Okay, so Karl Dean never rendered a legal decision during the two-to-three month period that this bill was bouncing between Metro Council and the Planning Commission, but why not if it could have potentially lead to where we are now: a DOJ investigation? Buzzers and red lights didn't start going off in Metro Legal at November 2006 first reading? It is common knowledge that bills that get to third reading generally pass, so why would Metro lawyers wait until February 2007's third reading to speak up when they could have started in November 2006? Why was Karl Dean MIA on this bill?
Dean mayoral spokesperson Janel Lacy said Tuesday Dean never rendered a legal opinion on the rezoning measure during its first two readings while Dean was still law director ....
In addition, former Mayor Bill Purcell did not veto the bill, but he did return it to the Metro Clerk unsigned.
And why does Mr. Rau seem to suggest that returning the bill back to the Metro Clerk unsigned represented anything but abdication to flawed logic? Returning it unsigned does not let the Mayor's Office off the hook, because a refusal to sign insured that the bill would become law without Bill Purcell's signature. That is not absolution. You can bet that if Mayor Purcell had simply returned the Council's news rack regulation bill with no signature rather than vetoing it later in 2007, then the Nashville City Paper would have explicitly pointed out the Mayor's failure at the time.
If the City Paper wants credit for some amazing investigative journalism on the DOJ investigation (beyond the lame claim that they were the "first" to the story), they are going to have to do more than the Mayor's Office's bidding.
I mean, get serious. Watchdogging Metro Council is not that hard. Watchdogging a popular Mayor in a strong executive government is.