1960-02-01 Reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 589, Minutes Page 16 February 1, 1960 Kaufman. NAYS: Councilman Lahrmann. ABSENT~ None. The motion therefore carried and Bill No. 5790 As f~ended was adopted as Ordinance No. 3772. Councilman Lahrmann requested that the minutes reflect that he voted for the reason in his introducing the two amendments -- that he introduced two amendments and they lost, and that is one of the reasons for his voting "no': on this bill. The iiayor stated the minutes would so show. BILL NO. 5791 (~ ~,2i~V~D~ - f}iEiIDIUG A~ICLE.302 RELATYi~ TO ~OYLER OPEF~,TORS: The City Manager stated that Bill No. 5791 relates to boiler operators. He said this particular bill has to be reviewed at this time because under the old business licensing code it was an article of that code and the Conmittee has recommended its incorporation in Chapter VII which relates to air pollution controls and matters of that type. Actually, the City Manager said, the original bill as submitted by the Committee, in December, and in addition two sets of amendments-- an amendment that changed subsection 3 -- that is suggested amendments to Bill No. 5791 -- includes extensive changes in sub- section 3 of the original bill. Subsequent ~aendments, dated January 26th, merely replaces the words "Civil Service Board': with the words "City Council~' in subsection 3 of the original bill. Otherwise, the first two sections ~o the amendments of the bill are the same, he said. Councilman Tandler said that with respect to the longer version of the amend- ments he believes that the first section of amendment number 3 should read, ~'Cm~end Section 702.22, subsection 3, by striking therefrom the first and second paragraph.." because the two paragraphs that follow this sentence actually do substitute for tize first and second paragraph~ and not just the first paragraph of the bill before the Council. Discussion followed. Councilman Tandler moved that the suggested amendments to Bill No, 5791 be adopted prior to final action on the bill. Upon inquiry by Mayor Kaufman, Councilman Tandler said he has reference to the longer version of the amend- ments prior to the meeting of January 25th (this version has no date on it) and he reviewed those suggested amendments. *Please s~e other side Mayor Kaufman asked whether there is a second. Motion seconded by Councilman Barls. Councilman Soule said he thinks one of the amendments now being suggested will definitely have an adverse effect on this City and would not give University City the protection it needs with respect to boiler operators. He said he doesn't feel it is as broad or covers the specific issue the Council has under discussion at least on this particular point -- he added that he thinks there is a difference certainly between any other unlawful act and an immoral act. He asserted that the Council does have that power and should retain that power in dealing with the public which these operators do to a limited extent, and certainly would be no different than a private watchman that is licensed or even a step further, which may be a little more removed, tavern operators, Councilman Soule said he strongly believes this is a matter that the Council should retain its jurisdiction over. Discussion continued. Councilman Soule stated that he and Councilman Tandler apparently have a very different opinion of what the ordinance does say and Councilman Tandler may be correct in his interpretation, but at the same time, under the amendment as suggested by Councilman Tand!er unless a person were actually convicted under that ordinance, this Council could not do anything even though there was an