Rumor has it that the Council signed the CAOs without reading the final text. Rumor has it that now -- after having signed, filed, and posted the CAOs -- some members of the Council are claiming that there are "errors" in the final version. Rumor has it that some Council members are claiming that the version they signed didn't include the changes that they approved.
Then why did they sign them?
Rumor has it that the Prosecuting Attorney advised that they can simply take the existing signature page for each CAO and staple it to a new "corrected" version of the CAOs. Rumor has it that is exactly what the Council is going to do ... quietly ... without making a fuss.
Does any of that seem crazy to anyone else? Can a member of the Council pick any old ordinance and claim that it's not the right version, and then work behind the scenes to "correct" it after-the-fact and simply attach the existing signature page to the "corrected" version?
Wow! And remember, this Council is already being sued for meeting behind the scenes.
Some readers may recognize the title of this blogpost as part of a quotation by Philip Stanhope found in Letters to His Son, which in my opinion, serves as a fitting summary for the entire CAO process, right down to the current signature fiasco: "Quietly cherished error, instead of seeking for truth."