But the brevity of the meeting did little to belie its importance. The council was meeting to determine one thing—whether Councilman Stan Bogosian would be allowed to serve the final two months of his second four-year term.

Bogosian had missed two consecutive council meetings, on Sept. 1 and 15. That in and of itself would not be enough reason to terminate a council member. However, because the council had not been in session since Aug. 4, Bogosian was in violation of a little-known state law since his absence reached 60 days.

The "recommended action" on the council agenda of one item was to "authorize council member absence from September 15, 2004, City Council meeting." It was clear from the beginning that this meeting was more than that.

Two council members—Nick Streit and Kathleen King—voted against authorization. In other words, they voted for Bogosian's removal from the council. Norman Kline supported Bogosian, as did Mayor Ann Waltonsmith, though it was the mayor's action at the Sept. 15 council meeting that precipitated the Sept. 30 special meeting. With Bogosian casting a vote for himself, he remained on the council, slipping by with a 3-2 vote.

The only reason Bogosian was in the predicament in the first place was an aberration. The council had voted to take a night off on Aug. 15, so for most of the 60 days in question, the council was actually out of session.

Bogosian, who last attended a council meeting on Aug. 4, missed meetings on Sept. 1 due to an illness and on Sept. 15 because of a conflict at work. He emailed the mayor prior to the meeting on Sept. 15 to inform her that he would be absent. She did the math, and brought the 60-day absence to the attention of the rest of the council that night.

Clearly the intent of the state law was not to eliminate a council member for missing two consecutive meetings. It's not unusual for council members to miss meetings—we've seen that through the years on a number of councils throughout the Bay Area. That's not to say that such absences are not serious and should be condoned. Bogosian deserved to be reprimanded. But removal from his seat with just two months left in his term after serving the city for eight years on the council? Not likely. Still, he came within one vote of facing that fate. It smacked of political collusion.

For Streit and King to vote as they did made it clear that they were trying to take advantage of a loophole to remove a colleague from the council.

Streit suggested a change to city policy so that council members could be removed for missing a meeting or two unless the reason was personal illness or the illness of an immediate family member. King echoed the sentiment. Fine, then the council should agendize that item, discuss it at a future meeting and vote on it. Until then, there is no such city policy in place.

It's curious that Bogosian is the lone opponent of the proposed utility tax—Measure V—that the other four council members so adamantly support.

The vote should not have been 3-2, but 5-0 with a reprimand. Unfortunately, politics seemed to be at work on Sept. 30 in the Saratoga city conference room.