To the editor:
Earlier this week it became common knowledge (rumor has it that certain council members and some on city staff were aware) that District 1 Councilmember McClain had not been living in his district since late last year. This is of course contrary to the City Charter which requires a council member to reside within the district he represents.
The reason proffered by the council member upon his admission that he was no longer in his district is that he was working on a project (ostensibly requiring him to move approximately seven miles to the west side of the city) and that the project lasted longer than anticipated. But not to worry, he said he intends to move back.
While the council member may intend to move back to his district, now having been outed after a period of approximately six months absence from his district; this however will not cure his Charter violation. It is not unlike an embezzler after having been found out saying he intends to give the money back. The correct, although unlikely, course of action would be for Mr. McClain to tender his resignation. Absent this it would be incumbent upon the Mayor under Charter provisions 4.11 and 4.12 to convene a special meeting to investigate this charge and for Council to take appropriate action upon its proof, i.e. removal from office.
Should this course of action be forced upon the City we will no doubt be treated to a lot of "lawyer talk" aimed at twisting and obscuring the plain meaning of reside; e.g. doing activities indicative or normally associated with home life (taken from State guidelines for residency) in an effort to save Mr. McClain's position. Should Council fall for such chicanery it will further demonstrate the lack of a moral compass and their inability or disinclination to embark upon the harder but correct course when faced with a breach of public trust and a clear Charter violation.