03/30/2006 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MIND. TES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED MARCH 30, 20(16 Present: President of Council Kennedy, Council Members Barker, Gareau, Dailey Jones, Miller, Orlowski, Ryan Absent: Councilman Tallon Also Present: Mayor O'Grady, Law Director Dubelko, Clerk of Council Seman President Kennedy called the special meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. in Council Chambers, 5200 Dover Center Road, North Olmsted, Ohio. Councilman Gareau made a motion to reconsider the line item appropriations vetoed by Mayor O'Grady in Ordinance 2006-50. The motion to reconsider the line item vetoes was seconded by Councilman Miller. Roll call: Gareau, yes; Miller, yes; Barker, yes; Jones, yes; Ryan, no; Orlowski, yes. The motion passed with five yes votes and one no vote. President Kennedy posed the following question to City Council: Shall Ordinance No. 2006-50, regarding salaries and benefits for a corrections officer, be adopted notwithstanding the veto of the Mayor? Roll call: Barker, no, with comment. With information obtained March 27, 2006 from a meeting between the administration and risk management saying at the present time there is not a liability issue, his vote from March 26, 2006 has changed. He wants to thank Councilwoman Dailey Jones for posing the question to the Law Dept. regarding liability with the present staffing concerning corrections officers at our jail. There has been a debate over this issue since the corrections officer layoff in 2002. He questioned this matter quite a few times, but never officially and he apologizes for that. He is surprised it wasn't asked in an official manner in the past. Therefore, his vote is to uphold the administration's veto on this line item. Roll call continued: Miller, aye; Gareau, no, commenting he also votes to sustain the Mayor's veto. By way of explanation, he said that throughout the appropriations process, he brought it to the attention of his colleagues when he had objection to a particular issue and when he did not. This was one issue that he simply stated his opinion and moved on without debate. This has been consistently his opinion throughout. When the amendments to the legislation were brought forward out of committee, he voted no because of some particular issues he had with some of them. His position has been consistent. It has nothing to do with the merits of the need ~f a corrections officer or the police officer staffing or who covers the corrections officer position or how they're trained or what they do. His position has to do with the fact that the administration is in charge of the Police Department. The administration-the Mayor, Police Chief and Safety Director-are the individuals who are primarily responsible to determine the needs of the Police Dept. If those individuals come forward to City Council and do not recommend there is a particular need, he does not feel that it is his position to better tell them how to manage the department. If there is a corrections officer issue that needs to be addressed, it should be brought forward by the administration. Roll call continued: Orlowski, yes; Jones, no, with comment that she feels the budget process overall and the way that the Finance Committee handled the budget process went fairly well. Perhaps there could have been more communication between the administration and Council. It is within the right of any legislative body in the U. S. to ,~~-.