Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Barry / Politics Karl Dean "Voted" Against May Town Center Rezoning?
Posted by Bruce Barry on Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:31 PM
It's easy to forget that by virtue of Metro Charter chapter 5, section 11.502, the mayor is a voting member of the planning commission. Mayors rarely if ever bothered to attend or vote at commission meetings until Bill Purcell, in the fall of 2002, decided he wanted to start sending a designated representative, so he asked his Law Department director at the time -- Karl Dean! -- if that would be legal. Dean issued an opinion saying yes: "Even though the Metropolitan Charter is silent on this issue, the mayor has the authority to designate a representative under the authority of Tennessee Code Annotated 13-4-101(a)." That section of the Tennessee code says that on any municipal planning commission, one member "shall be the mayor of the municipality or a person designated by the mayor."
Ever since, there has been a mayor's representative with voting rights on the planning commission. Dean's representative is Andrée LeQuire, who at last week's meeting made a motion to disapprove amending the area's detailed design plan, and on the critical 5-5 vote went against May Town. Should LeQuire's actions be taken as the equivalent of action by the mayor himself? Here's how her name appears on the planning commission's letterhead; you make the call.
Comments (6)
Showing 1-6 of 6
Jim Gotto, Metro Council's representative, voted for May Town Center. Does this mean Metro Council supports May Town Center?
like
dislike
By the way, what people should be looking into is the bizarre switch by Victor Tyler. I swear he explained his rationale for supporting May Town Center only to later vote against it. I'm pretty sure he was mixed up, and rightfully so considering the disoriented nature of the motion.
Gotto is there by virtue of Metro Charter provision saying that the chair of council's planning and zoning committee serves on the planning commission. That doesn't make him a "representative" or "voice" of the council since on many issues the council won't speak with one voice.
This seems quite different from the situation involving the mayor. The Charter puts the mayor him/herself on the commission. Other commission members appointed by the mayor have to be approved by the council. Accordingly, when the mayor sends a representative who hasn't been vetted or confirmed by the council, that representative is casting the vote that the Metro Charter specifically grants to the mayor and only the mayor. The Charter doesn't say that the mayor gets to appoint one commission member without council approval; it says the mayor is a member of the commission. Since Purcell, mayors have asserted that they can send a proxy. Fine, but that proxy is casting a vote that belongs to the mayor.
I think I understand your logic. Accordingly, are you suggesting Dean perhaps expressed his will on this issue through Andree LeQuire – that is, Dean prodded LeQuire to vote nay? Or are you saying, symbolically, because LeQuire voted against it, Dean voted against it? LeQuire seems genuinely passionate against the proposal, and May Town certainly contradicts her track record in the development world. So, whether she's just an extension of Dean or not, I'm sure she opposes May Town for legitimate reasons.
Jackson, I think you hit the heart of the matter. Since the LeQuire vote is the mayor's vote, you would expect that vote to reflect the mayor's preference - genuinely, not merely symbolically or indirectly or incidentally. Certainly if the mayor is going to allow his representative to be a fully active commission member who votes on everything, then the mayor is delegating a lot of control and discretion; what mayor, after all, has the time to confer with his representative on every planning/zoning matter?
But it is unambiguously the mayor's vote, and (as the 2002 NPost article to which I linked in the post explains) the original idea behind mayoral proxies was to help avert quorum problems (which the proxy does just by showing up). There is no reason for the mayor's proxy to vote on anything expect those few matters where the mayor does actually have an interest in participating in the outcome (since it is his vote!). I haven't gone back through planning commission minutes to see if LeQuire always votes on controversial matters, but a sampling of those minutes reveals that she does regularly vote on consent agendas.
So, although I didn't really ponder this until I read Jackson's thoughtful comment, I would suggest that a mayor acts somewhat "carelessly" (not sure that's quite the right word) when he lets his proxy act as a fully functioning commission member, meaning, allows the proxy to effectively act as an independent member participating fully in all commission business).
Be all that as it may, if the mayor's proxy votes on something, it is the mayor's vote, and so I think it is not just reasonable, but also essential, given how the Charter is written, that the public infer, to borrow Jackson's words, that "because LeQuire voted against it, Dean voted against it."
