Rules: who needs them?

Is a rule real if it isn’t enforced?

This philosophical query is worth examining at City Hall, a place rife with rules as solid as mist.

One is a moratorium on board appointments by the mayor and City Council before a municipal election. To prevent undue political influence, the city clerk imposed deadlines of Feb. 20 for council members to make appointments and March 2 for council to approve them. (The city election is May 6.)

“I was told that it was for political favor,” a City Hall source told me. “You don’t want people to be appointing folks right before the election.”

City Clerk Leticia Vacek said the rule isn’t meant to prevent political influence, but rather to provide enough time for her office to process the request.

“It’s more of a logistics concern for our office because of all the processes that are encompassed when an appointment is provided to our office,” she said.

Nonetheless, on Thursday, council approved four appointments made after Feb. 20.

They were:

An appointment to the SA2020 Commission on Strengthening Family Well-being made by Councilwoman Rebecca Viagran on March 2.

An appointment to the Building Standards Board made by Councilman Mike Gallagher on February 28.

An appointment to the Historic and Design Review Commission made by Councilman Alan Warrick on March 5.

An appointment to the Ethics Review Board made by Councilman Cris Medina on February 22.

(Gallagher is not running for re-election; the remainder are.)

On Jan. 13, Vacek sent a memo to council members reminding them of the rules.

“This memo will serve to inform you that the deadline for your Board Appointment(s) memos is February 20, 2017,” she wrote. “Once processed, said appointments will be placed on the March 2, 2017 City Council Agenda for approval.”

So much for the rules.

This particular flouting is reminiscent of the city’s residency requirement.

The charter requires candidates for council to reside in-district for six months prior to applying for a place on the ballot. Running now in District 9, Lynlie Wallace declared as her permanent residence a home she has leased to a tenant for years; apparently, she lives in Austin.

The city is powerless to enforce this rule. Only a court of law can rule on a person’s residency.

I’m also reminded of the recent river barge imbroglio.

On Jan. 24, the city’s Finance Department sent a letter to teams vying for a multimillion dollar contract to operate the city’s River Walk barges. It reminded respondents of an important rule as they prepared for their interviews.

Underlined and in bold: “ Lobbyists may not attend .”

Three days later, the city sent a clarification: Attorneys could attend and observe, but lobbyists still were not permitted.

Soon after, the process sank. Former Mayor Phil Hardberger had spoken on behalf of Chicago Entertainment Cruises, and Mayor Ivy Taylor accused him of “enthusiastically advocating” for the team — essentially, lobbying.

City Manager Sheryl Sculley blamed the controversy on “disgruntled losers.” Nonetheless, at the mayor’s urging, the process was restarted. New proposals were due on Thursday.

Now, the city has dropped its ruse of a rule.

Per its new request for proposals: “Respondents may bring no more than five individuals of their choosing, which may include attorneys and lobbyists, to provide a 20 minute presentation to the Evaluation Committee.”

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? An answer to that age-old query is beyond the ken of this column.

On the primary question, however — is a rule real if it isn’t enforced? — an answer is now apparent.

That answer is no.

bchasnoff@express-news.net