Laserfiche WebLink
Council Minutes of 5/16/2000 <br />Mr. Miller scheduled a Transportation Committee meeting for 7 p.m. on Thursday, <br />~` June 1, to discuss 2000-31. The Safety Director and Service Director are asked to attend. <br />~~ Larry Griffith, the Traffic Engineer, should be notified. <br />Mr. Miller, on behalf of all of Council, congratulated Brad Miklosovic and his wife on <br />the birth of his child. <br />Mr. O'Grady scheduled a meeting of the Environmental Control Committee for 6 p.m. on <br />May 31 to discuss 2000-60. The Mayor and Service Director are invited to attend. <br />Mr. O'Grady scheduled a meeting of the Public Safety Committee immediately following <br />the Environmental Control meeting to discuss the proposed gun lock program. The <br />Safety Director, and if he deems it appropriate, a representative from community <br />policing, is invited to attend. <br />Mr. Limpert announced that on May 27 his youngest son is being graduated from West <br />Point. Congratulations.were extended by all! <br />Mr. Gareau asked to discuss the Mayoral veto of Ordinance 2000-23, which was to <br />regulate garage sales. Mr. Gareau moved to reconsider Ordinance 2000-23; motion was <br />seconded by Mr. Nashar. Roll call: Gareau, no with comment. "I had the opportunity to <br />sit down and review what has gone on in the past several weeks, and I'd like to explain to <br />you my position. I think I've done it best by thinking it out in advance as opposed to <br />simply talking from the top of my head. I think it can be agreed that in our city it cannot <br />be disputed that the uninhibited communication among Council members and the free <br />flow of ideas is instrumental to a government that works best for its residents. With the <br />legislative area itself, I think most would agree that open debate, wise counsel and <br />diligent inquiry by all members interested yields legislation that bests advances the public <br />interest. Now this is a framework that I, as a Councilman, believe in and have followed <br />for the past several years. I believe I have fulfilled my obligation as a Council member in <br />so doing. However, I think that this framework of wise counsel, diligent inquiry and <br />open debate perhaps has been fractured within the City of North Olmsted. To evidence <br />this divide, I think we need only point to 2000-23. In furtherance of the framework that I <br />think is important to our government, I can proudly say that more attempts were made by <br />this Councilperson on this ordinance to solicit input and counsel and advice from my <br />colleagues, from some members of the administration and from the residents of the City <br />of North Olmsted than has been done at any other time. This type of open process and <br />framework normally works. And it does a pretty good job. We've seen it happen in the <br />past, but I don't think it worked here. I want to tell you very briefly why. Had the <br />process worked and had all interested parties conveyed their ideas and concerns on this <br />particular issue, I am extremely confident that a resolution could be had and we would <br />not be facing the veto this evening. Instead I think silence was the preferred approach <br />until the eleventh hour. Only then, when the time for discussion was over, did some long <br />latent concerns rush forward and present themselves. For the most part, this matter <br />moved on largely ignorant of the unpresented concerns of those involved in the decision <br />making process. With that, I think that's why we are where we are. I don't believe that <br />18 <br />