Spectrum

s mayor making his own rules?

By Mary Psenak

At the regular borough assembly meeting on March 18, the governing body had two especially important issues to act on.

One was to appoint a new member to fill a vacancy in District 2. When the vote was counted, there was a 3-3 tie. Instead of letting the assembly discuss this, and perhaps come up with a compromise that would satisfy everyone, the mayor jumped in and voted to break the tie. We now have a new assembly member appointed by the mayor instead of the assembly, as the Municipal Code directs. I will not belabor this point because Jay Nolfi did an excellent job of pointing out the problems with this action in her March 21 Spectrum article. Suffice it to say; Title 29 gives the authority to fill this vacancy to the assembly, not the mayor. Yes, Jay, some changes need to be made here, maybe the court needs to look at this.

The other issue that faced the assembly was whether Lee Sharp should be removed from his position on the planning commission. The vote was four for his removal and two for retaining him. The mayor declared that the vote had failed because they needed two-thirds of the people who were allowed to be on the assembly. The assembly at that time contained six members. Unless my math has really become rusty, two-thirds of six is four, this was a two-thirds majority. This was a legal assembly, authorized to do legal business. Actions were taken before and after this action and were considered legal.

The borough clerk furnished the public with three sections of the Mat-Su Borough Municipal Code that affected this decision.

Section 4.05.030 (B(1)) states: "A member is removed for good cause by the mayor with the approval of the assembly or by a two-thirds majority of the assembly." This was certainly a two-thirds majority of the people able to vote.

Section 2.12.100 states: "A majority of the total members of the assembly shall constitute a quorum, but a smaller number may adjourn from time to time and may compel the attendance of absent members in the manner and subject to the penalties prescribed by the rules of the assembly." This doesn't seem to pertain to the problem.

Section 2.12.111 (E) states: "Whenever the rules refer to a vote of the majority or other designated portion of the assembly, the vote required shall be the designated portion of the seven members authorized to serve on the board."

There are two ways to authorize assembly members, one by election or in the case of a vacant seat, by the vote of the remaining members to fill that seat. The latter was done later in the evening. But at the time this action was taken, only six members were authorized to be on this board and to do the business of the borough. There were no members authorized and absent, there were no authorized members who refused to vote, there were only six people authorized to serve on that assembly, and two-thirds of six is four. No other members were authorized to conduct borough business. There were six authorized members of the assembly and two-thirds of these members voted to remove Mr. Sharp from the Planning Commission. Seven cannot be used to figure the percentage because the borough did not have seven members when this vote was taken.

Call your assembly person and tell them how you feel about this. At the very least the borough code needs to be changed, maybe the courts should look at this one, too.

Mary Psenak is a Palmer resident.