Laserfiche WebLink
in for prosecution. If not, I think Mr. Fauson <br />ought to admit his mistake. I'm concerned, <br />councilmembers, that there is a principle involved <br />here; one that is disturbing to me; matters of <br />principle that we not allow this body to become <br />a forum for what I would call sort of reversion <br />back to McCarthyism. I don't think that should be <br />tolerated when we create an environment where <br />empty accusations and innuendo can be permitted and <br />become a way of doing business. I think that <br />that reduces the integrity of this body or any <br />body that operates in that manner. Its a manner <br />of operating government that becomes factious. <br />It creates disharmony; it breeds mistrust and <br />ill will among councilmembers and in the <br />community itself and I don't believe that it is <br />in the best interest of the City to breed any <br />more disharmony than already currently may exist. <br />I think that in my own mind it seems only proper <br />that Councilman Fauson either substantiate his <br />accusations and uphold the code of the City of <br />Louisville as he has sworn to do, or if he is <br />unable to do that, to take an honorable path and <br />admit his mistake and apologize to the council <br />members and to the public for his mistakes." <br />Meier: "Within in the ethics ordinance that we <br />have within the City, if there has been some <br />problem with violation of that ethic ordinance <br />as far as secret meetings, I think it is your <br />duty as councilman to either present those to <br />the prosecuting attorney for action on those <br />as that is the person designated in that <br />ordinance to delineate whether there has been a <br />problem or not been a problem. Either that or <br />I think as Rick (Councilman Luce) said either <br />present these to the prosecuting attorney or <br />apologize to council." <br />Fauson: "I will :not apologize to council for <br />my statements that I did make. The statements <br />that I made were not that this council was in <br />violation. I did not specifically say this <br />council was in violation and I did not say <br />names by any means. I will give you three <br />reasons tonight w:hy it shouldn't be discussed <br />any further. Of course, we have more important <br />business to discuss than this anyway. And this <br />false cry of indignation is a little alarming to <br />me that people do that. And it would probably <br />turn into a lengthy debate if we did go into it. <br />I did receive a veiled threat after the discussion <br />we had at the last council meeting. We had a <br />short break then. Upon going into the restroom <br />8 <br />