My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1991 10 15
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1991 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1991 10 15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:33 PM
Creation date
6/16/2006 2:06:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
10/15/1991
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1991 10 15
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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 /> anybody. It has been about a year and a half they have <br /> been working on this; I would really like to see this <br /> effort go forward. If you need to make the changes I <br /> think during the public hearing is the appropriate place. <br />Sackett: I have a slight difference of opinion on what the <br /> committee was all about. I think their job was to act on <br /> behalf of the Council to evaluate our current ethics <br /> code and make appropriate changes. I don't think they <br /> are a substitute for the elected official process. I think <br /> it is important for me to evaluate their work and <br /> conclude whether or not I think it is acceptable and I <br /> have done that. I had hoped to have given substantial <br /> information through my written comments so that <br /> enough of the changes could be made, so I could <br /> support it. I gave substantial comments and I've got to <br /> tell you that very, very, very few were implemented, <br /> which is fine. I don't require that they do that, but <br /> because of that I don't think it is a good document and <br /> I don't think the citizens of Louisville are well served <br /> with the document being submitted. If it came down to <br /> it, I'd just have to vote against any public hearing and <br /> say no keep the one we have, or I would be willing to <br /> go with their documents with the changes that I <br /> suggested and that would be open to changes that other <br /> Council people suggested as well, although I didn't see <br /> those. <br />Carnival: Tom, do you agree that if we allow John's amendments <br /> to go through public hearing process that the input that <br /> we are looking for in terms of whether the ordinance is <br /> a good one, will be discussed at a public forum and <br /> allow us to judge based on their input whether John's <br /> and the entire document is a worthy document so that <br /> even John could then support the document as it exists <br /> or as it is amended? <br />Davidson: My feeling is that the purpose of the public hearing is <br /> to seek public input. Council gets to decide whether or <br /> not they feel this is the ordinance we should impose. If <br /> after the public hearing Council feels this is not in the <br /> ordinance and it needs significant amendment, then I <br /> would think the thing to do at that point would be to <br /> send it back to the Ethics Committee or for Council to <br /> 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.