Forget about the elimination of ward-elected councilors. You want a reason to vote No on the Charter? Look no further than Section 2-9(c), the Charter Objection, and the Commission’s failure to address its unintended abuse.

Turn the way-back machine to June 2008. A highly contentious budget season, as the city prepared to close two branch libraries. As the board of alderman prepared and considered various amendments that would save the branches, four brave souls stood and invoked Section 2-9(c). Section 2-9(c) provides a mechanism for councilors (then aldermen) to delay a vote on an item the first time the item comes for a vote. It gives a single councilor the ability to say, “Not so fast folks. Let’s deliberate on this a little more.” Vote is delayed until the next meeting, unless 3 or more councilors invoke Section 2-9(c), in which case the vote is delayed until the next regularly scheduled meeting.

Back in June 2008, aldercritters Susan Albright, Paul Coletti, Ted Hess-Mahan, and Sydra Schnipper invoked the Charter Objection to postpone the budget vote until the next regularly scheduled board meeting. Only one problem, the board has a deadline to act on a budget once proposed. If the board hasn’t acted to amend and then deny or approve, the budget is constructively adopted as originally submitted by the mayor. And, there was no regularly scheduled meeting after the Great Charter Objection of 2008 and before the deadline to act on the budget. So, the budget was constructively approved without any measures to save the library branches.

The Four Charterteers* weaponized an otherwise uncontroversial procedural tool to frustrate the board’s deliberations.

There was a lot of virtual ink shed on the topic at the time. Here’s a post related to Brian Yates’s confusing stance on the use of the charter objection. What was clear to some of us was that Section 2-9(c) did not address the situation where board inaction before a deadline would have constructive effect, as with a budget or a special permit item. It seems inconceivable that charter objection was meant to give one or three people the ability to wholly take disposition of a matter out of the council’s hands. It appears, to just about everyone who has opined, as an oversight. A missed use case.

Comes the Charter Commission. While other folks have been worried about the size of the council or who gets to vote for whom, I wanted to make sure that the commission fixed the structural flaw with the charter objection. Its use should not be allowed if invoking the objection is tantamount to passage or denial of an item without a vote.

Alerted to the logical gap in Section 2-9(c), the charter commission … punted. All they did (besides adjusting the number of councilors have to object so that the numbers match the proposed 12-person council), was add some weaselly language: 

The city council may, by rule, limit the application of the charter objection procedure.

A complete abdication. The charter creates the problem. The charter should cure the problem. Here’s how simple it could be. Add the following:

This procedure shall not be used on any item with a deadline for passage where failure to vote has a legally binding effect, unless there is, at the time the procedure would be used, an already scheduled regular meeting before the deadline.

Of course, voting no doesn’t fix the problem. And, the weaselly language provides, at least, some opportunity to curb potential abuse of Section 2-9(c). So, despite my frustration with the commission, I’ll probably vote yes. (I hate that ward-resident councilors will get city-wide votes. I like the size and composition of the board more.)

But, I’m going to really hold my nose.

* Another of my coinages!