07/03/2001 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 7/3/2001 ,, Mayor Musial now support giving the people the right to choose whether they want a partisan community or non-partisan community. Also, in the past former Mayor Boyle favored giving the public a choice. He also believes former Mayor Petrigac was in favor of non-partisan elections.. It really is a shame when personal interests override the best interests of this community. The committee should not have decided to delay the legislation because justice delayed in justice denied. He can make choices for himself, and he would vote for anybody on Council no matter where there's an election issue or not if he felt they were the best choice. It's a sham of an excuse to deny putting this issue up for a vote; it was cowardly. He and Mr. O'Grady have had differences in the past, but he respects him for his willingness to make a change, grow and gain experience. It takes courage for Mr. Dailey, a newly appointed Democratic Councilman, to support this issue. Councilman McKay remarked that this Council denies non-partisan people nothing. ff non-partisan people want to, they can form their own party. They can become as strong as the Democrats or Republicans or even stronger. One point which was not really explained is the fact, if you want to do something for non-partisan people just before election to gamer their vote, that is very political. Also, the citizens of this country have distrust for politicians and car salesmen. To make a politician say that he is non-partisan when he is actually a Republican or a Democrat rubs him absolutely the wrong way. That makes a liar out of him. If the people in this country are so worried about equal opportunity, why don't they attack the Hatch Act? Why don't they get the federal govemment to rescind their restrictions on non-partisan people? Let's start there. Law Director Gareau said that he believed Mr. Lambert missed the mark completely. He makes it sound like the issue is that City Council members are simply a bunch of drones who have no responsibility to look at issues, who have no responsibility to analyze the issues and they just simply must put these issues on the ballot. He would like to remind Mr. Lambert that the Constitution of the State of Ohio provides two ways in which to amend the charter: one, if the people feel strongly about it, they can circulate a petition; second, Council must vote. Is it Council voting simply as a rote act? He doesn't think so. Anytime you require five people on a city council to approve an issue to go on the ballot or to approve any issue, there has to be a lot more than unanimity. You must analyze the issue to make the determination as to whether or not you, the one who was elected and the one who by constitution is required to make the determination, wants the issue to go on the ballot or not. That's a deliberative process. It's not something that's just automatic. To take on five Councilmen and call them cowards because they exercised their responsibility under the Constitution of the State of Ohio is totally irresponsible. Councilwoman Kasler said she chooses to not take personally the remarks of Mr. Lambert that the committee was "cowardly". But, since the term was used, she thinks cowardly is when you hide behind something and are afraid to say who you are and where you came from. She thinks it does a disservice to this community when something is put forward that does not further educate and does not help the voters to better know their candidates. She also finds it somewhat suspicious that it would be raised at this time after having been brought up so recently. To support Mr. Nashar's comment about 7