03/04/1986 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 3/4/86 _g_ LEGISLATION (cont'd): Ordinance No. 86-20 introduced by Mayor Petrigac was given its second reading. An ordinance to make appropriations for current expenses and other expenditures for the City of North Olmsted for the year ending December 31st, 1986. Resolution No. 86-22 introduced by the Mayor and the entire Council was given its first reading. A resolution urging the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency to extend the deadline for receiving comments for the Rocky River Compre- hensive Water Quality Report, and declaring an emergency. Mr. Wilamosky moved for suspension of rule requiring three readings and referral to committee, second by Mrs. Saringer, unanimously approved. Mr. Wilamosky moved for adoption, second by Mr. Tallon, unanimously approved. Resolution No. 86-21 adopted. Miscellaneous business: Mr. Rademaker, being absent from the last meeting of council, asked for some clarification with respect to the issue of the Senior Center Fund which was raised and discussed and which thereafter Finance Director Boyle took it upon himself to contact the State Auditor and have them examine the Senior Center books and conduct an audit. A subsequent memo from President of Council in- dicated that Finance Director did not, in fact, have any authority from council to take such action. Since Mr. Rademaker was absent, he would like council to clarify if Mr. Boyle was, in fact, provided with some authority from council to contact the State Auditor or, in fact, was President Woerpel's assertion correct that he DID NOT have that authority. Mr. Wilamosky stated that there had been dialogue with respect to contacting the State Auditor to get an unbiased opinion with respect to not only that fund but another question which had arisen with respect to the nondeposit of revenues with the Finance Office within twenty-four hours as required by state statute. There was also dialogue with respect to the Police Department investigation. Mr. Wilamosky recalled asking Mr. .Lackey, Mr. McKay, Mr. Tallon, and possibly others, if they had any objection to calling in the State Auditor for his re- view and in all cases was told that they too would like to see an unbiased in- dividual or body come in and review it. The question also came up as to who was going to call or write the State Auditor and the most likely individual, the Finance Director, was asked to do so. Mr. Wilamosky is sure that Mr. Lackey, Mr. Tallon and Mr. McKay concurred that the State Auditor should come in; as he recalls, the majority of council present, concurred. Mr. Rademaker asked if any formal request was made, via the Council Clerk or by way of resolution; was not this a serious enough act to require a formal vote of Council? Discussion continued. Law Director Gareau stated that he would like to establish what everybody's role is under the Charter. The Director of Finance DOES NOT NEED to have any resolution, any vote, any direction from council when he functions within his sphere of duties. If there was any error at all, maybe it was that the Finance Director brought it to Council because in the opinion of the Law Director the whole issue is administrative - it IS NOT legislative. Council is talking about an internal operation of a department. Everyone is getting way off center when talking about what role does council have to play. The whole issue is administrative and should have been handled administratively. President Woerpel stated that what is at issue is whether or not the Finance Director appropriately represented himself as acting at the request of council. Mr. Boyle's memo of February 26th stated that "council had requested a cash count" and council did not. President Woerpel does not like anyone representing themself as acting on behalf of this city council without a very clear and un- deniable understanding that council has, by motion, resolution or ordinance, instructed such action to be taken. - ~* ~.