City Attorney ruled on Budget analyst last August

March 16, 2017

City Attorney Lysia Bowling issued a legal opinion in August 2016 regarding the Budget Analyst position. She said the position was solely under the discretion of the Council.


“The decision to hire a Budget Analyst and to assign specific tasks to that person is uniquely and exclusively a City Council decision. To the extent that there is any perceived ambiguity with the language contained in the Charter pertaining to the this position, it would be the prerogative of the Council to resolve that ambiguity by the exercise of sound judgment. Only the Council can determine its budgetary requirements and the extent of assistance that it may require.”

Read Bowling 8-19-16.

This unforced error by Mayor Hayward is a head scratcher.

You Might Also Like


  • Reply CJ Lewis March 17, 2017 at 2:53 pm

    This is really not that complicated. The City Charter requires the City Council to adopt an ordinance to define the qualifications, pay and responsibilities of the Budget Analyst. They did that in April 2016. Last week, Councilwoman Cannada-Wynn proposed amending the “qualifications” and the “responsibilities” of the Budget Analyst but failed to do so by ordinance. She also proposed amending the Charter to change the procedure for terminating the Budget Analyst but failed to do so by Charter Amendment. In brief, last week’s vote has no legal effect because the Council exercises no power under the state’s Municipal Home Rule Powers Act to do what it tried to do last week mindful that no one involved seemed to know what they were doing. I most blame Council Executive Kraher listed as the “Staff Contact” on Cannada-Wynn’s Legislative Action Item. He should know better. City Attorney Bowling just seems AWOL. On Mayor Hayward’s side, he helps make himself look like a fool by refusing to “attend all meetings of the City Council” as required by the Charter. To make matters worse, someone drafted a veto for him to sign objecting to what he was led to believe was a “resolution” when it fact he was vetoing nothing because the Council’s vote does not count. It is that simple.

  • Reply Bi March 17, 2017 at 9:51 am

    A City Attorney contradicted the mayor? I hope she has her resume up to date, she might get “restructured.”

  • Reply George Hawthorne March 16, 2017 at 1:58 pm

    Oops! Stuck on Stupid again with the “administrator clowns” giving the Mayor “advice,” However, don’t even remember the “attorney clown’s advice” that directly contradicts the Mayor’s action. Leadership at its finest!

    Wait until Chief’s Glover and Schmidt deposes the “clowns of this circus show” regarding the “mayor’s” history of “following” the charter, the laws of the city and the federal law.

    The taxpayer’s are going to pay with reduced services and higher taxes.

  • Leave a Reply

    Read This Before Leaving a Comment

    Please make sure your comments follow our guidelines:

    • Please use real name - first and last names.
    • No foul language (please). Comments that are obscene, vulgar or sexually oriented will be removed. Creative spelling of such terms or implied use of such language is banned, also.
    • Do not threaten to hurt or kill anyone.
    • Be nice. No racism, sexism or any other sort of -ism that degrades another person.
    • Harassing comments. If you are the subject of a harassing comment or personal attack by another user, do not respond in-kind. Email Rick: The comment will be deleted asap.
    • Share what you know. Give us your eyewitness accounts, background, observations and history.
    • Do not libel anyone. Libel is writing something false about someone that damages that person
    • Remember, this is my site. I set the rules and reserve the right to remove any comments that I deem inappropriate and to ban anyone who violates these rules.

    Comments that do not adhere will be deleted or marked as SPAM.