Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Regular meeting <br />October 10, 2005 <br /> <br />to launch questions, you had better of done your homework ahead of time. She felt that <br />if there was concern, time should have been taken to view the web site. Dr. Carlin felt <br />that actions were done behind the scenes. She told Mayor Adams that she doesn't <br />know how he maintains his cool, as she gets furious just sitting in the audience. <br /> <br />Ms. Brungardt said that she has a different idea of leadership. She felt that part of good <br />leadership is to raise questions together and discuss them. Ms. Brungardt said that Dr. <br />Carlin may have her definition of divisiveness but she said it was unfortunate that there <br />may be an appearance of some kind of negative interaction but real conversation, real <br />public revolution isn't always going to pretty and easy. Ms. Brungardt said that leaders <br />have to be interactive with the community through public conversation. Sometimes you <br />are not able to get all the information you would like before presentation due to time <br />crunch. <br /> <br />Mayor Adams moved to the Legislative Docket. <br /> <br />BILLS FOR RECONSIDERATION <br /> <br />1. BILL NO. 8804 - AMENDING CHAPTER 2.64 OF THE UNIVERSITY CITY <br />MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO THE NONUNIFORMED EMPLOYEES <br />RETIREMENT SYSTEM, BY REPEALING SECTION 2.64.040 THEREOF, <br />RELATING TO MEMBERSHIP, AND BY REPEALING SECTION 2.64.070 <br />THEREOF, RELATING TO CREDITABLE SERVICE; AND ENACTING IN LIEU <br />THEREOF NEW SECTIONS SO AS TO MAKE THE CITY MANAGER A <br />MEMBER OF THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM AS OF THE FIRST DA Y OF HIS OR <br />HER APPOINTMENT TO WORK BY THE CITY. <br /> <br />There was a question on Bill 8804 as to the process needed to put it back on the <br />Legislative Docket. It was voted to be removed at the September 19 Regular Session <br />meeting due to the fact that it had been on the docket since July 19, 2005. <br /> <br />Mr. Ollendorff said that City attorney and City Council special attorney advised him that <br />first a motion needed to be made by one of the Council who voted to remove the Bill to <br />now recommend Reconsideration of the Bill. If that motion passes then you would have <br />a new vote on whether to remove. Then if that was defeated, you could proceed with <br />the second and third reading. The original vote was six to one with Mr. Sharpe Jr. being <br />the Nay vote, so anyone else could move to reconsider. <br /> <br />Ms. Welsh motioned for reconsideration and was seconded by Mr. Wagner. The motion <br />carried unanimously. <br /> <br />Page 16 <br />