No, wait! Then take this out of context, put it into the new out of context section of the city charter that replaces the repealed other out of context section of the city charter and THEN you have it!"
I never dreamed, when I wrote earlier in the week about a memo sent by Deputy City Manager Evelyn Honea to "Management Team and Management Team Secretaries, which read in part:
"Any information or material being sent to the Mayor and members of City Council MUST be approved by the City Manager or Assistant City Manager BEFORE it is sent to Councilmembers," (read it in its entirety here)
that the memo would somehow intertwine with another item of interest I had written about here and here.
I was told by the Public Information Director to:
"...provide the following context to this (memo), which was to reaffirm the provision of the City Charter noted below." The provision of the Charter she was referring to was Section 2.8 of the Charter...:
Section 2.8. Prohibition of interference
Neither the council nor any of its members shall direct or request the appointment of any person to, or his removal from, office by the city manager or by any of his subordinates, or in any way interfere with the appointment or removal of officers and employees in the administrative service of the city. Except for the purpose of inquiry, unless specifically otherwise provided in this Charter, the council and its members shall deal with the administrative officers and services solely through the city manager, and neither the council nor any member thereof shall give orders to the subordinates of the city manager, either publicly or privately. Any councilmember violating the provisions of this Section shall forfeit his office. Whether such violation has occurred shall be determined by the members of the council, and their decision shall be final. Approved by vote of the people April 1, 1986.
It turns out (hat tip: Community Free Press - Midweek) that the law department has proposed that Section 2.8 of the City Charter be repealed and replaced with a new Section 2.8. The new Section 2.8 has nothing to do with "prohibition of interference," instead it has to do with "disclosure of certain transactions." The proposed bill is none other than Council Bill 2007-241. Go figger.
When the Public Information Director returns from vacation will she still advise me to:
"provide the following context to this (memo), which was to reaffirm the provision of the City Charter noted below (Section 2.8.)?"
Oh well, one will be about as relevant to that memo as the other, I suppose.