The Mayor, The Bearcat and The School Board

So when Chief Duval sent a letter to superintendent of schools Chris Rath he may have been over reaching, but he didn't break any laws or city rules. When city manager Tom Aspell urged the school board to write a letter to the city council in support of the purchase of the Bearcat, although he didn't have the city councils support, he didn't do anything that his position wouldn’t allow. The city council may have taken umbrage that the city manager was soliciting another city board to apply pressure to influence their vote, but that was a matter the city council could take up at a future council meeting or at Aspell's yearly performance review. 

But when our mayor, Jim Bouley implored school board members to send a letter supporting the purchase of the Bearcat, he potentially broke a city charter rule. 

27. Noninterference by the City Council.

The City Council shall act in all matters as a body. Members of the Council shall not seek individually to influence the official acts of the City Manager, or any other officer; or to direct or request, except in writing, the appointment of any person to, or removal from, office; or to interfere in any way with the performance by such officers of their duties; but they may make suggestions and recommendations. Any member of the Council violating the provisions of this section, as determined through procedures established in this Charter, shall forfeit the office.

So even if we give the mayor the benefit of a very literal interpretation of the above charter rule, that he wasn't influencing or interfering with city staff, there's still the issue of a city council rule.

The mayor may have also violated  city council rule 6A-1:

New Language adopted 11/10/97 as proposed by Rules Committee:

1. No Councilor shall appear before any city board or commission except as an abutter or as an applicant as defined by the zoning ordinance, unless requested to do so by a majority of the Council. Any board or Commission may request that the Council send a representative to meet with its members or to attend a meeting or hearing. . (ADOPTED BY REFERENCE: opinion of the City Solicitor dated October 7, 1992 see agenda item 11-29

To be clear the mayor had every right to be at the joint city council - school board committee meeting as one of the city council's representatives. And the mayor had every right to discuss issues that were already approved by the council or issues that the city council, by a majority vote, had asked their representative to discuss with the joint school - city council committee. 

The mayor did not have approval from the city council to ask the school board to support the request by the chief to purchase the Bearcat. The mayor does not have the authority to request that the school board write a letter supporting the purchase of the Bearcat.  And we know the mayor couldn't be representing the view of the city council because the city council had not approved the purchase of the Bearcat. In fact the meeting that would have led to approval of the purchase of the Bearcat had been tabled after public testimony had been concluded. The earliest a potential vote for approval of the Bearcat will take place is at the September 9, city council meeting.

So if Bouley’s request wasn't representative of a majority determination by the city council, whose opinion was he representing.  Once again let's give the mayor the benefit that the above rule only applies to councilors and not the mayor.

So back to the city charter:

13. Mayor.

... The Mayor shall be the official head of the City for all ceremonial purposes, shall preside at all meetings of the City Council and may speak and vote in such meetings. All other duties of the Mayor prescribed by law shall be exercised by the City Manager provided for in this Charter.

So I ask once again where would the mayor have received the authority to ask the school board to support the purchase of the Bearcat? It is clear to me that he didn’t have the approval of the council. And it is clear that he can’t appear before a board as an individual unless he is an abutter or has a financial interest before that board.

Clearly the mayors duties as defined by the city charter are severely restricted. If the mayor doesn’t like the restrictions imposed on his office by statute, then he should advocate for change. This is a consequence of the weak mayor - city manager form of government our city adopted after giving Herbie Quinn the boot many years ago. A number of years ago we had an opportunity to go back to a strong mayor. And while a simple majority voted for the change, a 2/3 majority is necessary to change the city’s charter.

Once again our mayor over steps and once again we can expect no action to be taken by his fellow cronies on the council. 

So here’s one last scenario to consider. What do you think would have happened if a city councilor who was on the joint school board - city council committee asked the school board to write a letter to the city council against the purchase of the Bearcat?