Laserfiche WebLink
Council Minutes of 6/6/2000 <br />government for the people. Let's let the people be informed before final decisions of <br />this measure are made by Council. A periodic newsletter on Council's agenda would <br />be a good thing. This could be picked up by residents at such public places as the <br />Recreation Center, City Hall, schools, library, Senior Center, etc. You are elected by <br />the residents of North Olmsted but you should inform those that have elected you for <br />you may find that they may not always agree with all that you wish to do. Thank you. <br />Kay Given." <br />AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION <br />Dennis Lambert, 25057 Carey Lane <br />• Felt he had to express disappointment in having his rights of free speech abridged by <br />Council by amending the agenda and not allowing residents an opportunity to address <br />Council prior to the dealing of legislation. He takes it as a personal affront and as a <br />slick maneuver rather than something to make this matter expedient. Feels there were <br />citizens in the room for and against the issue that had a right to speak prior to the <br />Council acting. They were slam-dunked out of it, and it came from a Councilman <br />who claims freedom of speech. He has spoken in favor of residents who wanted their <br />right to private property to sell and buy it as they chose when Council decided they <br />were going to declare a moratorium on the sale of property in the city thereby <br />hampering private sales. He was vehemently opposed to forcing sign ordinances <br />down people's throats and has spoken about that because the commerce of the city is a <br />vital part of it and was jeopardized. That ended up going to court and it potentially <br />will cost the city a lot of money because it lost. He speaks on many issues and it's <br />difficult to label him--some people call him pro business and some call him pro labor, <br />but he is issue oriented. Believes that the PLA ordinance has some fundamental <br />principles behind it, and it is not an issue of whether it's needed or not. The labor <br />movement in this country is a form of protection for working people. The passage of <br />that ordinance, after it had been corrected and fine-tuned, could have very easily said <br />that this community is interested in protecting its working people. That is what he <br />believes was coming from that. He is not a laborer, but comes from a background of <br />union people and believes there is something fundamental to organized work efforts <br />and organizations that he believes, in a very conservative-minded world, are trying to <br />trash something that took an awful long time to be built to protect the voice of those <br />people that do the work and get the education and take the time to learn skills and <br />their craft. The labor movement came out of the trades and out of the people who <br />brought old-world skills to this country. To throw the ordinance out without giving it <br />a chance is shameful. This should have been a committee issue a long time ago. <br />There are going to be misconceptions because Council acted inappropriately by not <br />dealing with this in committee. He thinks Council needs codified rules more than <br />ever. <br />Ron Tallon, 27548 Laurell Lane. <br />• Previous speaker spoke very eloquently--he hit the nail on the head. Wants to ask the <br />four Councilman who voted to table why they did so and did not put it back into <br />committee. Law Department didn't say it was an unworkable ordinance. A year's <br />11 <br />