City council needs to clarify what a ‘defaulter’ means

Now that a legal opinion has come down clearing City Councilmember Saad Almasmari of being a “defaulter,” here’s a job for the council to tackle:
Either come up with new charter language clarifying what it means to be a defaulter to the city, or else abolish the charter section.
There have been numerous occasions when The Review has pointed out that certain city officials have overdue property taxes or water bills owed to the city, which according to the charter means they are in default and thus ineligible to continue in their position.
Or so it would it seem.
Attorneys for the city have yet to uphold that charter section, having come up with various reasons why it does not apply.
It shouldn’t take an attorney to interpret something that reads straightforward to most folks.
The council should begin work on this matter right away in order to have a charter revision proposal ready by the November General Election.
Let’s settle this issue once and for all.
As it stands now, all the charter section does is cause confusion at best, and at worst division among the community.
Like we have said before, the ultimate judges in issues like this are the voters.
If voters want to elect someone who can’t manage their own household finances, so be it.
Having said that, we can’t understand why anyone would want to be an elected official if they can’t even pay their own taxes and water bills.
One might be inclined to suspect an ulterior motive on their part, and that is truly unsettling.
June 7, 2019