09/16/1997 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 9/16/97 Olmsted residents, testified but no residents testified for the Biskind side. Mr. Coyne ~, accused the City Council of purposely dragging its feet on the issue and proclaiming his side was on the side of democracy. The members of the Board of Elections said that he was incorrect on both counts as the city could not, under law, have acted any sooner. Actually, City Council took action at every one of the regularly scheduled meetings after the petitions were certified by the Board of Elections. City Council acted in accordance with the City Charter. Bedford Hts. Mayor Jimmy Dimora, a member of the Board of Elections, noted that Council had the ability to extend the decision for 40 days according to our Charter but did not do so--instead acting in proper fashion of a good legislative body. At issue during the hearing was whether the vote on the rezoning should take place in November of 1997 or 1998. The Board of Elections, voting 3 to 1, decided the issue would appear on the ballot of November 4, 1997. The members stated that all provisions of the Charter had been complied with so the determining factor was the date the petition was presented to the Clerk of Council, which was August 1, 1997. Since this date was more than 90 days prior to the election, and 90 days is the key word in the Charter, the issue would appear on the November 4, 1997 ballot. Mayor Dimora voted against this decision, and this is noteworthy because he has been the Mayor of Bedford Hts. for 16 years and is well aware of the precedent this action could set. Non-residents who hold property for profit can sidestep well-planned city zoning laws for the good of their own bank account. If this issue is successful in November, there is nothing to stop an unscrupulous developer from purchasing single-family property anywhere in this city and taking zoning changes to the ballot. They can make promises to unaiTected residents and pit resident against resident to get passage. The only defense is an overwhelming "No" vote on this issue. It is much larger than our need for quick, available screwdrivers and light bulbs. We are fighting for the value of our homes. Law Director Gareau: 1) Recently there have been two grievances filed that dealt with valor pay, one in the Fire Department and the other in the Police Department. The same arbitrator was used in both cases. With regard to the firefighter's grievance, he was getting on a fire truck and slipped and hurt his knee on the running board. He filed for valor pay, but it was the city's contention that this was not valorous activity because slipping, tripping and falling are excluded from valorous activity. We do include as acts of valor such things as smoke inhalation, collapse of building or burns. The language of the collective bargaining agreement provides that only the Safety Director can determine whether valor pay will be granted. In this case, the firefighter asked for valor pay and it was denied. He took the grievance to Step 2 and the Fire Chief, without authority, granted the relief. This action was not uncovered until a year later; and, at that time, the Chief was instructed to go back and correct the action. The matter was taken to arbitration and the arbitrator granted the relief request by the union and indicated that, because it had been settled at Step 2 and the Chief had acted in good faith, the grievance could not be unsettled. The Law Director does not agree with this conclusion because the collective bargaining agreement specifically states that the decision can only be made by the Safety Director. So, in essence, the act of settling that issue at Step 2 of the grievance procedure changed the collective bargaining agreement. 2