City Council 2-reading rule

The City Council has a rule that mayoral appointments (and orders?) must undergo two readings before a vote is taken to approve the appointment. My understanding is that this rule is to allow for the public to have input, whether favorable or unfavorable.

I got this comment to my previous post about this rule, from Ward 4 Councillor Ed Cameron. I'm re-printing it here -

Gillian,

Re these three appointments, and speaking for myself, there were valid reasons to waive the rules and have those appointments approved in one meeting.

Re the City Planner: after much discussion, the Council moved the process along. The next Council meeting was, I believe, three weeks away and there were concerns that when we leave candidates hanging they sometimes take other job offers. There was a very thorough vetting process of the Planner including a public get together with Councillors.

Re: the new Treasurer, she had become very well known by the Council for her work as the Mayor's Assistant.

Re: former Councillor Fowler, he's very well known by the Councillors who served with him obviously. Erford also served on the Sewer Commission for a number of years. The Water Commission needed the vacancy filled because of quorum issues, so I was happy to support it.

No offense, Ed, but are you saying that because things are left until they are in crisis mode, the City Council should suspend its rules and circumvent the open, public process? And/or that because you 11 people know someone, they are automatically acceptable?

Why not just inform the mayor that "rush" appointments are not acceptable, in most cases? One I can see, but three in three months?

When Council was debating whether to approve the Planning Director in one reading, Cheryl Robertson was dispatched from chambers to find out what the rush was and came back with basically a non-answer.

About a week ago, I was in the Planning Office and was told "nothing much is going on right now."

Was it really such an emergency? If a candidate takes another job, usually you move on to the next candidate on your short list. It happens all the time.

Ward 6 Councilor Tom O'Brien made a motion to accept Sullivan's appointment during its first reading, causing Ward 2 Councilor Greg Earls to voice his discomfort. Earls said he had no concerns with Sullivan or his resume but that passing the motion in one night would prohibit the public from weighing in on the process or being able to watch the council interview Sullivan in full session. (Daily News, Dec. 11)

Greg was right. He looked like his head was going to explode on Monday night, too, although he didn't say anything.

And Ari was right - where was it posted that there were two openings on the water board? How long has the board been operating without a quorum? Is there a rule about how much notice any volunteer board member has to give?

I have to confess that I just don't get it.