Laserfiche WebLink
Council .... I was under the <br />impression that an item that has <br />already been covered has to be <br />brought back by one of the <br />dissenting members, if it were voted <br />down. Is that true? <br /> <br />Susan Griffiths, City Attorney, stated that she didn't recall the <br />action taken on this matter two (2) weeks ago, but that it is <br />generally correct that the person that voted on the prevailing side <br />must make a motion to reconsider a matter previously decided by the <br />Council. <br /> <br />Howard: <br /> <br />If this Council, tonight, were to <br />start proceedings to change an <br />ordinance, how long before that <br />ordinance would come into play, <br />working? <br /> <br />Griffiths: <br /> <br />There has to be a 1st reading of the <br />ordinance, publication of the <br />ordinance at least 10 days prior to <br />the 2nd reading. So, if you began <br />tonight, and we could draft the <br />ordinance tonight, and you could act <br />on it tonight, it could be published <br />and considered at the next City <br />Council meeting on 2nd reading. It <br />could be passed as an emergency <br />measure, if the Council believes an <br />emergency existed, and the necessary <br />votes were received, and would take <br />effect immediately. Alternatively, <br />it would take effect in 30 days. <br /> <br />Howard: <br /> <br />What is it you want to bring up? <br /> <br />Lathrop stated that he didn't think Council accommodated a <br />situation that they should have accommodated. He felt Council <br />needed to amend the Ethics Ordinance to allow a sports team coach <br />to participate, even though they were a member of Council, in the <br />most expeditious manner as possible. <br /> <br />Davidson: <br /> <br />Rob, if you're suggesting that we <br />discuss this issue on someone being <br />a volunteer coach and someone else <br />paying them, that is not a issue <br />that we've covered before and we <br />could add that. If you're <br />discussing amending the Ethics <br />Ordinance, that has already been <br />covered and, procedurally, would <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br /> <br />