My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1991 06 04
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1991 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1991 06 04
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:33 PM
Creation date
6/16/2006 11:51:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
6/4/1991
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1991 06 04
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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 /> ...', <br /> ments right now are that the person be a <br /> registered elector of the City of Louisville, <br /> over eighteen years of age and the resident <br /> of the city for at least 12 consecutive <br /> months. If another officer of the city is <br /> appointed, the two positions must be compati- <br /> ble positions. Both the state law and city <br /> ordinance require that an appointed officer <br /> can hold more than one office so long as the <br /> positions are compatible. It doesn't define <br /> what compatible is and to some extent I think <br /> that is a judgment call. On the other hand <br /> there are certain general tests that are used <br /> to determine whether positions are compatible <br /> or not. An easy clue is if one position has a <br /> supervisory responsibility over the other or <br /> for example sets the budget or votes on the <br /> finances of the other position. Those kinds <br /> of questions might be applied to determine <br /> whether those positions were compatible. It <br /> is not clearly defined in state law, but I <br /> wanted to make sure in your mind that they <br /> are not incompatible positions if you decide <br /> to appoint a single individual to two of- <br /> fices. <br /> Question No. 7. If Mayor and Council decide <br /> to take the matter of appointing the City <br /> Clerk to the voters, they may consider taking <br /> a t the same time the question of appointing <br /> the City Treasurer. What procedure would <br /> need to be followed here? <br /> Same procedure as taking the City Clerk's <br /> position to the electorate. The City Council <br /> would pass an ordinance proposing to the <br /> voters making the position appointive rather <br /> than elective at a regular or special elec- <br /> tion. It would be subj ect to the same kinds <br /> of election requirements as to the making of <br /> the City Clerk's position. <br />Mayor Fauson: If this did go to the voters, would the City <br /> Clerk and the Treasurer be two different <br /> items? Could you combine this so the City <br /> Clerk and Treasurer would be appointed by <br /> Council or do you make this two separate <br /> items on the ballot? <br />Griffiths: I think it would be preferable to make it two <br /> separate items on the ballot. There are <br /> those who might wish to vote for one but not <br /> the other and by tieing them together you <br /> would be eliminating their right to make that <br /> choice and I think the way the statute is <br /> 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.