DIFFERENCE IN ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION AND IS OUR ATTORNEY NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW AGAIN

For those of you who do not understand the difference between ordinances and resolutions, here is a quick explanation I found on line:

 

Difference between ordinances and resolutions

 

An ordinance is a local law of a municipal corporation, prescribing general rules of conduct. Ordinances are used for a variety of purposes, including administrative actions such as establishing offices and setting salaries, or they may be used for actions that control the conduct of the public.

 

An ordinance is a legislative enactment, within its sphere, as much as an act of the state Legislature.

 

A resolution, on the other hand, is typically an act that is less solemn or formal than an ordinance. Consider it the official body’s expression of opinion. Legislation must be enacted via ordinance. Deciding what constitutes legislation may require reference to case law, but the general guiding principle is that “[a]ctions relating to subjects of a permanent and general character are usually regarded as legislative, and those providing for subjects of a temporary and special character are regarded as administrative…” (Durocher v. King County, 80 Wn.2d 139, 153, 492 P.2d 547, 1972).

 

When deciding whether to use an ordinance or a resolution, first refer to the city charter and state law (RCW). Some state statutes clearly define which action is needed, others leave it to the discretion of the legislative body. If the charter and the code are silent as to the mode of decision-making, and the action is not “legislation,” then either a resolution or an ordinance may be used.

 

Rules for adopting ordinances The state statutes for each class of municipality do contain some procedural requirements which govern the ordinance adoption. However, these procedural requirements are generally not complicated and do not require an elaborate adoption procedure.

Many cities and towns have adopted local rules of procedure that relate to the adoption of ordinances, and these, of course, must be followed. For example, although the state statutes do not require that an ordinance be read more than once (in most circumstances) prior to adoption, many local rules of procedure do contain such a requirement. Therefore, it is important that councilmembers familiarize themselves with the local rules of procedure, as well as the state statutory requirements in regard to adoption requirements for ordinances.

 

 

THIS IS A PROBLEM FOR OUR ATTORNEY BECAUSE NOT ONLY DOES OUR CHARTER REQUIRE FOUR VOTES TO TERMINATE EMPLOYMENT OF  A TOWN MANAGER, BUT IN MS. GEORGE’S CONTRACT HE HAS ELIMINATED THE FOUR REQUIRED VOTES AND MADE IT A MAJORITY REQUIRING TWO SESSIONS TO FORMERLY TERMINATE.  IF THIS IS A CHARTER CHANGE, THEN PERHAPS WE NEED THE CITIZENS TO VOTE: 

Section 3. Termination and Severance Pay

 

Termination without Cause. The parties acknowledge that section 3.04 of the Charter provides for the exclusive mechanism through which the Town Manager may be terminated for cause.  The parties agree that in addition to the provisions of the Charter, the Council may terminate the employment of George as Manager without cause, but only pursuant to the section.  To terminate George without cause, it shall be necessary that a majority of the Council vote to remove George from employment at regular consecutive meetings of the Council and that the subject of terminating George shall have appeared on the agenda for each meeting.  If successive votes to remove her without cause occur, George shall be provided with written notice of the decision of the Council and the effective date of termination shall not be less than 30 days notice of the decision of the Council and the effective date of termination shall be not less than 30 days following the second vote to terminate George.  Upon termination under this part, George will be entitled to: