2003-043 Ordinance - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

?Et?y ri June 13, 2003 Memo To: All of Council From: Mayor Musial Re: Ordinance No. 2003 3 titled AN ORDINANCE CREATING NEW SECTIONS 121.05 AND 121.06 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, ENTTTLED, RESPECTIVELY "FORMAL COUNCIL HEARINGS' AND CONTEMPT OF COUNCll..' SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONDUCT FORMAL HEARINGS REGARDING MATTERS WITHIN THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE, AS WELL AS TO HEAR COMPLAINTS FROM CITIZENS OF THE COMMUNITY REGARDING THE OPERATIONS OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT, AN FURTHER TO PROVIDE FOR PENALTIES FOR CONTEMPT OF COUNCIL, AS AMENDED. I have reviewed reference Ordinance No. 2003-43 and place thereon my veto. Reference Ordinance has undergone several revisions in an attempt to render the final Ordxnance more "acceptable" for passage by Council. Nonetheless, in my opinion, the potential for abuse far outweighs any potential benefit. This ordinance xn very simple terms, confers too much power in the hands of the Legislative branch (Council) potentially eroding the independent power of the Administrative branch to perform its Executive role with regards to the City of North Olmsted. In essence, this Ordinance skews the balance of power to the Lsgislative branch of government away from our Administrative branch of government and our judicial process. It is noted that any citizen can bring a complaint to Council concerning the administration of the City government without any evidence of substatrtiating said complaint. If the complaint is investigated by Council, witnesses may be subpoenaed and such witnesses has to retain his/or her own lawyer at his/or her own expense. I feel that the City should pick up the burden of professional costs imposed upon such witnesses, ber,ause Council is requesting the information and testimony. Further, if this Ordinance is allowed to be made law, a provision should be included to enable complaints to be heard concerning the Legislative and Judiciat branches of City governmem, as well. Additionally, the attarney retained by the person who appears as a witness at a formal hearing doesn't have the right to cross-examine witnesses. This is an arbitrary pzovision included in the Ordinance. Ordinance 2003-43 could have stated that such attorney does have the right to cross- examine witnesses and thereby help to preserve due process rights of the subpoenaed witness. It is not clear that an investigation of a complaint will or will not be conducted under an executive session status of secrecy. So an unfounded complaint can very easily be used to damage the reputation of a subpoenaed witness, and leave many questions unanswered and possibly unresolved. Although, Ord. No. 2003-43 in a perfect world might be useful as a last resort, in my opinion, we do not live in a perfect world, and as sach, the residents would be better off withoat another layer of government being imposed upon them.