09/17/2002 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 9/17/2002 any of that. He thinks it would be appropriate to ensure that this person is not being "`" paid more than once for one hour's worth of work. It is not too much to ask, and he thinks that is what the residents of North Olmsted expect and what the employees of the city expect. Councilman Dailey asked for a point of order as to whether Mr. Gareau's vote will count toward the attempt to override the veto. Mr. Gareau asked to address that issue. Due to a portion of the Charter which provides for atwo-thirds vote of the elected members of Cauncil to override a Mayor's veto, his vote, as he was appointed, does not count in that total calculation. (Four votes will be needed.) However, he does have a duty to vote. Rall call continued: Dailey, no, with the commem that a few weeks ago, Council was given some last minute proposals regarding the 2402 budget deficit. A lot of work was put into those proposals, and he thanks Councilwoman Kesler for her efforts. He believes they were submitted with the best interests of both the city and the residents in mind. Initially, he supported all the amendments as proposed. However, after having time to reflect on all the proposed cuts and having had numerous conversations with various Council members, members of the administration, North Olmsted Police Department, and the Finance Committee chairman, he can say with a clear conscience he will be supporting some of the vetoes this evening. Roll call continued: Kesler, yes, with comment. Simply put, members of this Council in public forums have repeatedly requested documentation to verify the hours spent to substantiate wages pages for work performed by the Mayor's assistant in her capacity as secretary to the Housing Council. These repeated requests have reflected the following responses: First, the Mayor said at a meeting that he didn't know how many haws were spent. In a subsequent meeting, he said 200 hours were spent. At another meeting, he said the 200 hours was for 1996 and 1997 and not for this year. At another subsequent meeting, he said the hours were 290. At another time, Council was told no one knew and was sure what the hours were and the hours were not documented for this year. After all of this, there is still no physical documentation to substantiate any of the variety of responses that were received. Based on the contradictory responses and the lack of substantive documentation, she believe it is Council's obligation to make some requests and to nat have this money placed in the budget until such time as these requests are responded to. She has been asking and continues to ask a two-fold question, and at the appropriate time she will put it into a public records request that Council be provided with (1) time sheets or any other documentation which verify the number of hours spent performing duties as a secretary to the Housing Council; (2) documentation of the hours that are spent as the administrative assistant; (3) exactly which hours of the day are spent on each one. These documents should be reflected in previously and timely created documents which were submitted to Finance for payment as opposed to a re-creation of tb:e time that an employee thought they worked based on recollection and recorded simply for producing an answer to this request. Roll call co~rtinued: Miller, yes; McKay, no, for the following reasons: After reviewing the City Charter, the secretary of the Housing Council is a salaried position, whether she puts in one how or one thousand hours, the pay is the same. Also, as he looks at the position and not the person, knowing what the secretary has to ,~, do, he would not ask anyone to do that job for no pay. Roll call: Limpert, no, with the comment that 2002-117 was an ordinance to deal with a deficit in the General 11