Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> Discussions brought up some questions about errors in the County’s Personal Property <br />Tax records, who would be the plaintiff, why the city is siding with one citizen running <br />against another citizen for the same office, why the city is rushing, and why the Council <br />had not been involved. <br /> <br />policy question <br />When Mr. Mulligan declared that this is a , the attending Council <br />majority agreed and asked what our options are. The City Attorney replied that the <br />Council could address the issue now or wait to see what happens. If both Mr. Glickert <br />and Mr. Reese lose the election, then the issue is moot. If they win and are sworn in, then <br />the losing candidate may challenge the election results. At that time the Council would <br />decide what to do. In answer to Mr. Wagner’s question, what if we don’t petition the <br />st <br />court on Tuesday, February 21, Mr.Mulligan answered that it would be more difficult <br />for the city since the official time to respond about certification of the ballot would have <br />ended. <br /> <br />Conclusion <br /> <br />This majority of the Council felt that the City Manager, in his directing the City Attorney <br />to petition the court, had proceeded hastily without Council’s involvement in this policy <br />issue. The Council needs to be involved since this issue revolves around the actions of <br />the Council’s employee, the City Clerk. The majority decided that the City Attorney <br />st <br />NOT <br />should petition the court on February 21 and that the whole Council should meet <br />soon to discuss this very important policy issue. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Minutes taken and submitted by Council Member Stefany Brot <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 5 Revision Date: 2/27/06 <br />