CITY COUNCIL MEETING, JUNE 17: Highlights from Monday night’s meeting: The centerpiece item for the meeting, next year’s proposed budget, was abruptly set aside at the start, with the mayor remarking that it still needed work, and discussion would resume next month. We have to hope that preliminary concerns from Council members, including some of the issues raised in the earlier post below, may be taking root. No further details were provided, and no further discussion entertained. [Aside: For those worried about the current fiscal year ending on June 30, it’s worth noting that state law provides for the current budget to remain in effect “as if readopted,” if a new one isn’t passed.] Several personnel changes were announced: a new City Attorney, a contract CPA to perform the functions of the Treasurer, and a new City police officer. None of these was offered for confirmation by the Council, as required by statute and ordinance, so it’s not clear when these appointments will take effect. The contract CPA, Mr Charlie Veeneman, reportedly performs the same functions for a number of small cities in Louisville. He made a lengthy technical presentation on proposed changes to financial reports and budget arrays that occupied most of the rest of the meeting. Under “New Business,” near the end of the agenda, Council member Cary Campbell introduced a resolution on the Davis incident. An exceptionally mild variant of elements under consideration (see “Estate Sale” chronicle below), the text provides no background circumstances for the record, finding only that the City “could have and should have handled the matter differently;” that the permit fee improperly charged the Davises should be refunded; and that the ordinance on sales should be “amended.” Despite the inoffensive nature of this non-binding resolution, and several heartfelt expressions of support from other Council members and attendees, the reaction from the administration was a veritable firestorm - with the lawyer who acted as counsel for the code enforcement hearing insisting that everything in the case was handled properly (Jonathan Leachman, present at the meeting because he’s the one being proposed as the new City Attorney!), and the mayor distributing a legal opinion (also from Leachman) advising against the resolution, and proposing (after 3 months) that this be handled “later.” But the crescendo was the riposte from Council member Al Huber, who called the Davises “liars,” said proposing the resolution was “unethical,” compared the drafter to Richie Farmer, and suggested the action could be grounds for “disbarment.” He went on to assert that Mrs Davis had served on the Council for “38 years” (it actually appears to have been around five) and had “probably” been involved in writing the sales ordinance (not clear how that might’ve caused her to take action that didn’t conform to the ordinance). He then prevented Council member Campbell from responding by making an incorrect reference to the rules of order (the third time your scribe has heard this tactic from him) - with no intervention from the mayor or attorney Leachman to correct the miscue. When Council member Campbell was finally able to speak, and specifically asked Leachman for some expression of support on the legal implications being raised, he was rebuffed. Despite all the vitriol, the resolution passed with only Huber dissenting (by strangely voting “aye” in opposition, go figure). With the resolution only representing the ‘sense of the Council,’ however, it remains to be seen whether any concrete action will result. We’ll have to remain vigilant a little longer, because the meeting then adjourned with no commitment from the mayor. Stay tuned, everybody...
Posted on: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 01:18:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015