Laserfiche WebLink
addressed Mr. Price’s belief that he worked for Mr. Walker. He said that he works for the <br />City of University City and referenced Section 2.12.020 of the City Code that clearly <br />defines his responsibilities and the client is the City. Attorney Martin said that he has to <br />respond to the director of a municipal corporation but he is not his client. He said there is <br />no conflict of interest and did not like the fact that his credibility was challenged in that <br />particular manner. <br /> <br />Mr. Price asked the Mayor, if the statements that the attorney made were true and if so, <br />why does Council ask the City Manager for permission for him to speak. The Mayor said <br />that a decision was previously made by the Council that the City Manager should hire the <br />City Attorney. She said the decision then was when the Council wanted to talk to the <br />attorney, they would ask the City Manager so as to be accountable for billable hours. It <br />has been the habit in the City that when Council wanted to speak to the City Attorney, the <br />City Manager had been first notified. <br /> <br />The Mayor asked Mr. Martin to clarify if it was appropriate for Council to discuss the City <br />Manager’s contract in open session. Mr. Martin said if the Council so desired, there was <br />absolutely nothing wrong with it. He suggested to Mr. Price that a specific motion ran <br />contrary to the advice that he had previously given to Council on two occasions and for <br />that reason, it would not be appropriate. <br /> <br />Mr. Crow said that he believed there was some confusion about asking approval to speak <br />to the City Attorney. He said that he felt it was important to find out what and when all his <br />colleagues knew about the allegations and why it was not shared with the rest of the <br />Council. <br /> <br />Mr. Sharpe said that he had no problems with altering the contract. He said there are <br />some things that need to be cleaned-up individually and collectively about everyone. Mr. <br />Sharpe said that it should be done in Executive Session. <br /> <br />Ms. Ricci asked the City Clerk to make public the emails that the City Manager was <br />sanctioned on. She said the other sanction was that the City Manager did not remain as a <br />Director of the department for at least two years. Ms. Ricci said that the previous City <br />Manager left her position before two years, and was not sanctioned. She said that the <br />complainers, fact-finders and prior administration (Frank Ollendorff and Julie Feier), all sat <br />on the SLAIT Board, the St. Louis Area City Manager’s Association and the Missouri City <br />Manager’s Association. She said the complainers and fact-finders have a relationship. <br />Ms. Ricci said that the emails date back from 2009 to April 2010, when Mr. Walker was <br />not an employee of the City. <br /> <br />Mr. Crow said Mr. Price’s motion was to rescind the action that was taken by the Council <br />in an Executive Session, not to talk about the issues and asked if it could be taken <br />publicly. <br /> <br />Mr. Martin said the answer was the same; that it could be taken publicly but he has twice <br />advised the Council that he thought it would be the improper thing to do and should be <br />discussed in closed session. <br /> <br />The motion on the floor by Mr. Kraft was to postpone consideration of Mr. Price’s motion <br /> <br />until the Executive session this evening and was seconded by Ms. Ricci. <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />