Opinion > Letters
Disagrees with report, headline
The headline "City Council violates law," from your front-page article published Jan, 27, is much too sensational and wholly unsupported by the facts presented in the body of the story, notwithstanding that this unsupported claim was also asserted in the lead sentence.
The article accurately reported that while conducting further research at the request of Mayor Mark Fenn, I ran across the following sentence from A.R.S. ¤ 9-461.06(H), relating to adopting, readopting or amending a city's general development plan: The adoption or readoption of or a major amendment to the general plan shall be approved by affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the members of the governing body of the municipality.
I was unaware of this provision when the City Council voted 4-3 on Nov. 23, in favor of San Pedro Partners' application for a major plan amendment. As the council parliamentarian, I should have noted in the record that the motion failed for lack of the necessary super majority. Instead, the mistaken ruling that night was that the motion carried. This error on my part in no way reflects on the mayor or council. Absolutely nothing the City Council did that night, or since, in any way supports the conclusion that it "violated the law."
Rather, a more accurate headline would have been: City Attorney misinterprets the law. Less eye-grabbing, perhaps, but by far preferable as an accurate summation of what actually occurred.
Michael J. Massee
Benson City Attorney
The article accurately reported that while conducting further research at the request of Mayor Mark Fenn, I ran across the following sentence from A.R.S. ¤ 9-461.06(H), relating to adopting, readopting or amending a city's general development plan: The adoption or readoption of or a major amendment to the general plan shall be approved by affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the members of the governing body of the municipality.
I was unaware of this provision when the City Council voted 4-3 on Nov. 23, in favor of San Pedro Partners' application for a major plan amendment. As the council parliamentarian, I should have noted in the record that the motion failed for lack of the necessary super majority. Instead, the mistaken ruling that night was that the motion carried. This error on my part in no way reflects on the mayor or council. Absolutely nothing the City Council did that night, or since, in any way supports the conclusion that it "violated the law."
Rather, a more accurate headline would have been: City Attorney misinterprets the law. Less eye-grabbing, perhaps, but by far preferable as an accurate summation of what actually occurred.
Michael J. Massee
Benson City Attorney
Copyright © 2012 - San Pedro Valley News-Sun