This should probably get cleared up before the commission votes tomorrow. You know, just in case they actually change anything in the budget.
There's been a lot of talk about how many members it takes to override a mayoral veto. The whole super majority thing. County Law Director Joe Jarret says seven. I've heard a lot of people say eight. And yes, I've made some cracks myself about eight, but always went with seven because lawyers get paid to argue and I get paid to listen, then scribble crap down.
So, here's the deal: It's seven.
The county charter doesn't even talk about a so-called super majority. It says that in order to override a veto, the commission needs a majority plus one. That's seven.
A simple majority for the 11-member commission obviously is six.
Good.
Now I'm curious as to whether the mayor will even have to use his veto power. I mentioned a long time back – click right smack here – that we were going to hear a lot of rhetoric from the time the budget gets presented to the time it passes, but more than likely few – if any changes – would be made.
It still takes a majority of commissioners to make approve the plan and there are quite a few who have been silent lately. Maybe enough to sign off on county Mayor Tim Burchett's budget as he proposed it without any of the proposed amendments.
30 comments:
What a hick town. Simple majority plus one. Looks like the all mighty Baker Center missed that one when they were reducing the size of Commission. They had their big report on how to make County government better, and missed supermajority vote for veto override.
Unbelievable.
Guess they were too busy trying to get Metro Gov ramped up to do the important work of basic government.
What ever happened to the Baker Center? Oh, that's right. They imploded. Laid everybody off because they couldn't raise money. Maybe people weren't impressed with their work.
The budget requires two votes. That makes it an ordinance. And that invokes supermajority.
9thSon writes:
in response to Jack_McLeroy:
No, it is seven votes. Our poorly constructed County Charter does not require a supermajority. You can soon expect a Charter Amendment to fix this.
The Budget vote is by ordinance:
See Charter 2.10 c
Any vote of the Commission to override the veto of the Mayor of Knox County shall be taken within thirty-five (35) days of the expiration of the period required of the County Clerk to notify the members of the Commission of the veto which is the subject of such override vote. The affirmative vote of not less than a majority plus one (1) of the membership of the Commission shall be required to override the veto of the Mayor of Knox County; provided, however, in the case of ordinances and emergency ordinances requiring a two-thirds (2/3) vote for original passage, a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the membership of the Commission shall be required to override the veto of the Mayor of Knox County. The ordinance, emergency ordinance or resolution shall immediately become effective upon the Commission overriding the veto.
It takes Two Thirds vote which is 8 votes.
This was posted by Scott Barker, the KNS Editorial editor:
"If you read the charter provision carefully, you will note that only those ordinances that need a 2/3 majority for original passage need a 2/3 majority to override a veto. If an ordinance only requires a majority vote for passage, only a majority-plus-one is needed to override.
Section 2.09 of the charter lists the ordinances that need a 2/3 vote. The budget isn't one of them. Unless there's another exception in another part of the charter I haven't found, that would mean that seven (majority-plus-one) votes would be needed to override a veto.
First post was best. Hick town is right.
This is a hick town (county, actually) because the charter says 63 percent of the commission is needed to override a veto? What does that make the state of Tennessee, which requires only a simple majority for an override of the governor's veto?
Also, the county passes its budget via resolution, not ordinance. Technically, it's three resolutions - one for the budget, one for the tax rate and one for the capital plan. Commissioners only vote once on each of the three.
It's great how the KNS defends Amy Broyles. Let's review. Amy didn't attend a SINGLE Budget meeting. Refused to meet with the Mayor and his staff. Crafted, if you can call it that, her special little Budget. Then went to the KNS and called the Mayor names. Then she phoned the Mayor and told him how it was going to be.
Sounds like Lumpy on crack. You didn't like Lumpy, who could be disruptive, but you love Amy who is militantly disruptive.
Look at the KNS advertising. This is why it is off. Your ideology is showing.
I can only hope the budget meeting will be as entertaining as this has been so far.
LVG's still a class act. Always will be.
Well, until he finally snaps from having to cover all of this nonsense, anyway.
Hmmm. I don't think we've "defended her." We did say in today's editorial that her proposal was a good place to start the budget amendment discussion but that isn't an endorsement of it (in fact we pointedly declined to endorse it). I've heard all these rumors about her coming to KNS recently for some nefarious purpose, but I haven't seen her. And I liked Lumpy fine. He made for great copy.
Hubert's not a big fan of online conversation, apparently. Me, I like a written record. Potato, pohtahto, spud gun ammo.
Looks like the pre-meeting lobbying is reaching its crescendo. The largest group in attendance so far is the Sheriff's Office, and I hope at least the deputies making under $40k get themselves a bit of a raise.
(Oh, well, Chairman. Almost on time. But still better than the last one I attended, whenever the hell that was. Roll call done, and here we go.)
Ooh. New twist. We get "parliamentary procedure" on today's menu. Jarret's trying to herd cats by laying down some guidelines for motions. About damn time someone did.
(The rules kinda sound like poker. Man, I wish I could stay for the whole thing.)
One of the spectators had the right idea. Next time, it's a seat on the second tier.
Hammond's making a plea for decorum and civility. Let's see how long that lasts.
Resolution 1: Da Budget. (Or "OMG DOOM AND GLOOM" no matter who you ask, it seems.)
Broyles with the first amendment. Aaaand our first stumbling blocks. God bless part-timers.
Broyles punts. McKenzie up now with his.
Jarret, out of the gate, is wrong. He declared a 2/3rd's vote to be 7 Commissioners. Now the State Attorney General has to be involved.
After looking at Jarret's bio, which is quite impressive, he makes a political call rather than following the law.
McKenzie is prefacing by saying "OMG I'm not cutting Public Works, I'm just keeping funds at the same level as last time!" Heard it before (have the email). VDV's up at Sammy's request, and that was probably not a very good move on his part.
Ooh, first peanut gallery comment and we're only 11 minutes in. Not bad.
McKenzie's getting a bit of an attitude now talking about the Beck, and a surprise caveat!
McKenzie blah blah recognizes public outrage, blah blah 990, and FINALLY DOES THE RIGHT DAMN THING. Calls for $12k now, $138k after a clean audit.
Not bad, Commissioner. I kept the applause quiet, but it was there, I promise you.
Kinda sucks that Broyles had to hesitate on the second, but it is what it is. The current motion to amend (main motion is, of course, to approve the budget themselves):
McKenzie - $12k now, $138k after successful audit to Beck Cultural.
Decorum is starting to break down a bit, but holding. Jarret had to be informed of local customs. I bet he gets that a lot.
LWV Janey Dobbs is up first with her three minutes from the audience.
Dobbs: LWV sez fund MPC, maintain case management and other services for homeless, senior initiatives, and I missed the last one (something about restoring a contract related to ecology).
Albert Baah is up. No word on if he brought his ambulance. (It's a bitchin' ambulance.)
Baah's talkin' 'bout Beck. Wants funding and accountability. But is actually siding with Burchett RE: his proposed $12k funding.
VOTE:
McK Aye
Broyles Aye
Brown No
Anders No
Briggs No
Smith No
Wright No
Shouse No
Hammond No
Ownby No
Other Person No
...looks like Beck, so far, isn't getting any extra money? Am I reading this right? McKenzie's $364k plan fails. (Shoulda asked for it out of the debt paydown money, Sam. But good on you for asking for an audit. I hope you'll continue to keep respectfully requesting this until we get it. That'd be pretty awesome, actually.)
Next: McKenzie's $50k back to KAT Senior.
OH, RIGHT! Dammit, Tony, sorry - was drawing a blank on your name. It's been a while.
Other Person = Norman, voted no.
On the second amendment, we're looking at a bit of a struggle concerning tabling discussion for later, but Sam apparently isn't enthralled. Likes the KAT Senior program (and who doesn't), but getting a little rhetorical for my tastes.
Anyway. I'll rest while he talks.
Norman looks for a ridership number on KAT Senior - no answer. (No KAT reps here?)
Decorum broken at 3:30. Broyles v. Anders RE: county/city roads and who's responsible for what and who's paying for who!
I mean, what. Surely no one's getting influenced by the green around here.
I miss the old Lumpy/Harmon fights. Those were simply awesome.
I don't think Broyles will win a single vote. Today she makes Lumpy look like Winston Churchill.
Brown weighs in on Anders' side concerning county residents vs. city residents paying the most for road maintenance in "Center County". (Strange name for a division.)
Motion up for Table! But first - Jarret herds more cats. (Are we taking bets on whether Jarret gets a moment of lucidity and drops out of the LD race?
Motion to table fails, back to original motion - $50k back to KAT.
Shouse No
Hammond No
Brown No
Wright No
Smith No
Anders No
Briggs No
Ownby No
Norman No
Broyles No
McKenzie Lone Ranger
Motion to restore $50k to KAT via Sam's method fails. Third motion by McKenzie - he's sounding defeated now, talking about lack of support concerning where he wants to take the funds.
(Fuckin' told ya, Sam. Just listen. Please, just listen to someone other than your usual circles for a change. Then you might not be so caught off-guard on issues like this. And we need you not to be so you can be an effective 1st District rep. There. That's as nice as I know how to tell an obviously smart guy some obvious stuff that he should've figured out on his own a long time ago.)
Long-winded speech about this not being a "city v. county" feud-type-thing. Light's out, Brown up.
Someone's gonna have to take over in five minutes, by the by. Busybusybusy.
Actually, someone take over now. An email, I must write.
Amy Broyles says we have plenty of money. Yeaaaa. Give the raises out. If Lumpy did this he would be called on it. So why does this woman get a pass?
Brian, that's some of the best play-by-play I've read in a long time.
I live but to serve.
Post a Comment