Laserfiche WebLink
Special Council Meeting <br />6/7/93 <br />Page Three <br />amendment in 1985 that set Council salaries for Council and the Mayor. The Village has <br />twice had an opportunity to vote on requests for increases; they were voted down. <br />Mayor Rinker said he would challenge anyone in the community to look at the work <br />that people on Council perform and not see that it takes a lot of dedication to do this <br />work. The fact is the law is very clear in the Village. He believes the provision (in this <br />proposed ordinance) is contrary to our Charter. He said he has asked Council (and he <br />will repeat that request tonight) to delete that provision which calls for paying the $25 <br />per hour figure. <br />Mr. Ferrante, seconded by Mr. Basile, made a motion to delete the section Mayor Rinker <br />was referring to (Page 13, Item Number 5.) <br />Mrs. Leppla asked if there would be additional discussion. <br />Mrs. Cinco said at this time we have a motion on the floor to amend the ordinance to <br />have this deleted; before there is a vote, we will have discussion. <br />Mrs. Leppla said her only problem with this is that this was voted on in March--to put <br />this in the wage ordinance, she believes they consulted with Joe Diemert as to the <br />legality of it. <br />Mr. Flynn said that is correct; Joe Diemert affirmed the legality of it at that time. <br />Mr. Basile asked that Council refer to the Village Charter, page 9, Section 7. <br />Mr. Diemert said Council needs to follow the Charter. The question is whether this is a <br />form of compensation or an expense reimbursement; his opinion was that Council could <br />be reimbursed for expenses. The figure of $25 was determined to be an amount relating <br />to expense reimbursement. <br />Mr. Fixler said the intent of this came about when Council members would have a <br />situation when they were missing work--if they were on an hourly basis obviously they <br />would not be at work, therefore they would be missing money; this would replace the <br />money they were missing. Or, the intent was if someone was home with young <br />children and had to hire a sitter, they would be reimbursed. Mr. Fixler said this is not a <br />situation where someone is trying to get a compensation, this is just to replace the <br />money they are missing out on. He thought they had covered this in March; he did not <br />realize until this weekend this was going to be a problem. When he discussed this <br />amenciment with Joe Diemert again this morning; he said this is a reimbursement of <br />expenses; and he did not have any problem with it. If the interpretation of this is to <br />exactly replace expenses a Councilperson endures, he does not see a problem.