My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1982 12 21
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1982 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1982 12 21
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:20 PM
Creation date
7/8/2009 10:18:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
12/21/1982
Original Hardcopy Storage
7C3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1982 12 21
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
<br />12/21/82 <br /> <br />Page -10- <br /> <br />Wording of the Resolution <br /> <br />Councilmen Cussen and Leary requested other <br />alternatives be pursued to fund the position <br />rather than a transfer of funds. Review <br />the 1983 budget to seek funding the position. <br />Councilman Leary felt Resolution #41 was not <br />correctly worded. Felt that it should be <br />changed to reflect the need for another patrol- <br />man and Administrative position in the Police <br />Dept. <br /> <br />Administrator Wurl <br /> <br />Advised that Director Leesman had requested <br />the patrolman position during the budget <br />process and it was cut due to the projected <br />revenue deficit for the position. Now the <br />situation has arisen where Sgt. Hamilton <br />cannot be utilized as a patrolman as stated <br />in the memo and was the reason for the re- <br />quest for the transfer of funds. <br />Councilman Leary commented he felt the trade <br />off to the Administrative position and the <br />patrolman should be within the budget not <br />by adding to the budget. <br /> <br />Councilman Cussen <br /> <br />Agreed with Councilman Leary that the wording <br />of the resolution was incorrect stating it <br />may set a precedence in the future, if the <br />employee is physically unable the City make <br />create an administrative position for him. <br /> <br />Attorney Rautenstraus <br /> <br />Stated it was his opinion that a precedence <br />would not be set; felt that in this case it <br />may be justified because the officer is pre- <br />sently doing some of the administrative work. <br /> <br />Administrator Wurl <br /> <br />Advised that the staff had reviewed the 1983 <br />budget to see where the funding could be ob- <br />tained. Their recommendation was, after re- <br />viewing each department to see where a cut <br />could be made, there were none, to trans- <br />fer the funds. <br /> <br />Councilwoman Morris <br /> <br />Also expressed concern on the wording of the <br />resolution; was really inappropriate, reiter- <br />ated and supported Councilmen Cussen and Leary's <br />remarks. <br /> <br />Mayor Meier <br /> <br />Inquired of Director Leesman when he proposed <br />to make the change. <br />Leesman advised there were some items in per- <br />sonnel relations that he would like to re- <br />view prior to making the appointment based <br />upon some recommendations from the City Attor- <br />ney. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.