My bad, I thought that was the responsibility of the City Clerk, but it seems these days nobody knows exactly what he is responsible for. Maybe he is working on getting his city clerk certification like his two assistants have (that get paid less than him)?
Starr and Stehly were going to present a resolution on Tuesday that would request the release of the Falls Park Safety Audit, but since the report was released (was it really?) the resolution would be moot. City Attorney Leonard points this out in an email to the council.
But yesterday on Belfrage’s show, Starr has the idea to essentially change the resolution to require the administration release all or any such reports in the future as they come available. Essentially ‘Hog Housing’ a city council resolution and changing it to apply to future issues of transparency. I have been arguing for a couple of weeks the transparency issues between city hall and the council could be fixed with some ordinance changes by the council requiring the Mayor’s office to release all information to them either in the open or confidentially in executive session.
After a long diatribe about why they can’t do this, Leonard says this;
In the City council’s policies and procedures manual, the city council adopted by Resolution requires that the city council will follow the executive order on the Agenda Approval form.  Further, all legislation must be signed off as to form and legality by my office.
While I agree they should use the city attorney to check the legality of a resolution, ordinance or policy before voting on it, what if they chose to use outside counsel? If that is the case, they wouldn’t need Leonard’s agenda approval for anything. I wonder if the city council must also get permission from the administration before wiping their arses at Carnegie?
We should have an elected city attorney instead of one appointed by the mayor. Maybe then the city and the council would get real legal opinions instead of nonsense skewed to support the administration.
A city attorney that would actually act in the city’s best interest, not the mayor’s. There’s a thought.
As far back as 1994 when our city moved from being governed by City Commissioners to the current Mayor/Council form of government, the City Council needed to have THEIR OWN ATTORNEY.
Incidentally, we had a built-in attorney who was also the SF City Clerk when Debra Owen was in that position (that is until the current insecure, weak mayor with the help of city councilors like michelle erpenbach arranged for her to be terminated!)
With Janet Brekke on Council, a tyrant like Huether could be held in check.
Remind me again who all the councilors were who hand a hand in railroading Debra.
Sue and Michelle had a big hand in it. I think it was a tie vote, I can’t remember who all was on council at the time but I do remember Kenny, Jamison and Vernon voted against firing her.
The archives of the Argus and other media as far as I can tell don’t go back to Sept. 2011. Yours does. If Debra was supported by only three councilors, as you have just stated and your archives suggest the same three, WHERE was Kermit? This to me was one of the darkest moments of the last eight years. Another was the secret session to quite Theresa. Notice a trend here? Both strong willed females. Trying to recall the council makeup at the time. Was it Agullar, Erpenbach, Entenman, and Karsky who strong armed Debra?
It should be obvious. If you like MMM then vote for Entenman. SAME type, or should I say, lack of ethics! Otherwise, those of you who are wise, choose another candidate.
Wasn’t 2011 Kermit’s interregnum period of political leadership? Didn’t he serve from 2002 to 2010 and then from 2012 to 2016 on the Council?