• A closer look at Council’s powers
A closer look at Council’s powers
By Walter Lewis
A making lated number of the infirmities of our County government are being exposed in the maneuverings reto the County Council’s powers to engage in investigations. The County Charter, in Section 3.17, grants to the Council the power to conduct investigations of the operation of an agency or function of the County “and any subject upon which the council may legislate.” Although this provision has existed since 1968 when the Charter was adopted, it has never been used. The concept of this power is a reasonable one and many citizens have urged its use to examine the inefficiencies and possible malfeasance of the County’s public works department which has been bestowed about one third of the County’s annual budget of over $100 million.
The present story begins with the introduction by Council Chair Asing last month of a proposed Resolution 2005-25 purporting to cover the rules to be applied in a Council investigation in the context of the confrontation of the Council and the Police Commission about the right of the Council to investigate the Police Department. A careful look at the terms of this document discloses its numerous deficiencies. Here are some of them.
Establishing the procedures to be followed by a governmental board requires a thoughtful expression of the procedures to be used and this work is normally done by a lawyer. The Resolution was presented to Council members with no indication of its source by Mr. Asing who is not a lawyer. If the County Attorney’s office was consulted one wonders about the numerous technical errors and omissions it contains.
The resolution as introduced is draconian. It seeks to facilitate the Council’s prerogatives, but it fails to express basic constitutional and statutory rights and privileges of the witnesses the Council may call.
The resolution seeks to extend the Asing Council’s penchant for holding hearings in executive session. But it is doubted if the State Sunshine Law permits executive session in this situation where it would include a potentially hostile witness. A ruling from the Office of Information Practice has been sought by an interested party.
An ordinance creates a law. A resolution essentially states a recommendation. The resolution here involved creates a subpoena power and specifies criminal sanction. It should have been presented as a bill for an ordinance.
The resolution establishes the Council as prosecutor, judge and jury as to any infractions it finds and sets fines and imprisonment for violators. This usurpation of judicial and prosecutorial authority is of highly questionable validity.
The Council was about to jump over the cliff with the clumsy and poorly drafted Asing resolution when Council member Iseri-Carvalho offered a comprehensive amendment that improved its terminology, curbed the Council’s undue powers and provided witnesses with appropriate civil rights. The County should be warmly grateful for Ms. Iseri-Carvalho’s measure which was adopted at the February 10, 2005 Council meeting.
It would have been better, however, if the Council had deferred its action until it could have obtained the benefit of requested guidance from the State Office of Information Practice as to the interaction of the Sunshine law and the use of closed sessions for witness testimony. Now that the Council has adopted a responsible procedural methodology to implement its investigative powers under Charter Section 3.17, is it too much to hope that it will act wisely in selecting topics for the use of these powers.
- Walter Lewis is a resident of Princeville
