Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Comedy = Tragedy + Time
So now it's getting ridiculous. How to apply the funds reaped from an illegal tax(fee) in the city budget is the topic dujour.
How in the hell did we ever get here? I'll tell you how:
This is how.
December 7th, 2004.
A date that will live in infamy.
That's when the creature was resurrected. (And the rich irony that followed 2 1/2 years later is remarkable.)
I'd be remiss in not mentioning:
How in the hell did we ever get here? I'll tell you how:
This is how.
December 7th, 2004.
A date that will live in infamy.
That's when the creature was resurrected. (And the rich irony that followed 2 1/2 years later is remarkable.)
I'd be remiss in not mentioning:
Labels: city
Friday, July 20, 2007
Clearly, the Law Doesn't Apply to HIM.

Labels: city
Don't Pay the Illegal Fee.
Folks (PUB ratepayers specifically), the $2 "City Contribution(!) Fee" is still being assessed. You WILL be billed for it this month. But it NEVER passed. The City Attorney admitted it & the Commission agreed, in a 4 to 3 vote, that the fee failed. The rescission vote was moot. You can't rescind (or not rescind) what doesn't exist.
This subtle point fails Ahumada & Atkinson, and that's not surprising. Commissioner Garza admittedly flipped from his previous stance on this, and that is surprising.
Yeah, I disagree with the merits of a $2 or $3 tax (fee). A LOT of folks do, too. But it's naive to think that this $2 fee won't EVENTUALLY pass. It will. It's got the votes to pass. But pass it correctly, that's all.
Edit to add: I'd be remiss in not pointing out (as commenters did earlier) that even Commissioner Longoria correctly asks for a clarification on the law of the 7/3/07 vote. Kudos, Commissioner.
This subtle point fails Ahumada & Atkinson, and that's not surprising. Commissioner Garza admittedly flipped from his previous stance on this, and that is surprising.
Yeah, I disagree with the merits of a $2 or $3 tax (fee). A LOT of folks do, too. But it's naive to think that this $2 fee won't EVENTUALLY pass. It will. It's got the votes to pass. But pass it correctly, that's all.
Edit to add: I'd be remiss in not pointing out (as commenters did earlier) that even Commissioner Longoria correctly asks for a clarification on the law of the 7/3/07 vote. Kudos, Commissioner.
Labels: city
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Rabid Screw Job for the Public *UPDATE*

UPDATE #2: The plot thickens. Within the commissioner packet that each Commissioner gets in advance of next week's meeting, are the minutes (pp. 15 & 31) from the last two meetings, ready for approval.
Click the image below to see how the $2 PUB TAX vote of 7/3/07 is currently recorded therein for all posterity:
It's recorded as FAILED.
Despite the erroneous assumptions of our esteemed Mayor and his cheering section.
This is a big, big screw-up on the part of the City Attorney, too. And if folks want to tell us that the commission was only following legal counsel... fine, we can buy that (to a point).
But here's a little problem with Ahumada. That little provision in Section 14, of Article V of the City Charter? You know, the one that raises the bar for affirmative votes in passing motions? Well, that's based on an ordinance (Prop #7) which passed by public proposition vote in November of 1993. One big guess who was Mayor and presided over presenting these props to the citizens way back then?
You got it.
-.-
UPDATE #1: Next week's agenda is now posted. Item #16 has Commissioner Camarillo calling for a recission of the above $2 tax. One wonders how difficult that is going to be since it never really passed in the first place. Also of slight interest, an evaluation of the City Attorney is scheduled for the executive session.
-.-
ORIGINAL POST: Sometimes a pic says it all.
If these last two meetings of the City Commission aren't classified as clusterf*cks, I don't know what is.
Case in point, the
Why ALLEGEDLY? Because according to Section 12, Article V of the City Charter:
"the affirmative vote of a majority of such quorum present shall be necessary to approve of any matter."We got 3 ayes, 2 nays, & 2 abstentions. Where's the majority? (No, not "supermajority" as two commissioners suggest).
Still not convinced? Then check out how Robert's Rules of Order defines "quorum":
"The quorum refers to the number present, not to the number voting. The quorum of a mass meeting is the number present at the time, as they constitute the membership at that time."Key words are "number present". Despite yet another legal mis-interpretation from legal counsel, this ordinance is a dud. The tax-happy, bleeding hearts of Ahumada & crew will have to re-submit this on next week's agenda. Here's hoping abstaining commissioners stay the course at worst, or vote "nay" at best.
Labels: city






















