B-1 17-1947 An Ordinance to Amend the Code of the City of Ann Arbor by Adding a New Chapter, which New Chapter Shall Be Designated as Chapter 6, Procedures for Removal of Councilmembers, of Title I of Said Code
What to do about votes made by council members who were in violation of this proposed ordinance? If a council member was appointed to a seat, say to provide a key 8th vote for sale of public land, yet that council member did, at the time of their appointment, meet the criteria of "cause for removal" - 1:112 (3) "conviction of a felony", would that not cast doubt upon the legitimacy of their appointment, the legitimacy of their vote, and their trustworthiness? What of the council members who voted in favor of said appointment & their failure to perform due diligence on the background of appointee?
Why now is a means for removal of council members being codified? Cynical observers of council might think this is just another way for a majority of like-minded council to oust a thorn-in-the-side type to tilt the balance of power back to one side.
Also, there are many typos & instances of missing punctuation in the ordinance as posted. Seems like it was kind of hastily & poorly edited.
What to do about votes made by council members who were in violation of this proposed ordinance? If a council member was appointed to a seat, say to provide a key 8th vote for sale of public land, yet that council member did, at the time of their appointment, meet the criteria of "cause for removal" - 1:112 (3) "conviction of a felony", would that not cast doubt upon the legitimacy of their appointment, the legitimacy of their vote, and their trustworthiness? What of the council members who voted in favor of said appointment & their failure to perform due diligence on the background of appointee?
Why now is a means for removal of council members being codified? Cynical observers of council might think this is just another way for a majority of like-minded council to oust a thorn-in-the-side type to tilt the balance of power back to one side.
Also, there are many typos & instances of missing punctuation in the ordinance as posted. Seems like it was kind of hastily & poorly edited.