If he has a substantive prblem with council resolutions that express that body's opinion on matters beyond its purview, that's one thing. But did he vote for, say, resolutions that express the sense of the council on other things?

For example, he co-sponsored Res. 07-48, "Mayor of NYC to forgive the debt accrued by City employees under the military leave Extended Benefits Package and adopt the military leave policy established by the MTA.".

He also co-sponsored Res 1086-2005, "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the US."

That resolution reads in part:

Whereas, The House of Representatives of the United States Congress commendably passed H.J.RES.10 on June 22, 2005, proposing a constitutional amendment that would prohibit the destruction or debasement of the flag without violating free speech rights; and

Whereas, This Resolution, if passed in the Senate, would reinforce the patriotism and solidarity that permeates the United States, and would begin the process of amending the Constitution so that the flag, the ideals it represents, and the men and women who have fought and died for them, are treated with due respect; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Council of the City of New York praises the United States House of Representatives for passing H.J.RES.10, and urging the United States Senate to pass S.J.RES.12, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

So, in short, McMahon has time and considers it worthwhile to co-sponsor a resolution that curtails freedom of speech via the heavy hand of a constitutional amendment, but he considers it wasteful of that time and inappropriate to the powers of the council to pass resolutions that call on Congress to end the Iraq War.

That's not good.