Laserfiche WebLink
in for prosecution, If not, I think Mr. Fauson <br /> • ought to admit his mistake. I'm concerned, <br /> councilseabera, that there is a principle involved <br /> here; one that is disturbing to ■e; 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 sad <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 • 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 /> ■y statements that I did make. The statements <br /> that I made ware 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 why 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 coatroom <br /> 8 <br />