Applications Google
Menu principal

Post a Comment On: "WE THE PEOPLE"

"OUTSIDE OPINION ON PEREZ REMOVAL: "THE ISSUE IS MOOT""

2 Comments -

1 – 2 of 2
Anonymous Katie Boroviak said...

Wish it were mute instead. Then again, collectively the council is basically deaf, dumb and blind, so, whatever. How much did that legal opinion cost?

May 17, 2010 at 8:59 PM

Anonymous peter brush said...

Founding Father and Atty. A. Taylor cites no case or statute for the proposition that it is too late for the Council to come up with an ordinance setting out a "procedure for determining said absence or disability." Let us accept arguendo that it is too late to invoke a yet-to-be-adopted ordinace declaring the full-time presence at a criminal trial an "absence." I say, pass an ordinance declaring pending criminal trial related to municipal service, conviction of a crime related to municipal service, and serving a prison term for any crime "absences." If the council won't invoke it during the trial, how about invoking in the event of a conviction? As far as I can tell Allan Taylor has expressed no opinion on whether we can get rid of a corrupt mayor who is actually in prison where he, the mayor, could be "in contact with the Chief Operating Officer by electronic or voice communication" as per charter.

May 18, 2010 at 10:30 AM

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
Please prove you're not a robot