My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1989 031 Ordinance
DOcument-Host
>
Mayfield Village
>
Ordinances Resolutions
>
1989 Ordinances
>
1989 031 Ordinance
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2018 3:55:50 PM
Creation date
8/9/2018 4:49:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Legislation-Meeting Minutes
Document Type
Ordinance
Number
031
Date
10/16/1989
Year
1989
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
(Ti <br />To; Mayor and Council <br />From: Fred P. Ramos, Law Director <br />Re: Pay Ordinance for Police Secretary and Dispatchers <br />Date: August 23, 1989 <br />I would like to clarify the status of the Pay Ordinance that was <br />introduced at the last Council meeting. Apparently, there was some <br />confusion as to its status as a result of two (2) of the councilmembers <br />abstaining when it came time to vote. <br />The Ordinance was read by title only. A motion to suspend the <br />rules was made and a vote was taken with a vote of four (4) "yes" and <br />two (2) "abstain". Subsequently, a motion to pass was made and seconded <br />and a vote of four (4) "yes" and two (2) "abstain" was recorded. <br />According to Section 123.03(b)(5), an ordinance shall be read on <br />three different days unless it is dispensed with upon the affirmative <br />vote of five (5) of the members of Council and the legislation is read <br />by title prior to its passage. In accordance with Article III, Section <br />II of the Charter, the Ordinance would then require the affirmative vote <br />of two-thirds (2/3) of the members of Council for its enactment. Now, <br />we get to the legal part of the question. Since an "abstain" vote is as <br />acquiescence with the majority, does it count as an affirmative vote. <br />In the case of Davis v. Willoughby, 173 Ohio St 338 (1962), the <br />Supreme Court held that where the terms "consensus" or "affirmative vote" <br />are used in the Statute or Charter, consent in an overt way is required <br />to cast a vote and not mere acquiescence or silent submission. As a <br />result, a councilmember must cast a"yes" vote for purpose of casting an <br />affirmative vote. Only then, can we count such a vote for purposes of <br />suspending the rules and/or passing an emergency measure. <br />Applying this reasoning to our vote, since the vote on the <br />suspension of the rules for the Pay Ordinance was 4-0-2, the motion to <br />pass was improper. As a result, since there was not a sufficient number <br />of votes to suspend the rules, the Pay Ordinance was placed on first <br />reading. <br />I have instructed the Clerk of Council to place the Pay Ordinance <br />on a second reading of the September meeting. Council will need five <br />(5) "yes" votes to suspend the rules and to pass it as an emergency mea- <br />sure.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.