Brentwood aldermen approved a bill on Monday that removed one sentence from an existing ordinance, which will make staggering votes on a bill over multiple meetings the default, rather than introducing and voting on a bill or resolution in a single meeting.
This sentence was removed:
“The second (2nd) reading of any proposed ordinance may be deferred to a subsequent meeting of the Board of Aldermen whenever a majority of the Board of Aldermen present shall so decide by motion.”
City attorney, Frank Albrecht said the city ordinance is now verbatim with state statute.
Mayor Chris Thornton said if the board thinks two votes in one night is needed that could be put on the agenda, which would be approved at the beginning of the meeting.
“This removes the language that put us to the point where we’re doing two readings in the same meeting by default,” he said.
Alderman Andy Leahy said the reason for the current bill is because half the year the board meets only one meeting per month. He said if the change was made “you could be pushing out conditional use permits…for another 60 days until the board gets to it and approves it.”
He also said in the 14 past years the board has had one bill that was requested to have a staggered reading, and the majority of the board at the time denied staggering it. He said he gets very few comments from residents that would justify delaying a vote.
Alderman David Plufka said passing a bill in one meeting doesn’t allow for enough public participation, and is not transparent enough.
“We are not a city, financially or otherwise, that needs to act quickly for the sake of acting,” he said. He also said he doesn’t believe they would be delaying bills for half the year, as Leahy said, that the board has once-a-month meetings only in the summer months.
See also: Brentwood aldermen elect an acting president, mayor reports on Brentwood Boulevard, Brentwood mayor exercises executive authority, aldermen OK appointments
Leahy cast the only ‘no’ vote.
Brentwood will now pass bills and resolutions more like the way Maplewood and Richmond Heights does.
The Maplewood City council is required to take two meetings to pass an ordinance:
Except in the case of emergency ordinances, every proposed ordinance shall be read by title in open meeting three times before final passage. The first and second reading may be at the same meeting; however, at least one week shall lapse between introduction and final passage, unless the ordinance is declared to be an emergency.
Richmond Heights is required to wait one week between council meetings to pass a bill:
Every proposed ordinance shall be read by title in an open Council meeting at least twice before final passage, and at least one (1) week shall elapse between its first (1st) reading and final passage.
Maureen and Mary, can you show me specifically in state law or municipal Ordinance where it states the two readings have to be done at two separate meetings? I know you can spread it out to two meetings, but I don’t believe it is mandated. Even in the other communities they state in emergencies they can do both readings at the same meeting. I believe Mr. Albrecht does a fine job and this has more to do with not likeing Pat Kelly. Can’t we just look at this as a step forward and let go of the past? Brentwood is a great place to live!
Good luck on that one mike.
It amazes me that all of the sudden with Mayor Kelly gone our lawyer seems to know the rules.
What has happened is that he seems to finally be following state and Brentwood ordinances?
Simple question, does he deserve to be our city attorney when it has become apparent that during the past administration he was not doing his job. My opinion, and my opinion only was that was because to keep his job he had to be the ….boy of Mayor Kelly. It appears it is time for a change. For us to have a state audit that pointed out so many wrong doings, disregarding state and local laws, that mr Albrecht should not be allowed to continue to be our city council. He has to be held accountable for all of our wrong doings as he was our so called watchdog. It is quite apparent to the casual viewer that he was giving answers that Mayor Kelly wanted and not answers that were the truth. When you are willing to sacrifice your integrity to that degree, you do not belong in the position of being our city lawyer. Let’s find someone that will put there job before simply receiving a paycheck
What a good post. I am seeing the burgeoning of several bad acts in different places that have not had time to become a trend. However the governance is calling into question how far have we really come? We are at the beginning—and now is the time to speak out. When mayor and lawyer Thornton (a lawyer) resisted the dominant voters to vote as chair, Ald. Toohey when Toohey was rejected by the people’s representatives (BOA) then re-doubled his power to APPOINT without considering the peoples’ representatives opinions, I see a problem again with the City Administration (mayor and counsel). It is too early to tell if proprietary alliances under the table have been established—but it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…what are we to think? Sorry but I follow details.