11/18/2008 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 11/18/2008 receiving additional compensation, it would be very azguably a violation of the City Charter. In addition, we have a local ethics code which prohibits city officials from having any interest in contracts between the city and themselves or their affiliate, and there is a state ethics codes in the same respect. He wouldn't discourage City Council looking at something like that, but he would say he thinks the Charter and our current local ethics code would prohibit the next law director from doing that. Mr. Lambert said he agreed, but the Law Director was approaching this on a theoretical basis while he is talking about definitively putting a change into the structure of the Law Dept. so it is clearly defined. He thought the law firm of the previous director had represented clients before boards and commissions. Councilman Ryan, who worked with former Law Director Gareau, said Mr. Gazeau was meticulous in making sure that never happened. Also, the ethical rules for attorneys would prohibit it. When he worked with Mr. Gareau, they were very cazeful never to have conflicts. Councilman Gareau said, while Mr. Gareau Sr. was in office, there was never an occasion when the law firm represented people before boards and commissions. Mr. Dubeiko, who worked for the city in that Law Dept. and with Mr. Gareau Sr. in his private practice, agreed that just did not happen. Mr. Lambert said, if he made a mistake, he stands corrected. Finance Director Copfer commented that, as the person who paid the bills for the last 11 years, she never made a payment for services of the law firm's attorney fees. Mr. Lambert might be remembering that there was a nominal office amount that was paid each month to help compensate for use of the firm's secretary and other items by the city. The city never paid Mike Gazeau's firm more money for attorney fees other than what he received as our Law Director in his own personal compensation. 3) Jim Burns, representing the North Olmsted Chamber of Commerce, spoke about Ordinance 2007-58 dealing with increased fines through violations of the through truck prohibitions. When this was first discussed in committee, the Chamber was concerned that these streets are not adequately posted. He was under the belief that would be addressed. The Chamber recommends major streets which have traffic lights, such as Barton Road, Dover Center, and Canterbury, that on the arm where the traffic light is located, the prohibition be posted. In this way, a truck driver has a chance to know before he makes the turn onto the street that he is not allowed to use that as a through street. An example is Barton Road where the sign that says no through trucks is way down the street from the intersection. If a truck driver was to make the turn, see the sign, and stop, his only alternative is to back onto Lorain Road to get out of that situation. It's better to have the truck driver know he's not supposed to make the turn before he makes the turn. Councilman Gareau agreed it is probably not a bad idea to take a look at the signage. Barton Road is kind of unique because there is no tree lawn, so the first place to put the sign is about 2S0 feet dawn the street. It is a good signage suggestion and worth looking into. He will ask the Service Dept. to do so. Law Director Dubelko noted that the legislation was only intended in the first place to increase penalties in light of Stearns/Crocker opening up in the future. The recommendation which he gave to Safety with respect to the issue of signage was to refer that part of it back to the Police Dept. and Engineering Dept. to look at that signage issue sepazately. It shouldn't be part of this legislation. This legislation perhaps was held up unnecessarily because of that issue and another issue. The issue of appropriate signage is to make sure that we have signs that are 9