Enforcement of a Non-Law? This doesn't make sense.

[swampwander]

Someone is interpreting language. That means go over their head. Sorry, but I AM staff. Staff is not to interpret language, but enforce it. No if's, ands or buts. If the council meant the language was to be in the ordinance on roosters, then they should have put it there. At this point, I see a grandfathering issue because a Director has made a decision that isn't in the language. Otherwise known as a vested right.

 

[South Hill Chickens]

Quote:
And yet, common practice the world over. Ever hear of street-level legislation? I agree, it shouldn't occur - staff shouldn't step beyond clear boundaries of policy and law. However, when policy is written properly, it allows for leeway, for the adjustment that is required to properly meet the intent of the law, not just the letter. This adjustment is often effected by the director. Regardless, 99 times out of a 100, if you make the City aware of the conflict, such as adding in roosters as in this case, they will have no choice but to fall back on the policy.

Of course, my main point in all of this was to respect the staff. It's interesting that you appear to differ with me there, being staff yourself, but hey, good for you for speaking up.

(Sorry for all the planning geek speech, folks.)