02/18/2003 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 2J18/2003 Dennis Lambert, 25057 Carey Lane. ^ He is not officially a member of any particular party. He did support and campaign for the Mayor, but he also signed the petition. That should blow a hole in the whole political conspiracy. The fact of the matter is the Mayor he campaigned for did not show himself to be the same Mayor that he has turned out to be recently. He is not saying the Mayor should be recalled, but believes the residents should be given the opportunity to review the Mayor's performance. ^ He is pleased to see Ordinance 2003-33. He has spoken for many years that there needs to be some revising of the way the city does its business, especially the relationship between administration and Council. To him, it is natural to require those who hold major positions in the government to be reviewed and advised with consent of the legislative body. It appears that this ordinance is asking for a confirmation of the majority of Council. He suggests Council may prefer to look at it as a 2/3 objection rather than a confirmation. That would bring it legislatively within the scope of what Council is doing as a legislative body rather than becoming a dictatorial body telling the Mayor who he/she can appoint. It would be less political and more in keeping in what Council's relationship is with the administration. ^ Believes the Canterbury Road study may need to be a certified study and doing it in- house may not meet the qualifications necessary for the proper certification. Councilwoman Ka ler said she appreciated Mr. Lambert's comments on the Charter amendment and will take those into committee. She regrets having to comment on the recall issue but, at the risk of having silence appear as an assent, she too has been working diligently to stay on task. She is working diligently on the budget, quality legislation to keep things moving, the water issue with Avon Lake and to stay on a positive road. Unfortunately, she has been asked one too many times to comment on recall. Her very brief comment is that, instead of being concerned about whether the recall is being supported or backed or initiated by politicians, the Mayor should be more concerned that it is not. She has not been a part of the recall and will not be a part of the recall. The recall people know that and why and respect it. While she appreciates their civil rights and efforts to do what they need to do, it is not Council's position to take a stand and they all understand that. That is the way it is. She is not a part of it, and the Mayor is wrong in that aspect. Councilman Miller noted that he is not a part of the recall effort. He has observed how they have conducted their business, and he has observed how the Mayor has conducted his business. He is concerned about literature that comes out that misrepresents or implies things that might happen that aren't going to. It was clear to him from listening to the people who spoke at the last Council meeting that their intention is to time the petition so that it won't result in a special election. The effort to affect the outcome of an election before it happens in the form of both the letter from the Mayor and the letter that came from the Mayor's lawyer, looks as if it is the same thing that got the Mayor in trouble originally in that he is only accused at this point of trying to affect the outcome of an election. There is a pattern that is developing, and he is concerned about that. He hopes that ends and the people who wish to bring something forward do so. We need to move on. There are numerous new pieces of legislation for consideration, and the Law 10