Yesterday city council took no action on Ann Morgan Lilly’s request to have the city attorney evaluated by department heads. Ann Morgan Lilly moved to delete the item and it was deleted on a unanimous vote. Before the item was deleted city council members discussed the item.

For the political junkies this whole fiasco was nothing more than a political fight between politicians intent on ensuring their political futures. It was also nothing more than a childish temper tantrum by some of the politicians. As a matter of fact, after Carl Robinson pointed that this issue was nothing more than a “charade,” a red-faced Michiel Noe pontificated about how he didn’t care whether he was reelected or not he was going to do what was good for his constituents almost slamming his fists on the dais. Cortney Niland, for her part, stated that she was “disappointed” in the local paper’s editorial. Niland added that the city attorney’s office had become a “little” political.

Knowing that the community knew this issue was nothing more than a political ploy, the politicians used their commentary to try to revitalize their images before the electorate. According to the culprits behind the whole fiasco, projects have been stalled in the legal department. Ann Morgan Lilly, Cortney Niland and Michiel Noe all used this excuse as the reason why they had been pressuring the city attorney through her evaluation. All three stated that they have noticed that the “stalled” projects have been expedited as a result of the controversy over the evaluation.

Emma Acosta argued that the notion that this issue was about the mayor was erroneous and clarified it had nothing to do with the mayor. Noe and Morgan Lilly also agreed that it had nothing to do with the mayor. Oscar Leeser stated that he has a good working relationship with those on council. Carl Robinson called the whole issue a personality “charade.” On the other hand, Lily Limon stated, “If it looks like it to the public then it is.” Limon was referring to the notion that the controversy about the evaluation of the city attorney was a “vendetta” of some kind.

In the end, nothing came of this issue other than the pontification of the politicians.

The other related item had to do with the communications workflow between the city attorney’s office, the mayor and city council. The item, 10.1, was discussed in executive session without public comment.

The item was voted on as the last item for the meeting, after the executive session. Emma Acosta made a motion to direct the city attorney’s office to establish a monthly update about pending items in the office and deliver it to city council. The motion was seconded by Cortney Niland and passed with six votes. Claudia Ordaz and Larry Romero were not present to vote on this item.

The evaluation of the city attorney will continue as her contract dictates. Although Ann Morgan Lilly said she will meet with department heads to complete her evaluation of the city attorney. The mayor has stated that he wants council to submit the evaluations to his office by the 10th of December. Leeser stated that he wholeheartedly supports Sylvia Borunda Firth.