City Attorney ruled on Budget analyst last August

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.


3 thoughts on “City Attorney ruled on Budget analyst last August

  1. 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.

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

  3. 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.

Comments are closed.