In a special meeting last week the City Council, because they couldn’t vote to place the landlord’s ordinance on the ballot, decided to vote to place the City Council’s rent stabilization ordinance on the ballot. Because, well, because.
The vote and discussion was one of the more stranger ones because the City Council member who did not vote for the Council’s rent stabilization ordinance in the first place was the swing vote to place the ordinance on November’s ballot. The reasoning did not make a whole lot of sense, but Frank Matarrese ended up being the third vote in a 3 – 2 vote to place the Council’s ordinance on the ballot.
The vote was split with Tony Daysog and Trish Spencer on one side and Marilyn Ezzy-Ashcraft and Jim Oddie on the other. That split was probably surprising since Jim Oddie has been a fairly outspoken proponent of the City Council’s “compromise” ordinance.
But here’s where the meeting went a bit awry. One of things the Council has to decide after it votes to place something on the ballot is to determine if the Council wants to write a statement and who actually is going to do it. Naturally Trish Spencer volunteered to write the statement for the Council initiative because she’s so good at writing arguments both for and against ballot initiatives. That was sarcasm if you didn’t pick it up.
Marilyn Ezzy-Ashcraft protested right away pointing out the very problematic statements already written by Trish Spencer which should preclude her from writing this particular statement.
Since Frank Matarrese and Tony Daysog already wrote the ballot argument in favor of the UMA Marilyn Ezzy-Ashcraft and Jim Oddie were drafted into writing this ballot argument. Trish Spencer disagreed immediately and thought it was odd that the two people who voted against placing the ordinance on the ballot should be the ones to write the ballot argument.
This response from Jim Oddie was the perfect one considering that, indeed it is the role of individual City Council members to support the majority vote even if they were not in the majority making a very pointed dig at Trish Spencer’s lack of support for the UMA. And, seriously “lack of support” is being generous because it implies that Trish Spencer is simply being neutral when what Trish Spencer is doing is openly opposing the UMA publicly using very curious and damaging language to wage open war against City staff.
Anyway, here it is, the ideal blend of passive aggressive censure: