Ok. Councilor Frank Baker temporarily stalls Councilor Arroyo’s bill to stop rents, mortgages, foreclosures and evictions in response to covid-19
So often when an issue is pressing, Councilors request a suspension of rules to allow an important or urgent bill to be voted on. To do so, the council needs unanimous consent. 13 saying yes. Then the issue can be heard and voted on without having to go to committee (usually cuz they are all in agreement). Councilor Frank Baker did not consent so the vote will take another week and may fall after you have paid another month of rent or mortgage while being laid off. Instead Dorchester’s Councilor decided on (Using rule 33 which roughly says; you just brought it up today! you can’t vote on it in the same meeting you introduced it).
Councilor Baker could’ve consented and voted no if he didnt agree allowing the other 12 to vote. Instead he temporarily stopped the process citing the fact he is a landlord.
The vote should be held and most likely be held next week. (Because that’s their next meeting and it wont be the first time it’s brought up) But by the time they vote it will be as poets Bone Thugs and Harmony say the “first of the month…wake up”
Councilor Baker represents Dorchester from Uphams Corner to Fields Corner to Neponset towards Ashmont.
Now you should know, well, know if you want to know, but President Janey could’ve used a rule to move around his use of rule 33. She could’ve called an emergency meeting after ending the first and then called the vote making it the second meeting making rule 33 useless. All that may seem boring or even stupid to you but to me it’s like chess with real pieces. I love it!
But this isnt about President Janey, she was one of the 12 in consent of abandoning the rules to allow the same day vote.
I’ll be back to tell you what I would do if I were me.