Laserfiche WebLink
<br />statement that said she did not reconfirm before posting was not enough and was <br />still confused as to why it was a non-issue. She said there were votes taken in <br />regard to the release of information from City Council on street sweeping. She <br />felt that Mayor Welsch knew it was easier for her to apologize after the fact than <br />to ask for permission. <br /> <br />Mr. Crow expressed his appreciation to Mayor Welsch regarding her <br />acknowledgement, but he was still perplexed because half of the issue was <br />brought to the forefront to provide some after the fact justification for the Mayor’s <br />abstention to a vote in support of the University City School Bond issue, not a <br />vote against it but a vote in abstention. Mr. Crow said the first explanation stated <br />by the Mayor was that as a steward of the City’s finances, all needed to be <br />responsible for the City’s finance and the Mayor needed to abstain because that <br />was her number one priority. He said then the City’s attorney stated that the <br />amount of time it took for the City Clerk to put the item on the agenda resulted in <br />the inappropriate use of City funds for a political endeavor and therefore the <br />Councilmembers who voted for it could have violated the law. Mr. Crow felt other <br />municipal attorneys would not agree with Mr. Martin’s opinion. <br /> <br />Mr. Crow stated that all of the Mayor’s remarks were in the minutes from the <br />February 28, 2011, meeting and hoped that the citizens and the Mayor appreciate <br />the different tone that was being taken at the City Council Meeting now than what <br />was taken then. Mr. Crow read some of the statements by Mayor Welsch taken <br />from the minutes of February 28, 2011. He stated that in reference to the very <br />serious admonition that all of them received two years ago from Mayor Welsch, <br />where her unilateral actions of what type of behavior was an acceptable type of <br />behavior by members of the council as they meet to do the business of the <br />community. He said it she said the resolution was about rules and acceptable <br />behavior not about free-speech. Quoting farther, Mayor said, “I it was her <br />determination that the decorum of the Council’s debate of the February 14, 2011, <br />meeting was not appropriate and conveyed this in her letter to Councilmember <br />Price. It was her understanding that any farther reprimand of a Councilmember <br />must be delivered by a majority of the council and that is why she requested <br />consideration of the resolution” that reprimanded Mr. Price. Mayor went on to <br />say, “She felt it negatively impacted the work and deliberation of the Council. <br />She wanted to make clear to the community that council will only accept behavior <br />from the elective members of this body that is worthy of the people who put them <br />on the Council This resolution is about all members of Council living within their <br />own rules”. Mr. Crow asked Mayor Welsch if her unilateral action was an <br />acceptable behavior as we meet to do the business of this community. By using, <br />the same questions that were used for Councilmember Price, Mr. Crow asked <br />whether her actions negatively impacted the work of the Council; were her <br />actions as an elected member of this body worthy of the people who put you on <br />the City Council; and did you live within your own rules. Mr. Crow said Mayor <br />Welsch closed her remarks two years ago by stating, “The Council cannot do the <br />business of the people if each member does not follow its rules”. Mr. Crow <br />believed that this was about perspective, leadership and that the City Council had <br />shown an appropriate level of perspective now versus two years ago. <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br /> <br />