This post's emphasis is not on the issues addressed themselves, but their "Declaration As Emergency". Many, if not most, of the legislation passed is necessary for our community to function as it does. However, there is a pattern of reliance on this ability to declare an emergency.
In response to this idea, a council member published a piece in The Villager (our community newsletter) which can also be found online.
http://www.minervapark.org/government101/index.htm
When you attend a council meeting or read the Mayor's Report, you will note that some legislation is passed "declaring an emergency." It sounds sudden and unexpected, but what does it really mean?
According to the Ohio Revised Code, to pass a piece of legislation as an emergency simply means that the legislation will take effect immediately after passage instead of 30 days later.
There are numerous reasons why a piece of legislation must take effect immediately, including to meet an important deadline, to sign a contract to keep services maintained, to start a project, or to take action on a hiring or benefits decision that needs to start as soon as possible. No matter what the reason, Council must consider it to be in the best interests of the health and welfare of the residents of the Village to have the legislation take effect immediately.
Despite it sounding sudden and unexpected, most pieces of legislation passed as an emergency are neither sudden nor unexpected. Much legislation is done on an annual basis such as contracts for services, the budget, and rules of council for the ensuing year. Street projects that are passed "declaring an emergency" often go through years of discussion and planning. These and other pieces of legislation are discussed in committee meetings and work sessions, and many times they are read at Council month after month before being passed.
When they are passed, if they need to go into effect immediately, they are passed declaring an emergency. So the next time you see "declaring an emergency," read it as "will take effect immediately."
Stay informed. All legislation - proposed or passed - continues to be posted at http://www.minerva park.org/legislation.
According to the Ohio Revised Code, to pass a piece of legislation as an emergency simply means that the legislation will take effect immediately after passage instead of 30 days later.
There are numerous reasons why a piece of legislation must take effect immediately, including to meet an important deadline, to sign a contract to keep services maintained, to start a project, or to take action on a hiring or benefits decision that needs to start as soon as possible. No matter what the reason, Council must consider it to be in the best interests of the health and welfare of the residents of the Village to have the legislation take effect immediately.
Despite it sounding sudden and unexpected, most pieces of legislation passed as an emergency are neither sudden nor unexpected. Much legislation is done on an annual basis such as contracts for services, the budget, and rules of council for the ensuing year. Street projects that are passed "declaring an emergency" often go through years of discussion and planning. These and other pieces of legislation are discussed in committee meetings and work sessions, and many times they are read at Council month after month before being passed.
When they are passed, if they need to go into effect immediately, they are passed declaring an emergency. So the next time you see "declaring an emergency," read it as "will take effect immediately."
Stay informed. All legislation - proposed or passed - continues to be posted at http://www.minerva park.org/legislation.
By Council President Pam Park-Curry
The Villager Newsletter - January 2011
The Villager Newsletter - January 2011
Since we are clear on the "purpose" of "Declaring an Emergency" is to have it take effect immediately after passage, rather than the 30 day period otherwise required, let's move onto the use of this loophole Minerva Park repetitively uses.
It is true that most of the use of the "Declaring An Emergency" loophole is used for routine things, as presented above. Renewing contracts, updating bonds, and renewing user agreements are all common.
However, these items are generally all expected. They are handled each year, every three years, or at least on a basis in which the Council can give the exact date that the contract was expected to expire. This is NOT a legitimate use of the "Emergency" rule, nor is it an excuse to use it when questioned.
A prepared government would anticipate its contract renewals at least three-and-a-half months in advance, allowing enough time for it to be read three times at typical council meetings and have 30 days to take effect.
A prepared government does not rely on emergency action.
Perhaps more concerning is the fact that not only are these issues passed as an emergency, their three readings were waived, giving the community no insight into them unless they diligently follow the actions of Council.
It's as if Council does as it wants, regardless of its community members' wants.
Of these "Emergencies" of 2010:
11 out of 22 had all three readings waived
7 out of 22 were passed without any readings waived
The remaining bodies had either one or two readings waived.
To be fair, the whole story is never published on the Minerva Park website. The citizen cannot tell just from what is posted there all the dimensions of the emergency legislation.
There are some items that were likely unforeseen. An example lies in resolution 2010-39: Authorizing the Mayor to accept a grant from ODNR. This is something that clearly, the Ohio Revised Code applies to. Although the Council should have been aware of the application in the first place, the legislation to accept the grant wouldn't have been necessary until likely less than the typical 3.5 months needed to give proper announcement.
Otherwise, many of these "emergencies" have within them terms such as "from time to time" (employment) and "in a timely manner" (to respond to contracts or deadlines) which in themselves blur the time frame the legislation is discussing, also blurring the legitimacy of its being an "emergency" based on the documentation as voted on.
A great example of the Village misuse of the "emergency" rule can be found in resolution 2010-28 on a health insurance contract. Again, this is not an argument of the necessity of health insurance in general, but the manner in which the legislation was handled. The dates for the readings are as follows:
"Council hereby declares this to be an emergency measure necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of Minerva Park, such emergency arising from the need to have a health insurance policy in place by January 1, 2011. Wherefore, this resolution shall take effect and shall be in force upon its passage."
It is true that most of the use of the "Declaring An Emergency" loophole is used for routine things, as presented above. Renewing contracts, updating bonds, and renewing user agreements are all common.
However, these items are generally all expected. They are handled each year, every three years, or at least on a basis in which the Council can give the exact date that the contract was expected to expire. This is NOT a legitimate use of the "Emergency" rule, nor is it an excuse to use it when questioned.
A prepared government would anticipate its contract renewals at least three-and-a-half months in advance, allowing enough time for it to be read three times at typical council meetings and have 30 days to take effect.
A prepared government does not rely on emergency action.
Perhaps more concerning is the fact that not only are these issues passed as an emergency, their three readings were waived, giving the community no insight into them unless they diligently follow the actions of Council.
It's as if Council does as it wants, regardless of its community members' wants.
Of these "Emergencies" of 2010:
11 out of 22 had all three readings waived
7 out of 22 were passed without any readings waived
The remaining bodies had either one or two readings waived.
To be fair, the whole story is never published on the Minerva Park website. The citizen cannot tell just from what is posted there all the dimensions of the emergency legislation.
There are some items that were likely unforeseen. An example lies in resolution 2010-39: Authorizing the Mayor to accept a grant from ODNR. This is something that clearly, the Ohio Revised Code applies to. Although the Council should have been aware of the application in the first place, the legislation to accept the grant wouldn't have been necessary until likely less than the typical 3.5 months needed to give proper announcement.
Otherwise, many of these "emergencies" have within them terms such as "from time to time" (employment) and "in a timely manner" (to respond to contracts or deadlines) which in themselves blur the time frame the legislation is discussing, also blurring the legitimacy of its being an "emergency" based on the documentation as voted on.
A great example of the Village misuse of the "emergency" rule can be found in resolution 2010-28 on a health insurance contract. Again, this is not an argument of the necessity of health insurance in general, but the manner in which the legislation was handled. The dates for the readings are as follows:
First Reading: September 13, 2010
Second Reading: October 11, 2010
Third Reading: December 13, 2010
Passed: December 13, 2010
If Council had read the issue in the November Council Meeting, there wouldn't have been an emergency:Second Reading: October 11, 2010
Third Reading: December 13, 2010
Passed: December 13, 2010
"Council hereby declares this to be an emergency measure necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of Minerva Park, such emergency arising from the need to have a health insurance policy in place by January 1, 2011. Wherefore, this resolution shall take effect and shall be in force upon its passage."
This almost seems like a deliberate move by Council to "get away with" another emergency declaration. MOST of the cases of emergency declaration arise out of the actions of Council, be it lack of planning or a lack of interest in it, the reliance on emergency legislation is a pattern that appears again and again in Minerva Park politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment