My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06/21/2010 Meeting Minutes
DOcument-Host
>
Mayfield Village
>
Meeting Minutes
>
2010
>
06/21/2010 Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/22/2019 9:29:57 AM
Creation date
7/24/2018 7:05:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Legislation-Meeting Minutes
Document Type
Meeting Minutes
Date
6/21/2010
Year
2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
Regular Council Meeting Minutes ! <br />6-21-10 <br />Page 11 ! <br />Review process at this point when it gets to Council should be looked at more as a certification <br />to the Board of Elections because the process for the Charter amendments is for the matters to be <br />put on the ballot for the electors to make a decision on. No one is asking for Council to come out <br />and endorse, oppose or really take T the ballo e and then leave it up toithe vote s and hope there <br />certified to the Board of Elections fo <br />is not a tie like there was the last time. <br />Council President Buckholtz stated we ran into this once before with a petition. Ms. Calta <br />replied there were some initiative petitions that came forward. Same thing. Council President <br />Buckholtz added, the way the law was was that we were required to pass it along for the <br />electorate to vote on much the way the Charter is set up for Charter Review. Ms. Calta stated, <br />you can certainly have an opinion on a11 of them. <br />Mr. Saponaro thinks it should state in all of these that it's introduced through the Charter Review <br />Commission so that for the reflection of the Minutes, for the folks that are reading this, they <br />understand this was done through a Committee. That's who it was introduced by. Our function <br />may be to approve it to get on the ballot or to say okay, it can go on the ballot, but it was through <br />the Charter Review. <br />Mr. Marquardt agreed. The wording doesn't seem appropriate for the action. <br />Ms. Calta thinks that the Codified Ordinances also say that ordinances are typically introduced <br />by the Mayor and Council. She does not know if it actually specifically contemplates Charter <br />Review. Changing the agenda to say introduced by Charter Review, you can certainly have the <br />record reflect that these are obviously recommendations from the Charter Review to Council for <br />certification to the Board of Elections. She will look for that and she will reference it. <br />Council President Buckholtz suggested that the specific concerns be discussed at Caucus to get <br />them out there. At the time of final passage or the final vote, be specific on what we are voting <br />on, that we are not voting to suppoit or not support the action, just to do our job as part of <br />passing it on to the electorate. <br />Ms. Calta referred to 121:03(B). It talks about the introduction and passage of ordinances and <br />resolutions. That is where it says "rt sha11 be introduced by the Mayor or Council or both". That's <br />where that transcends from. <br />Council President Buckholtz suggested we discuss the proposed legislation at Caucus. <br />Ms. Ca1ta stated a11 of these can be kept on First Read. They have to be to the Board of Elections <br />in September, so there is enough time for reads in June, July and August. <br />' <br />Ms. Calta suggested that the inclusion of language, "recommended by the Charter Review <br />Commission and Introduced by the Mayor and Council pursuant to ORC 121.03(B)" be <br />considered. i
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.