Given that the move surprised many people, both within and without the city council, it's a legitimate question to ask: How did council attorney Jerry Ulrich come to be replaced by Stan Robison?
Anyone know?
More than one city council member has been heard to remark that he first learned of the council attorney swap only upon entering the council chambers on January 15.
So, did the council's president have an obligation to consult with his betters before pulling the trigger?
In this instance, New Albany’s much ignored code of ordinances is mute, although the state of Indiana’s rule book has this to say:
IC 36-4-6-24
Attorneys and legal research assistants
Sec. 24. (a) The legislative body may hire or contract with competent attorneys and legal research assistants on terms it considers appropriate.
(b) Employment of an attorney under this section does not affect the city department of law established under IC 36-4-9.
(c) Appropriations for salaries of attorneys and legal research assistants employed under this section may not exceed the appropriations for similar salaries in the budget of the city department of law.
As added by Acts 1980, P.L.212, SEC.3.
“Legislative body” seems to imply that the entity as a whole is charged with considering such matter, although in the most recent case, it is painfully obvious that Dan Coffey made the rotating attorney decision unilaterally. Perhaps he consulted other selected council persons, but just as obviously, not all of them.
New Albany’s code of ordinances describes the president’s duties in this passage:
§ 30.16 PRESIDENT.
(A) The President shall preside at all meetings, preserve order, decorum and decide all questions of order subject to appeal to the Common Council. He shall appoint all standing committees and all special committees that may be ordered by the Council. All standing committees shall be appointed at the commencement of each year of the term of Council and shall serve only during the term of the President appointing same. He shall fill all existing vacancies that may thereafter occur in any of such committees.
(B) He shall sign all ordinances, orders and resolutions passed by the Council before their presentation to the Mayor, as well as the journal of proceedings.
(C) He shall vote on all issues, his name being called last.
('71 Code, §30.05) (Ord. 4600, passed 3-4-57)
There is no mention of appointments beyond committee members, and we'll let the "preserve order, decorum, etc" go until another day.
We’d be happy to hear from any council member or surrogate who can help us understand the process (if any) for replacing one council attorney with another.
Until then, and turning back to the state of Indiana’s guidelines for local legislative bodies, we find that there is an official remedy for Coffey's reign of error.
IC 36-4-6-6
Power to expel member or declare seat vacant; rules
Sec. 6. The legislative body may:
(1) expel any member for violation of an official duty;
(2) declare the seat of any member vacant if he is unable to perform the duties of his office; and
(3) adopt its own rules to govern proceedings under this section.
However, a two-thirds (2/3) vote is required to expel a member or vacate his seat.
As added by Acts 1980, P.L.212, SEC.3.
The question is whether anyone will use the necessary medicine.
Hmm … wonder how Jeff Gahan would vote?
The former Illinois Governor tried to argue to the court of public opinion that his impeachment hearings were constitutional because there was no evidence against him.
ReplyDeleteThis overlooks one small detail. Impeachment trials are not civil or criminal trials. They are a process into themselves. They are intended to have as much with politics as anything else.
If 2/3s of the legislative body has so profoundly lost confidence in its executive, the common good for all out weighs the presumption of innocence for one.
To “impeach” Coffey, we only need six council members to say they have lost confidence in his leadership. There need not be a lengthy hearing.