1960-02-01 Reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 589, Minutes February 1, 1960 Page 17 ir~noral act perpetrated. On the other hand, he said, this would be similar to the tavern owner's license who, even though the City Court does not find guilty of a violation, the Council can still revoke his permit, and Council- man Soule said he thinks it is a very analogous situation in that respect. Councilman Tandler said he wonders whether the Council would prefer to vote on this section by section, or en toto, so that anyone objecting to paragraph 3 has an opportunity to agree to the others if he is so inclined. Mayor Kaufman pointed out that the motion covered all three sections~. The Mayor asked whether it is the desire of the Council to take these sections up independently as apparently the only section at i~ue is section 3. Mayor Kaufman suggested that the Council vote on the first two suggested amendments~ whereupon Councilman Tandler said his motion covered them. Motion seconded by Councilman Baris and unanimously carried. The Mayor said the Council would now return to suggested amendment number 3. Councilman Tandler again pointed out that his motion covered all three sug- gested amendments, but in order to clarify it, he again moved that suggested amendment number 3 to Bill 17o. 5791 be adopted. The Mayor asked whether there is a second. Motion seconded by Councilman Baris. Councilman Lahrmann pointed out that the original ordinance states "has violated the laws of the State of Missouri or the ordinances of this City or is immoral or incompetent~' and Councilman Lahrmann said that it doesn't necessarily mean that the man be proven immoral -- if the Council had evidence of the fact -- suspected him -- then the Council could remove him under the old ordinance. ~ayor Kaufman said there is a motion and a second and he asked whether there is any further discussion. Councilman Stake said he might point out on that that he thinks he would vote against this change for the reason that he thinks it would be dangerous to the community -- very much as Councilman Soule said -- there might be a kno%a~ sex offender, for example, in the City of St. Louis, convicted many times, and be a janitor in University City and his license couldn't be revoked even though that was acknowledged. Mayor Kaufman asked whether the Council is ready for the question, and he said that all those in favor should vote "aye" - those opposed "nay.'~ Upon roll call, the following vote was recorded: AYES: Councilmen Greeson, Baris, Tandler, and Mayor Kaufman. NAYS: Councilmen Soule~ Stake and Lahrmann. C~SENT: None. The motion therefore carried. Councilman Soule, Councilman Stake and Council- man Lahrmann requested that the minutes reflect their expressions for voting ~no,~ as heretofore stated. So was the order. Bill tlo. 5791 As Amended was given its second reading. Bill No. 5791 As ~ended was given its third reading. Councilman Tandler moved that Bill No. 5791 As f=.~ended be adopted as an ordin- ance. Motion seconded by Councilman Baris. Upon roll call, the following vote was recorded: AYES: Councilmen Greeson, Baris, Tandler and Mayor Kaufman. I~AYS: Councilmen Soule, Stake and Lahrmann. f~SE!]T: None. The motion there-