Weekend’s not over — hasn’t even started—but the N&R hasn’t yet analyzed the Greensboro Council’s apparent legal maneuver to fight Sen. Trudy Wade’s bill to restructure the council. Perhaps a big front-pager will be in Saturday’s paper.

Instead, the N&R sends out its go-to attack dog, ultra- lefty columnist Susan Ladd, who takes another shot at SB 36 supporters, including council member Tony Wilkins:

Which brings us to the Pot, Meet Kettle Award. Questioning the resolution for a referendum on Tuesday, Wilkins asked, “Is this some kind of legal or political ploy that I’m not privy to?”

The expressions and incredulous laughter from some of the other council members said all that needed to be said.

“I guess I feel so left out because I wasn’t included in the conversation,” he said.

Poor Tony. Now you know how a large segment of Greensboro voters feel about SB 36.

In his analysis of Tuesday night’s meeting, in which the council passed an ordinance and set a referendum to lengthen terms from two to four years, the Rhino’s John Hammer writes:

Eight members of the City Council, all with the exception of Wilkins, want to prevent Senate Bill 36 from becoming law at all costs, and their latest gambit was Tuesday, when they passed an ordinance to lengthen the terms of members of the City Council from two years to four years and passed a resolution to hold a binding referendum on the four year terms. The ordinance, which passed on a 6-to-1 vote, with Wilkins voting no, will not go into effect unless the voters pass the referendum set for Nov. 3, 2015, and the resolution to set that referendum passed 7 to 0.

Councilmembers Mike Barber and Yvonne Johnson were absent. It was a meeting where Barber was missed, because as an attorney Barber tends to be more forthcoming about legal issues than the city attorney, who plays his cards pretty close to the vest.

Wilkins didn’t receive a direct answer but it appears the reason for setting up the referendum is to give the City Council the grounds for a legal challenge to Senate Bill 36, which, along with reformatting the City Council, extends the terms to four years.

Watch video of Tuesday night’s meeting and you’ll see that it’s not absolutely clear how the ordinance and referendum will preserve the 5-3-1 system. To be fair, both City Attorney Tom Carruthers and Mayor Nancy Vaughan promptly returned my calls seeking clarification. Carruthers–heckuva nice guy –indeed “played his cards close to the vest” (as Hammer describes him) saying the council had every legal right to pass the ordinance and the referendum. Vaughan explained again —as she did at the meeting that — that they couldn’t put a measure on the ballot preserving the “status quo”—the 5-3-1 system — so they had to either change either the length of council terms or the election year.

All of this could be a moot point should Wade’s bill pass, which it is expected to do, possibly next week. In which case, as Carruthers put it— “council will decide how to move forward.” Which could be a legal fight. If the City Council and its attorneys have the stones to sue state government, then I say go for it— lawyers are part of this big game, too.

All this said, it will be interesting to see how out local paper of record— a vocal (to say the least) opponent of SB 36 — will approach this angle.