2014-02-10 Reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

were not, and that what really happened is that the City Attorney and City Clerk simply went off on their own. He stated that any decisions regarding the actions of the City Clerk was, and always has been, at the discretion of City Council. Whether or not the current members of Council want to walk away from that 2006 decision, they got it right. It was Council’s decision to determine if they should go forward or not, and it is the same way today. Mr. Crow stated that the process that should have been followed entailed the submittal of information to Council, from the City Attorney, Chief Election Official or the City Manager, prior to making the determination on whether to move forward. He stated that everyone sitting on this Council knows that this situation was handled incorrectly and it is time for all of them to stand up to the plate. Mr. Crow stated that this City made a citizen retain a lawyer to perform a service for his community that offers very little in the way of salary, and at a minimum we owe him an apology. But because the City erred, and not Mr. Hales, what he believes would be more appropriate is for the City Manager in his capacity to reach out to the candidate and determine how much money was spent on this matter. He stated that you can talk politics until you’re blue in the face; this law has been settled since 1972. We have resolutions out there, our Attorney didn’t look at them; our City Clerk didn’t look at them. We talked about citizenship versus residency. This matter has been settled for 40 years. Mr. Crow expressed the hope that his colleagues would join in the belief that it is appropriate to ask Mr. Hales how much money he spent, because he could not imagine that Council expects our citizens to do this again. Mr. Crow stated that then he thought it is time for us to move past this. “ M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS BILLS 1. BILL 9222 - An ordinance of the City of University City, Missouri; repealing Section 2.28.090 of Chapter 2.28 of the City of University City Municipal Code; and enacting in lieu thereof a new Section 2.28.090. Per the request of the Mayor the Bill was read for the second and third time. Mr. Sharpe moved to approve Bill 9222, seconded by Mr. Glickert. Roll Call vote was: AYES: Mr. Price, Ms. Carr, Mr. Kraft, Mr. Crow, Mr. Glickert, Mr. Sharpe and Mayor Welsch. NAYS: none Bill 9222 carried unanimously and became Ordinance 6952. N. NEW BUSINESS RESOLUTIONS BILLS Introduced by Mr. Sharpe 1. BILL 9223 - An ordinance amending a section of Chapter 10, vehicles and traffic, to revise traffic regulation as provided herein. Per the request of the Mayor the Bill was read for the first time. Introduced by Ms. Carr 16