08/06/2002 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 8/6/2002 the other is increasing revenue. If we can show that this is going to increase revenue, then that will greatly influence the timing of when such a position would be funded. This creates it-it does not fund it. Roll call continued: Nashar, yes, concurring with all the other comments. The motion passed unanimously. Ordinance 99-126 adopted Ordinance No. 2002-65 introduced by Councilman Gareau was given its third reading. An ordinance providing for the submission to the electors of the City of North Olmsted of amendments to Article III, Sections 3 and 5(b), and Article VII, Sections 1(a), 2(a) and 4(a) of the Charter of the City of North Olmsted to remove all references to voting by "elected" members of Council. Councilman Gareau moved for adoption; second by Councilman Miller. Roll call: Gareau, yes, commenting that he does not share some of the concerns that may be mentioned during the roll call with respect to placing this matter before the voters. He believes it is a timely Charter amendment that affects the structure and function of our government. To be clear, the issue in this legislation is simple and justified in his mind and justifies his vote. It simply seeks to insure that all members of Council have equal legislative and administrative powers when they cast their vote. Now „~, an appointed member of Council, as he is, can introduce legislation, can vote on it in committee, can vote to suspend the rules requiring three readings and review by committee and can vote to pass it. However, if for some reason the Mayor vetoed the legislation, an appointed member of Council would be prohibited from overriding the veto despite his/her involvement in the process up to that point. The only reason being appointed and not elected. He sees this as a distinction with no legitimate basis and it works to remove a voice on Council that has been involved in the entire process when, in fact, that voice may be needed most. He has been advised that the cost of this Charter amendment being on the ballot may be between one and two thousand dollars. There are several items to be considered and perhaps placed on the ballot in November. Although he is sensitive to the financial condition, he does not believe this to be frivolous and sees it as an important matter worthy of public attention for the cost involved. Roll call continued: Miller, yes; Nashar, yes; Kasler, yes, commenting she is voting yes because of what she perceives as the value of this ordinance being presented to the voters. Also, she does it with the caveat that the financial figures will be verified and provided it doesn't exceed to any extent what Mr. Gareau has been informed with regard to the amount of submitting it to the Board of Elections, then she would support the ordinance. Roll call continued: Limpert, yes, commenting he echoes Mrs. Kasler's comments. We may have to look at all our Charter amendments to see if there is a cost savings and postpone them slightly. He has some question on whether this is the way to go, but he will not deny the people an opportunity to vote on it. Roll call conrtinued: McKay, yes, commenting that during the non-partisan issue when some people were accused of not allowing the people the right to vote, he made up his mind that anything that is brought before Council to go on the ballot, he will vote yes. Roll call continued: Dailey, no, commenting that last year he served as an appointed member of Council as others have and Council functioned well. Would it function better? Maybe, and maybe this is a way to improve that. But Council functioned and still can function. The reason he is voting no is typically he would support a Charter amendment allowing the residents the ability to decide the issue; however, this is not a typical year. In light of the budget crunch, he '"` cannot consider in good conscience and support a measure that may cost the city from 19