My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1992 05 05
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1992 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1992 05 05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:34 PM
Creation date
8/1/2005 10:39:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
5/5/1992
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1992 05 05
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
67
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
whether his status as an employee could be imputed to other members <br />of his law firm. There was an effort to contact the Prosecuting <br />Attorney to get an advisory opinion, but that wasn't possible <br />within a short period of time. From her perspective there would be <br />a risk that there is a violation, although no one knows that this <br />would be the case. The question of imputing that status has not <br />appeared previously while she's been serving as City Attorney. The <br />question is whether or not the firm would like to proceed under <br />those circumstances and accept that risk. Griffiths stated that if <br />the firm wishes not to do so, either allow the applicant to go <br />forward if they choose to do so or postpone the hearing until a <br />later time. <br /> <br />Bynum: <br /> <br />Since the issues cannot be <br />completely resolved, we did try to <br />contact Bruce Joss, Prosecuting <br />Attorney, whose number is not listed <br />in the phone book. Unless the <br />Authority was willing to give a <br />definitive opinion that they did not <br />feel there was a conflict to <br />proceed, I was not willing to do so <br />and risk the issue of potential <br />conflict under the Code of Ethics <br />for the City of Louisville. Unless <br />this Authority decides to take some <br />action to determine that we can <br />appear, I will elect not to appear. <br />It would be the desire of the <br />applicant, through Mr. Jeff Stiffler <br />and Mr. Max Scott, to proceed with <br />the Hearing with or without my being <br />able to speak on their behalf. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that by the Ordinance only the Prosecuting Attorney <br />can issue an opinion as to whether there is a violation or a <br />potential violation of the Ethics Ordinance. The Council could not <br />vote one way or another. Bynum would have to have a written <br />opinion from the Prosecuting Attorney. <br /> <br />Bynum: <br /> <br />We wish to proceed and Mr. Scott <br />will speak on behalf of the <br />applicant. I have asked if it's <br />okay in terms of procedure, because <br />of this delay there are a number of <br />lay witnesses, if there is no <br />objection they would be called in <br />mass and testify in unison. If not, <br />then they can proceed one at a time? <br /> <br />Griffiths: <br /> <br />Explain "in unison". <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.