Board of Aldermen Page 11
April 12, 2016
my motion here would have been for final passage but | don’t want to make that motion. On the other hand, if |
were to motion to table that effectively stifles all debate and | think that’s bad form at this early stage. |
welcome other Alderman’s comments on this but it would be my intention to make a motion to table this but |
am not doing it right now because | don’t want to stifle the ability to discuss whether or not that’s something
that is the will of the Board.
Alderman Wilshire
| would support that motion. | agree that it is a very important decision we are making with the pensions and |
think having all 15 members here would be beneficial.
Alderman Deane
| would thank Alderman Siegel for not moving to table. | guess we can look at this in a number of different
ways. It is a spending cap override. | asked Attorney Clarke and | got that answer. So we are going to seta
precedent now that if an Alderman is missing then we are not going to vote on something. That’s what we are
being asked to do tonight. Regardless of whatever the subject matter is, that’s the precedence that is being
set. | would hope that in the future when we turn around and somebody is not here that we continue to do that;
that we show everyone the same generosity that we are showing Alderman O’Brien. This does require ten
votes and that doesn’t matter either; that’s the precedent that is being set. | don’t agree with it but it’s however
the majority of the Board wants to rule.
Alderman Siegel
| actually agree with Alderman Deane’s sentiment, however the problem is that we’ve gone through what we
would call the “Soucy” maneuver in memorializing our former colleague, and | don’t want to see that kind of
stuff going on. To be honest with you, | hear what you are saying and | don’t necessarily disagree with it and |
agree that if this is what we are going to do that we would probably want to have everyone have the same
courtesy, however | will point out that there are different pieces of legislation with different requirements.
Nonetheless, | hear what you are saying and | don’t disagree with it in principle.
Alderman Clemons
| understand where Alderman Deane is coming from, however | don’t think that it necessarily sets a precedent
and my advice would be that if you don’t think that we should table this then if somebody makes that motion,
vote no.
Alderman Deane
It's abundantly clear to me that you don’t have the ten votes to pass this and that’s why we are going to move
to table it, there’s no other reason. Let’s be upfront about it. It does set a precedence if we are using that but
the majority rules; | don’t question anybody’s reasoning behind how they vote but from what | am hearing it
sounds like we don’t have a member here and we want everyone to vote to be fair which is fine but we should
be fair to everyone. If someone else isn’t here for something else or it requires eight votes or ten votes or a
simple majority of members present, it no longer falls into play. | just don’t think it’s a good thing to be doing.
President McCarthy
If | might offer a pragmatic interpretation of Alderman Siegel’s original comments, if there are not ten votes to
pass it but there are not eight votes to indefinitely postpone it, if it receives nine votes in a motion for final
passage it is likely that it will get tabled anyway because there are enough votes to do that. | think Alderman
Siegel was simply saying better we not debate it this week and debate it two weeks from now since it will
ultimately be tabled anyway because of the fact that it has a particular number of votes, it changes it.
