11-30-10 Common Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 30, 2010 Personnel and Finance Committee Meeting. It was sent without recommendation. It was continued in the Council portion. Therefore, there will be no public comment on that bill this evening. Upon a proper motion and vote of the Council, the Council Attorney was instructed to prepare her legal opinion on the issue of whether Council President Dieter must recuse himself from participation and voting on Bill Nos. 73-10 and 74-10. The Council Attorney filed her legal opinion yesterday, with copies of that opinion available next to the Council brochures. Additionally, the Chief Assistance City Attorney has drafted a separate legal opinion on these questions, with copies of that opinion also being made available next to the Council brochure. Each of these legal opinions has independently concluded that Council President Dieter does not have a substantial and material conflict of interest relative to Bill Nos., 73-10 and 74-10. The floor is now open to comment on Bill No. 73-10 by individual Council Members who must be recognized by the Chair before comment. Thereafter, a recommendation to the full Council by rd proper motion will be in order. It should also be noted that nay 3 reading on Bill No. 73-10 would be scheduled for January 10, 2011. Following action on Bill No. 73-10, I nd will then call upon City Clerk John Voorde to give 2 reading to Bill No. 74-10. A committee report will then be given, followed by the formal presentation. Thereafter, any one in the public wishing to speak in favor must give their name and address and limit their public comments to no more than 5 minutes. The total time for those wishing to speak in opposition shall be equal to the time the public portion of those speaking in favor or 30 minutes, which ever is greater. Each remonstrator must give his or her name and address and will be limited to 5 minutes each. The presentator will then be given a 5 minute rebuttal time to address questions raised by the public, followed by the Council portion and recommendation by property vote. Councilmember Oliver Davis asked Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand to give a brief synopsis of her opinion. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand advised that the question is whether Council President Dieter has a conflict of interest which would required him to recuse himself from participating in the debate and vote of Bill Nos. 73-10 and 74-10, as alleged nd by 2 District Councilmember Henry Davis, Jr. She stated that based on a careful review st of the relevant facts and governing state and local laws and procedures 1 District Councilmember Derek D. Dieter, does not have a substantial and material conflict of interest relative to Bill Nos. 73-10 and 74-10, currently pending before the South Bend Common Council. Therefore, it is my legal opinion that Council President Dieter is not required to recuse himself from the debate and voting on each of these proposed ordinances. She noted that Chief Assistant City Attorney Aladean M. DeRose also gave her opinion that Councilmember Dieter’s part-time security employment with the Silver Hawks does not constitute of “conflict of interest” as defined by Indiana Law such as to require Councilmember Dieter to abstain on these votes. Councilmember Varner stated that at the last meeting of the Council he suggested a third party opinion. He stated that he contacted the Attorney General Office and relayed the facts as he understood them and received a call back from Mr. Kramer, who works in the Advisory Division of the Attorney General’s Office after he reviewed the facts of the opinions given his reply was that he would have a difficult time writing a contradictory opinion, although there is always a way to contradict anything he stated that the opinion was pretty much right on the money with regard to state law and relayed that information to the Council Attorney. Councilmember Varner stated that he felt that it was important to have a voice of third person who is not associated with the subject. Councilmember Vanrer stated that it is his opinion given by the Council Attorney and Chief Assistant City Attorney DeRose is correct. Councilmember Henry Davis, Jr., thanked the Council for working with this issue. He stated that as an elected official and servant to this community that it was important to him to have an objective look into what we were doing for anything in the City of South Bend when it comes to spending tax dollars. He thanked Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand for her fine work in this matter. He stated that it was called into question and still has a lot of issues with it, however, he is going to move forward on it. However, everything is up to interpretation. He stated that he had a brief conversation 2