The agenda for the city council’s meeting tonight was posted this morning on this website under the tab of “City News.” Item 8a on the agenda lists “Stop signs on Main St. at 5th and 6th.”
Last year, at the April council meeting, a citizen had suggested that stop signs should be installed at the intersection of Main and 5th Streets because of previous accidents and near misses at the intersection. This proposal was assigned to the safety committee – Jim Durst and Dick Shepherd. At the next month’s meeting in May, the safety committee strongly endorsed this proposal, and it was scheduled for a vote at the council meeting in June.
There is an ordinance which deals with stop signs. Therefore, to approve any additional stop signs requires an amendment to that ordinance. The process for passing an amendment requires three separate readings of the proposed change and a minimum of three affirmative votes each time to pass the amendment. The readings have to be on separate days; although, the last two readings can be waived if there are four affirmative votes by the council.
In June 2009, there were three votes to approve the first reading of the proposed amendment – Shepherd, Durst and Harding. There was one negative vote – Lobberecht. The motion to approve the first reading of the amendment had passed. There was a motion to waive the next two readings, and the vote was the same: three ayes and one nay. Since there were not four affirmative votes to waive the next two readings, the motion to amend the ordinance failed. However, at that point in time, the Mayor, council and the public were under the mistaken impression that the amendment had passed (but it had not). Also, during April, May and June of 2009, there were only four members on the council – Doug Greenlee’s status as a councilman was in limbo for those three months. (For a fuller explanation of what took place, see my previous blogs: “Disappearing Stop Signs – Magic or an Illusion?” dated November 4, 2009; and “Magic at City Hall,” dated November 6, 2009.
What was surprising about this matter is that there was nothing mentioned publicly by the Mayor or council members as to what happened to the stop signs. In September 2009, Dick Shepherd, who was on the safety committee and a strong supporter for installing stop signs at Main and 5th streets, asked about the status of the signs. The reply from the city administration was that the matter was under legal review. Other than that, there was no official public explanation or discussion of why the stop signs were not installed. It was also surprising that the three council members who voted for the stop signs had not put the proposal back on the agenda to start the process over again – they had enough votes to pass the amendment if there were three readings. In addition, Doug Greenlee had returned to the council in July. Being a safety manager, he probably would have supported the amendment, and there would have been four votes to waive the last two readings of the amendment.
Why was there no explanation given to the public last year as to reason the stop signs had not been installed? Perhaps, this is a small matter compared to other issues that the council has to consider; but if there was an accident involving a personal injury, then it would have been a serious matter. I believe what it boils down to is that the Mayor and the Council made a mistake and, as in the past, they were reluctant to admit it. It was a simple procedural mistake in voting, and it probably was reviewed by the city attorney. But, come on now, how long does it take for a legal review of a simple voting procedure? Besides, all the council had to do was to start the process over again, and do it correctly. If they had, the stops signs would have been installed months ago.
Yep, another lost cause! But wait, there is still magic at city hall. It appears that finally some official has said the magic word, “ABRACADABRA;” and there is still a possibility that the stop signs will be installed in the near future.