Apparently, the Mayor has made another admission. He wants the Transit and Parking Commission to reconsider the bus fares – and put it on their agenda for the THIRD time. The reaction – well, all I could say was “ouch“. This is just getting painful to watch.
The chair of the Transit and Parking Commission, Carl DuRocher nails it with this:
Satya Rhodes-Conway expresses the way many are feeling:
And even Brian Solomon chimes in:
“The TPC has acted twice. Maybe it’s time to put it before the council.”
I guess they won’t be getting any “civility” awards any time soon! But I’m glad to see people speaking their minds without fear of retribution!
The Mayor’s excuse for acting this way:
Seriously, does anyone buy that? If so . . .
My first thought was that Robert’s Rules of Order doesn’t allow you to reconsider something that has already been reconsidered. I confirmed that and called the city attorney. Apparently, the City Attorney thinks that this is a “materially different” decision.
Excuse me? If I was the chair, I wouldn’t rule it that way.
Question the first time: Should we raise the bus fares to $2 like the council budgeted?
Question before TPC the second time: Should we raise the bus fares to $2 like the council budgeted?
Question before TPC the third time: Should we raise the bus fares to $2 like the council budgeted?
How is that not different? Apparently reconsidering the $1.50 bus fare decision is different than reconsidering the $1.75 bus fare decision. If the chair ruled that they are materially different, I’d challenge the ruling of the chair – but I’m not on the Transit and Parking Commission. This is just absurd.
They had the same public hearing, have mostly the same information. The only thing different is someone resigned and someone missed a meeting and if they get the right people in the room, the Mayor thinks they’ll get a different decision. I wonder who on the prevailing side will make that motion? It has to be someone who was at the meeting, unlike the Council.
And who doesn’t believe, that no matter what the TPC decides, someone is going to be “aggrieved” and appeal it anyways and it will end up before the council anyways? What’s the Mayor trying to avoid? Facing the public? Long public testimony? Possibly being forced to break a tie and vote on this?
It doesn’t make sense to keep dragging this out. The TPC has clearly told us what they think – its up to the council to ignore them or take their advice.