My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09/04/2012 Meeting Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Minutes
>
2012
>
09/04/2012 Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/15/2014 4:07:01 PM
Creation date
1/13/2014 6:10:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
North Olmsted Legislation
Legislation Date
9/4/2012
Year
2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
Council Minutes of 09-04-12 <br />...~. includes looking for efficiencies and ways to better our city government. It just so <br />happens that I disagree with this particular proposal. Two prior administrations did look <br />,,~. <br />into this and decided no; it didn't even get to the legislative point. It was discussed <br />informally, and there was never any proposal whatsoever of this kind to create a Mayors <br />Court. There have been only two Mayors Courts created in the past 30 years in Ohio. <br />Why aren't more cities doing this? Forty-eight states do not have Mayors Courts. The <br />only other state other than Ohio is Louisiana. I will not get into the history of political <br />corruption in the state of Louisiana. Why is North Olmsted doing this? Is there a need <br />for a Mayors Court? Rocky River sets the standard in probation for the county, region <br />and state. You're going to give up those services - a safety net -for our residents for 1 <br />of our total budget? The next notion is if you accept the Mayor's proposal, we're going <br />to raise $256,000 at the end of the day. That is just over 1% of our total operating <br />budget. That's it. We're going to give up all those fine probation services for 1 % of our <br />total budget. That is nothing more than the roof at the Recreation Center needing to be <br />put under a change order because it leaks, etc. It's a drop in the bucket, nothing. Judge <br />Hagan is correct. This decision is monumental. There is no going back. In a year if this <br />doesn't work out, what are we going to do then? Crawl back to Rocky River Muni <br />Court? Take into consideration the monumental decision we are making. It is altering <br />the lives of our residents in a significant way. If Issue 34 was a big change for the <br />benefit, this one may very well work out. I oppose it for the reasons I stated. Consider <br />the magnitude. The other number that is significant is 2% recidivism of 100 first time <br />OVI cases sampled by Ms. Nash. We know how often we see drunk drivers with <br />~ multiple arrests and multiple convictions. Here we are going to toss away to the side - <br />for the sake of money -all those services for first time offenders? We are going to pass a <br />2% recidivism rate for extra money in our general fund? Don't get me wrong. I <br />understand $256,000 is a decent amount of money, but not when you compare it to the <br />entire operating budget of the city. In terms of the efficiencies pointed out by the <br />Administration, the one I will quickly dispense with is the notion that it's more <br />convenient for our citizens to go to our Mayors Court than Rocky River Muni Court. <br />Rocky River is a stone's throw compared to some of the other communities in different <br />counties. We shouldn't be making it easier for violators who speed through our streets or <br />on I480 -and by the way a lot of these people getting these tickets will not be our <br />residents, so why is it such a big efficiency to make it more convenient for them to come <br />to Mayors Court rather than go to Rocky River Muni Court. It was also pointed out that <br />it's a benefit to our residents that offenders pay less at North Olmsted Mayors Court. Pay <br />less? That should tell you right there -you pay less at Mayors Court. Do we really want <br />them to pay less? No. At the very first Committee of the Whole, I inquired whether or <br />not the Administration would give up the first offender OVI cases, and the answer was <br />no. The reason for the no answer is simple. Because, this is just an economic initiative. <br />Nothing more. It's about the money. If you give up the OVI offenders who rake in the <br />biggest fines and are assessed the largest fines, you defeat the whole purpose. Then, it <br />would be completely inefficient to establish a Mayors Court. It's aneconomically-driven <br />decision, one I cannot support based on what we're giving up in terms of Rocky River <br />services. He pointed out that Chief Justice Moyer was adamantly against the creation and <br />perpetuation of Mayors Courts. One court in 30 years should resonate volumes when you <br />go to vote this evening. He urged Council to recall the statistics and comments presented <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.