1976 966 Resolution - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Charter of Mayfield V"illage is clearly the controlling document regarding enactment of legislation by the Co1nnci1. The Charter provisions cannot be ignored. If a procedure other than that provided is the desire of Council the Charter must first be amended as provided in Article X. 3. R. 996 contravenes the Charter, Article V, Section 4, which provides "the Law Director and any such assistants or special counseY shall be appointed by the Mayor.:.". (Emphasis added.) Article III, Section 16,, of the Charter must be read in conjunction with Article V, Section 4. The authority to appoint special legal counsel is vested in the Mayor by the people, not Council. 4. Article V, Section 4, of the Charter provides for the removal of a Law Di.rector, Assistant Law Director, or special counsel for failure to perform duties consistent with the office or assigned to him from time to time by the riayor and Council, at any time by the Mayor, subject to the approval by a vote of four members of Cotm cil. Council has never communicated that the law director has failed to perform the duties of his office but to the contrary has repeatedly acknowledged its approval of performance. It should be noted that the Law Director prepared Ordinance #77-30 at the request of the Council President, who then introduced the Ordinan.ce. Upon passage it could repeal the appointment and terminate funding of the office. Until such time there is no vacancy in-the off ice of Law Director and, accordingly, he must continue to carry out the duties of that office. 5. R. 966, Section 4, expressly limits the duties of special-counsel "to discharge of the proper legislative duties of Council". The intent of the resolution was to enable Council to institute legal action Against the Mayor in the nature of mandamus. For the reasons previously stated the office of Law Director is not vacant and the Resolution itself, even if validly adopted, - 2-