Pelosi Ethics Come to New Philadelphia

Last Monday, June 14, New Philadelphia City Council took another step to distance itself from the citizens of the city. There was a day when administrative and legislative members of the city displayed a responsibility to the folks who live here. Today, the agenda of most elected officials in New Philadelphia seems to be to protect themselves, even if it means breaking faith with the citizen. An oath is taken by every elected official in the city in which they promise to uphold the law. Words are words, but actions define character. A case in point is Resolution No. 32-2010.

32-2010 finally, we hope, brings the melodrama of OH Holly Corporation, operators of the Perfect Landing Restaurant at the New Philadelphia Airport, and the City of New Philadelphia, owners of the building which houses the restaurant, to a final close. The melodrama concerned itself with disputes over the lease agreement, a typical he-said-she-said type situation. It dragged on for quite a while, opposing lawyers complaining that they couldn't get together with each other, that sort of thing. About a week ago, agreement was reached, at least by the lawyers. The OH Holly Corporation agreed. All that was needed to close the deal was agreement by City Council to make the whole issue disappear. It was at this point that the city government system unraveled.

During Monday's council meeting, the Law Director requested an executive session to discuss changes to the OH Holly lease. The executive session was requested, the Law Director stated, to deal with an ongoing lawsuit. The executive session was approved by Council. What occurred during that session is unknown, and by law should remain that way. There are, however, concerns as to why it was called in the first place. Evidently, the ongoing lawsuit was no longer ongoing. The judgment had already been agreed to by both parties and approved by the presiding judge. All that was needed was approval by council. By going to an executive session any explanation or discussion of the agreement the City was to be bound to, was lost to public knowledge.

Here is where it begins to get sticky. When the executive session closed, and the normal council meeting resumed, a motion was made to add Resolution No. 32-2010 to the evening's agenda. It was added by a vote of the council. One thing was missing. According to the rules of procedure for bringing legislation to the floor of city council, it must first be approved by a council committee in a scheduled committee meeting. This was not done, and apparently, not by oversight, but by a conscious disregard of standing council rules. The originator of this disregard of standing rules is not known as the action was taken in the executive session. This action proposes another breach of procedure. Decisions are not to be made in any executive session. These sessions are for information purposes only. It is obvious that a decision was made during the session Monday evening to break the rules and bring 32-2010 to the floor for a vote without it being heard in committee first.

The argument that there was not sufficient time to have 32-2010 heard in committee before the Council meeting doesn't hold water. The Finance Committee met that evening prior to the council meeting on another matter, and 32-2010 could have been discussed at that time under the statement on the committee meeting notice "and other matters which may be brought to the attention of the committee." The resolution itself, then was faulted, as it states it was sponsored by the Finance Committee, which it was not, as the Finance Committee never discussed it.

Another concern about the request to ignore the procedural rules by council revolves around the time involved in bringing 32-2010 to the attention of City Council. The court case was completed on May 7, 2010, according to the court records. That provided ample time for the matter to be brought before Council and considered without the necessity of blatantly ignoring Council procedures. While no time limit was set for the signed agreements to be returned to the court, a five week delay in returning the necessary documents to the court may be considered excessive. The cause of the delay remains an unanswered question. Was an unacceptable delay a factor in the extraordinary method used in getting 32-2010 legislation passed?

At the conclusion of the meeting, the Law Director was asked why the resolution did not go through committee. The Law director stated that it didn't have to go through committee as "this was a settlement that just came out of trial." He further stated that Council can bring items to the floor without going through a committee. "I'm telling you," he said, "that Council can void that rule with anything by putting it up, by voting to put it on the agenda. When they put it on the agenda, they bypass that rule. They have a right to do that. It's a procedural rule for order of Council." He went on to say that City Council is not bound to its own rules. What council wants to do, it may, with no restrictions.

The implications of last Mondays action by City Council are far reaching. A dangerous precedent has been set. With no constraints on procedure, there are no safeguards to the public. No longer are citizen comments assured. No longer is any operational rule or procedure of City Council viable.

My objection is not to the legislation of 32-2010. It is to the blatant disregard of standing rules and procedures.

With the decision to ignore City Ordinance 121.01 in this case, the precedent has been set which paves the way for city council pass legislation without the knowledge of New Philadelphia citizens. It also admits the New Philadelphia City Council into the Pelosi Get Legislation Passed No Matter How Society.

If the Law Director and City Council don't respect their own rules, what sort of respect do they have for you? Wake up folks. It is your future they are dealing with. Get involved.