2014-02-10 Reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

She said that the term expanded was really a misnomer. Ms. Forster stated that that was correct. Ms. Forster then stated that although she did provide this legal information to the City Manager and the City Clerk she could not make the decision for either one of them. Ms. Carr asked the City Clerk if the City Attorney had told her there was another definition of residency but asked Ms. Pumm if she had made the decision to use the definition of residency provided by the occupancy permits and Mr. Pace’s emails to the City Clerk on the twenty-second [of January 2014], rather than give consideration to the City Attorney’s advice that there was another definition of residency. Ms. Pumm stated that she failed to get that advice from the City Attorney Ms. Pumm stated that based on the question she posed to the City Attorney it is her belief that she failed to receive her advice on the definition of residency. Ms. Carr asked Ms. Pumm what question she had asked City Attorney. Ms. Pumm stated that she had informed the City Attorney that there was an eleven month gap in the occupancy permit and then questioned whether that was reason enough to decertify the candidate. She stated that based on her answer to the question, her belief was that the decision as to whether the eleven month gap violated the Charter would be left up to her discretion. Ms. Carr asked Ms. Pumm if she understood the definition of occupancy with regard to intent or if she was simply going by where a person pulls their car in every night. Ms. Pumm stated that she had made her decision solely on the occupancy permit and Mr. Hales’ personal property taxes that were paid for the Clayton address. Ms. Carr asked Ms. Pumm if she understood that there might be another definition – the correct definition - for residency. Ms. Pumm stated that she did not. Ms. Carr turned to the City Attorney again and stated that apparently Ms. Forster’s advice was not conveyed in any manner the City Clerk could understand. Ms. Carr asked Ms. Forster if she or the City Clerk made any attempts to discuss Mr. Hales’ intentions regarding his residency with him or was this based solely on the occupancy permits. She further stated that to determine intent would require a discussion with Mr. Hales. Ms. Forster stated that she did not feel that it was her responsibility to engage with residents who have filed for candidacy, nor was it her responsibility to make the determination. Ms. Carr stated that while she completely understands that position, her advice was being used by the City Clerk to make a determination to fail to certify someone, cost them a huge amount of money and create an enormous barrier. Ms. Carr asked Ms. Forster if in the course of doing her research she was aware of what had happened with the certification of the candidates in 2006, who had not paid their property taxes prior to being certified by the City Clerk Ms. Forster stated that she was not. Ms. Carr asked Ms. Pumm whether she remembered the incident of 2006. Ms. Pumm stated that she did. Ms. Carr asked Ms. Pumm why she had not shared that information with the City Attorney prior to making her determination. Ms. Pumm stated that in her opinion the 2006 incident was not relevant, since one dealt with personal property taxes not paid and the other with residency. Ms. Carr stated that it would seem as though one incident would set the precedent for the other, because both represent the criteria that are used to make these decisions. Ms. Pumm explained that real estate and personal property tax records were not available online in 2006, so the previous City Clerk had to obtain this information from the Finance Director. Ms. Carr stated that it seems quite apparent that there was a communication disconnect between the City Clerk and the City Attorney, since you get the answer 10