03/04/1986 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 3/4/86 Mayor Petrigac at no time did State Auditor. supports the L, administration involved. -9- stated that she supported President Woerpel's comments and that she hear or feel that council had directed anyone to call the It was talked about but it was never resolved. She also 3w Director opinion that the whole situation was a matter for the to handle and not for council; council should never have gotten Mr. O'Grady stated that he was chairing the meeting and in defense of the Finance Director, it was, in fact, stated that the State Auditor would be called in. Mr. Boyle's question to Mr. Wilamosky was, "do you want me to write the letter or do you want to write the letter" and Mr. Wilamosky responded, "you write the letter". Would like the members who were at the meeting to be polled as to their under- standing of whether or not Mr. Boyle was directed to do what he did. Whether it was right or wrong, would like it understood that Mr. Boyle did what council asked him to do. Mr. Tallon stated that he wholeheartedly concurred with Mr. O'Grady's statement. Mr. Wilamosky, at one point, asked that council be polled on calling the State Auditor; council was polled; there was a definite "yes" in the majority. When Mr. Boyle asked if Mr. Wilamosky wanted to write the letter or if he should write it, Mr. Wilamosky said "no, you know much more about it than I do; you write it". When Mr. Tallon left the room he had no doubt in his mind that council, as a whole, wanted that action taken. Mr. Lackey stated that he concurred with Mr. O'Grady also on his assumption of the meeting and did vote in favor of bringing in the State Auditor because he felt the whole issue could be resolved and this was the only way to get it done and move on; he supported bringing in the State Auditor to resolve this matter. That was his vote. Mr. Woerpel responded that the word "vote" was just used and there is no place, in writing, where a vote was taken. This is his point. If council wants to take action, based upon discussions of an executive session, it should have come back into the meeting of council and passed a motion to that effect. It did not do so. It does not matter what was agreed to outside of the meeting; the fact is that at no time did the Finance Director act on behalf of council by direct request of council by motion, ordinance or resolution. Perhaps all caucus and executive sessions should be taped so that an adequate record of what takes place in these sessions could be kept. Mr. Wilamosky pointed out that discussions in executive sessions were not to be aired in public; therefore Council would certainly not discuss something in executive session and then bring it out on the floor for discussion and vote. Mr. McKay stated that he did not see anything wrong with the State Auditor being called in; there was nothing to hide; felt it would do more good than harm and would put the whole issue to rest. Mr. Boyle commented that when certain members of council get off the track, President Woerpel corrects them; when polling council and two or three members had their hands up, President Woerpel recognized the Mayor and then allowed her to get off the track. The President "came down" on Mr. Boyle for bringing the matter out of executive session when a letter signed "Dwayne R. Woerpel" refers to the contents of an executive session. Mr. Boyle feels President Woerpel is more guilty of what he is accusing Mr. Boyle of then he could possibly be guilty of. There is a lot of guilt here and it goes far beyond the $200. It goes to acts which are more important to the city than the $200. There was $300 drawn against the Endowment and Grant Fund. According to Mr. Copeland, $200 went to