03/21/2006 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 3/21/2006 and respects their decision. He thinks they were very thoughtful about it, they have every right in the world to do what they did. He did want to express publicly that the Mayor was forthright certainly with him and made two reasonable requests. He was supportive of them. He certainly defers to Council and understands what they did. Overall, they did a marvelous job working with the administration to come up with a budget which he thinks is fully successful here, and he is proud to have been part of that process. The motion to amend Ordinance 2006-50 passed with six yes votes and one no vote. Mayor O'Grady commented on the budget process. He has said repeatedly that open government is good government. When Council chose to act in a way that excluded the administration, they are not creating good government, they are damaging government. He agrees with much of what Mr. Ryan said. The process was a very good one. He, his staff and the directors worked diligently to put together ahigh-quality document. They were completely open and aboveboard with the entire process and were very pleased as the process went forward; they were concerned as the process drew near the end that things weren't what they seemed. There was no need for secrecy, and no need not to advise the administration in advance what the priorities of Council were. With regard to the specific issues that have already been passed by Council, he still wants to be on the record on them. With the Information Technology Supervisor, the administration was simply moving this very capable and proven employee to the center of the range. With the Administrative Assistant position, they did the responsible and reasonable thing and funded that position in the center of the range. Council has the authority to set the ranges. The administration decides where in the range the person belongs. That's the way, as long as the administration is using that power responsibly, it should be supported. Ina $69 million budget with a General Fund of over $20 million, this committee of Council needed to cut the two priorities of the mayor of the city. That impairs his ability to serve residents. That is not good government. The committee did two separate things with regazd to the safety forces: they increased manning, without a request from the administration and reduced the money ~t aside for bringing in professional negotiators when the administration would need them for safety forces negotiations later this year. Also, $5,000 was cut from the administrative assistant. This is an incredibly unwise direction. Things should have been done differently. Things should have been done much better. He is stunned that it had to be this way because, from his part, he has been nothing but open and straight forward with this Council. To see somewhere outside of the committee process, priorities were established and agreements were made and then they were voted upon last Tuesday, that's just wrong. Law Director Dubelko asked Councilman Talton for confirmation that Ordinance Nos. 2006-53 and 200b-54 had been reviewed by committee. Councilman Talton said they had been. The Law Director said that he was incorrect in believing they had not been reviewed; and, consequently, the legislation had been removed from the agenda of the last Council meeting. He asked that the agenda be amended to add the legislation to this agenda and that they be considered for passage under suspension of the rule. Councilman Talton agreed the legislation should not have been removed from the previous Council agenda. Councilman Gazeau made a motion to add Ordinance Nos. 2006-53 and 2006-54 6