barry liss on 
Kathy Tepsa on 
clhughes on Just a quick note.
At the City Council meeting this evening two interesting things happened:
1. The City Council voted 7 to 3 (with one abstain vote) to NOT send the Christine Van De Yacht measure back to the Ethics Board. This means that there were three votes to send it back, and seven not to send it back. The measure failed. There was much discussion. For most part it came down to Gale, Rosenberg, and Brezinski talking about assuming liability, the Federal ruling; and Deb Hadley and Matt Kaiser discussing that it would not open the city up to further liability, and that since the council started the matter it should send it back to do the right thing.
It was a very heated debate, and the first time I have ever seen a procedural move “calling the question” which ends debate and calls for a vote.
2. On the matter of the Trolley apartments: The matter which procedurally was a zoning issue, passed. The long line of people that supported it ranged from Ann Werth, to Interim Main Street Director Kari Rasmussen, to April Rosemurgy. Again there was some interesting debate from council members about making the city a place for more subsidized housing, versus a tremendous development at the edge of the river.
And, like the last few meetings, this one closed with Joe McGrath.
I am surprised you don’t remember having a question called before…
It is actually not that uncommon.
I normally see someone call for the question when the debate seems to be going in circles and no new information is being offered. Person A says this, person B says that, person C says the other thing, and then person A repeats this, etc.
Calling the question stops all debate temporarily. There will then be a vote to see if this stop in the debate is permanent and the issue at hand gets voted on directly. It is a simple majority vote.
I can think of at least 5-6 times that a question was called in the last year or so, and I don’t even want to think about how long some council meetings would be without this procedural rule.
You’re right, John. It would be just like… THE UNITED STATES SENATE! :)
I agree that the filibuster rules in the US Senate can bog things down… however I feel that those rules do have a place.
I personally see the filibuster rule as a way to ensure that if one party has control over the white house, the house of rep and the senate, that the minority party still has some say. The supermajority vote needed to kill a filibuster gives the minority party some say in things.
Without that, if the same party controlled the white house, house of rep and senate, why should the minority even bother to show up?
Is Joe McGrath a filibuster?
Well…actually, per the city council rules, calling the question requires a 2/3rds majority.
Matt,
Thank you for that clarification, that is something I did not know.
Normally when the question is called, most on the council realize there really isn’t anything new to be said and the vote is almost always unanimous, or if there is a vote against, it is someone who just wants to be able to get in the last word.
With the call the question vote normally passing between 12-0 and 10-2, the issue of it needing a supermajority never comes into play
Regarding the Trolley apartments, I am concerned about the $400-plus K the city is throwing at the developer. My instinct is to oppose that. If the developer can’t handle the job on his own, he should move on. I also lean toward developing the river in Wausau as a tourist attraction, ala what they did in San Antonio with the River Walk. It is thriving with businesses, hotels and tourists, a spectacular place to visit. Their efforts created a lot of private sector investment and jobs. I am hesitant over a concept that would make Wausau “a place for more subsidized housing.” That does not ring well with me. I prefer seeing Wausau as the central Wisconsin hub for the state, a thriving business and transportation center. A thriving River development would enhance that vision in my view.