So it seems that at the next Council meeting, when Nash tenders his resignation (effective Feb. 28th), the wisdom of the council will be honoring Nash for his service to the city.
Ok - to be honest - the actual phrase used is "paying tribute to"...
I understand it's customary and all that - but really now. Aren't we jumping the gun a bit? The guy has barely been on the council, not really done much, and might very well be embroiled (with butter and garlic) in a major war with the city over services rendered.
Like I said, I'm just a bit confused.
