My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08/10/2010 Meeting Minutes
DOcument-Host
>
Mayfield Village
>
Meeting Minutes
>
2010
>
08/10/2010 Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/22/2019 9:30:16 AM
Creation date
7/24/2018 8:08:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Legislation-Meeting Minutes
Document Type
Meeting Minutes
Date
8/10/2010
Year
2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
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
Minutes of a Public Hearing <br />On Proposed Charter Review Revisions <br />8-10-10 <br />Page 6 <br />2. ORDINANCE NO. 2010-23 <br />Referring to Council vacancies. <br />This is a little more than just a cleaning-house type of proposal. In the very <br />beginning since 1974 until amended after that, if there was a vacancy on Council, <br />someone got sick, moved out of town, or resigned for any reason, the Charter <br />back then said that the Mayor and the Council would make the decision on the <br />replacement person. The Council would have 30 days to do it. If they didn't do it <br />within 30 days, then the Mayor would do it. <br />That position was changed by one of the Charter Review Commissions over 20 <br />years ago. This change said that if there were two people or more on the ballot <br />running for a Council seat and within the first two years of their term a person <br />resigned and a vacancy occurred, then the Council had to appoint someone to that <br />vacancy who was the next highest vote-getter at the last election. <br />We have learned from what we have seen around the country that voters often <br />turn down the guy who didn't get enough votes for very good reasons. As a result, <br />if you are forced to put that person in the vacancy, you may be doing the Village a <br />disservice. We have found that that has been happening around the country where <br />they had similar types of Charter language. <br />As a result, the Charter Review Commission, making that study, doing that <br />research, recommended that the Council who you did elect be responsible for <br />appointing a good candidate who is now interested, not a year or two later, and <br />who has no baggage and who was not rejected by the voters, let the Council who <br />the voters now have elected be responsible to make that decision. If they don't <br />make the correct decision, you can take care of them at the next election. If <br />Council does not come to a majority on that, the Mayor will make that decision, <br />again an elected official who has to be responsible to the voters to make a good <br />choice. . <br />The Charter Review Commission did recommend that we leave in there the fact <br />that the Council and the Mayor should consider those who ran for the office and <br />give them some consideration, but it doesn't matter that they be appointed to the <br />vacancy. <br />3. ORDINANCE NO. 2010-24 <br />This amendment refers to referendum zoning.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.