At issue was the interpretation of an ambiguous provision in the City Charter dealing with redistricting. The initial call, made by assistant city solicitor Victor K. Tervala, was that the City Charter did not permit splitting a redistricting plan's enactment into two starting dates, one for representation, and one for election. The state constitution and some local charters make this explicit, but the city's charter does not. Moreover, there's a confusion provision added in 1994 stating that a council member cannot be removed from office simply because of a shift in district lines, which would seem to suggest the possibility that the maps could go into effect before the election. But the second, overriding opinion, issued two weeks later by City Solicitor George Nilson, turned that on its head, and rightly so.