The title of this post probably sounds slightly more absurd than what was actually proposed (and rejected) by the Council last night. But at least I grabbed your attention, which I doubt the Herald's title did: "Council votes down proposal that bypasses sponsorship."
Under the proposed change in ordinance, the Equal Opportunities Commission, Affirmative Action Commission and Commission on People with Disabilities would be able to introduce ordinances and resolutions directly to the council, bypassing the requirement of sponsorship by an alder or Mayor Dave Cieslewicz.
As Brenda Konkel pointed out recently, the Plan Commission already has the ability to do such a thing. In her typically provocative fashion, Brenda titled the post "Are property rights more important than civil rights?"
Although I would guess that the reasoning behind the Plan Commission's special privilege is that their ordinances are more complex, and deal with expert analysis of city planning, it does seem counter-intuitive that any committee would be able to introduce ordinances if it can't find an expression of support from one of the people who are supposed to ultimately vote on it.
Now, refusing sponsorship is not the same as refusing to vote in favor. Council members might prefer not to spend time on an ordinance but might vote in favor of it if it's set before them. In more cynical terms, alders will also feel more political pressure to support a measure if it is voted on publicly.
What do you think? It's hard for me to say.