1.A-1.K), I see no provision for a mere "advisory vote." It's either an ordinance or not. The Council would then still have the power to reject or accept it, as-is, or pass an entirely different ordinance on the same subject. Problem is I don't remember it going down like that... If I had money and time I would definitely pay more attention to that.
Totally unrelated... I notice that contracts for publication of the "city official newpaper" (official announcements) are supposed to be granted through a bidding process "from the daily newspapers of general circulation in the City at least six days a week." (Article VII, Section 3) Can anyone recall any more than one paper that even does that anymore? I miss the P-I. Pax.
Christal Wood, J.D.