The One-Member Veto

Several items from Monday's New Albany city council meeting deserve analysis. Yes, it was a short and relatively uncontroversial agenda (with one exception) and yes, it's still early in this council's tenure.

But it is becoming apparent that the paranoid style in American politics is taking its toll on the council. It's being used as a cudgel by the most experienced member, and it's swaying the votes of the least experienced.

For tonight, though, let's address just one tiny moment from that evening.

Pat McLaughlin, the representative for the old 4th District, was handed the duty of presenting an ordinance to grant L&D Mail Masters a tax abatement. It turns out that this particular type of abatement is authorized by new legislation and perhaps marks a first impression in New Albany.

Mr. Mac quashed the measure, stating that he wanted more time to learn about tax abatements. This has been the habit of past councils - to allow the nominal "sponsor" to defer or table discussion and debate, even if the only reason for it is that the presenting member doesn't understand what's going on.

Now, one could make the case that a member shouldn't let a vote proceed until he or she fully understands what is being considered. But why should the "sponsor" be allowed to, in essence, pocket an agendaed item.

"Sponsorship," as it is practiced twice a month in the third floor assembly room at Hauss Square, is a bit of a sham. The council president assigns these proposed ordinances and resolutions. The "sponsor" has little say in this. This practice offers up such anomalies as 3D Steve Price presenting dramatically progressive proposals and then arguing vigorously against them. It creates bizarro situations where members will simply refuse to bring an item forward for discussion. And finally, it can allow the most ill-prepared or inappropriate member to perform a pocket veto on a measure.

Yes, some tabled agenda items return to council. But in many cases (ordinance enforcement, for example), a hostile member designated as the nominal sponsor can bottle up legislation indefinitely.

Procedurally, this is ridiculous. If the council president can't find at least one member willing to present an item, why should it even appear on the agenda?

From time to time, the administration will put forward a piece of proposed legislation, only to discover that a hostile council will refuse to take it up.

Let's imagine a scenario sometime in the next four years. The board of directors of the city's sewer utility determines a need for a rate increase. Such a development wouldn't ordinarily be considered inimical to the city. Prices rise every year on everything. Gradual rate increases are easier to deal with than massive once-a-decade increases.

So in this scenario, imagine Jeff Gahan naming Steve Price as the sponsor of the ordinance approving such a rate hike. Can Price, who's committed to drowning all government services in the bathtub, simply table the ordinance. It seems he can.

We've yet to see a member call for a vote on these measures to "table" an ordinance. We've yet to see a member ask for a vote to overrule the ruling of the chair.

Do New Albany's ordinances and council procedures actually permit a single member to bottle up legislation because he or she is unprepared, confused, or opposed to a measure?