My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1987 02 03
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1987 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1987 02 03
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:27 PM
Creation date
7/15/2008 8:50:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
2/3/1987
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E2
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1987 02 03
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mayor Fauson closed the public hearing and called <br />for a motion. <br />Mohr moved that Council adopt the revisions of <br />Ward boundaries as presented in Ordinance #923. <br />Scarpella seconded. By roll call vote, Ordinance <br />#923 was adopted ur.~animously. <br />ORDINANCE #924 - ETHICS CODE - <br />PUBLIC HEARING Rautenstraus read k>y title only Ordinance #924, <br />"An Ordinance amending Chapter 2.80 of the <br />Louisville Municipal Code entitled Ethics Code." <br />Proper publication and notice of public hearing <br />were established ar-d Mayor Fauson opened the public <br />hearing. <br />Rautenstraus explained that at the January 6, 1987, <br />Council Meeting, Council approved on first reading <br />Ordinance #924 whit;h is designed to clarify and <br />improve the City's Ethics Code. <br />Mayor Fauson asked for anyone wishing to speak <br />either in favor of or in opposition to Ordinance <br />#924. <br />Elizabeth Nick, 176 So. Hoover Ave., spoke in <br />opposition to the amendment to Section 2.80.050 <br />"Enforcement," Paragraph E - wherein the amendment <br />states, "In addition the City Prosecutor determine <br />that either the City officials or the complainant <br />acted in bad faith or that the complaint was <br />groundless and frivolous, then the costs of the <br />investigation including reasonable attorney fees <br />may be assessed against the person acting in bad <br />faith or filing the groundless and frivolous com- <br />plaint." <br />Ms. Nick stated "I oppose this amendment for the <br />following reason: The District Court according to <br />the present Code is responsible for making the <br />decision if someone acted in bad faith. It is not <br />necessary to have an additional opinion if the <br />court has already made one. As the City <br />Prosecutor is appointed by the City Council, there <br />is a possibility of a conflict of interest." <br />Ms. Nick also opposed the amendment of Section <br />2.80.060, Paragraph B which states, "Open to the <br />public and shall be publicly posted, unless the <br />City Prosecutor believes it to be in the best <br />interest of the City to not make said opinion <br />available to the public. In the event the opinion <br />is not immediately made public, the City <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.