I can't say for sure whether or not this is a good deal for the city. The concerns over the roof seem legitimate. In any case, I can't fathom how school committee members could base their decision only on the matters Mayor Moak placed before them.
"We're not voting on rates or anything else in that contract," Menin said. "I'm going to vote to support this because I think I have a clear idea of my role in this."
Menin added that while questions of price and terms are valid issues, in his view those decisions were the sole right of the mayor to make, per his interpretation of Section 34 of the city charter.
"While (contract terms) are interesting and germane to me as a citizen, I'm not here as a citizen," Menin said. "Some people believe we're the court of last resort. I don't believe I have the option of doing that."
Moak repeatedly tried to clarify for members that their interest in the contract was limited to the one paragraph motion in front of them.
"The responsibility is on me," Moak said. "Your responsibility is what's stated."
Legally, the Mayor's interpretation is probably correct. Politically, however, these solar panels now belong to the schools. If they become an economic burden to the city in five or ten years, the school committee members at the time--not the mayor--will be held responsible.
And the school budget at the time will be tapped to make up for any dollars lost through the deal.
If school committee members feel the mayor is signing a good deal, fine. But if they truly have concerns about the term of the deal, they should have held onto the rubber stamp.
3 comments:
Why did you say "Legally, the Mayor's interpretation is probably correct"?
Does city charter section 34 say the school committee cannot simply consider whether the project is good financially for the school system when deciding whether to approve a project involving a change to a school building?
Good point. I don't know for sure, I was giving too big of a benefit of the doubt. I suppose the mayor could argue that the contract is between the city and the solar company, but we're getting into semantics. Like I said, in a few years, these solar panels will belong to the school whether they want them or not.
I'm pretty sure the City Council has to vote on all contracts involving the city, such as union contracts and lease or sale of property. Why is this not included? Don't bother asking the city solicitor -- they've already told the mayor this whole thing is kosher!
Post a Comment