04/28/1969 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

._--~ e "\ . "" .... U .~ ..', '. -:....~0 4/28/69 I expedite the procedure. \ A vote was taken on the amendment to change the wording. All voted aye and the motion carried. A vote was taken on the main amendment as amended. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. McDonald had a question about employment applications and whether they could contain a division of sexes. The Manager said the ordinance did not prohibit a private employer from having informa- tion on the application about the sex of the applicant. A vote was taken on the main motion as amended. Mr. Teague and Mr. McDonald were opposed. e Mr. McKinley said since the vote was not unanimous, the bill would have to be read in full. The Council discussed the matter and Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Hayward to reconsider the question. The Mayor explained that the vote had been for third reading by counciLbill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council. Since the vote was not un?nimous, the bill would then have to be read in full. Mr. Teague explained that he and Mr. McDonald had been under the impression the vote was for final reading. A vote was taken on the move to reconsider. Motion carried. I Mrs. Hawyard moved seconded by Mr. McDonald that the bill be read the third time by council bill number only with unanimous consent of the Council. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the third time by council bill number only. Mrs. Hayward moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the council bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered l5675~A The Mayor expressed appreciation to all, the people who attended the hearings. Mrs. Hayward also offered her thanks to members of the Human Rights Commission and to Dr. Pott, who had been most helpful to the people in the community in aiding them to understand the ordinance. Mr. Teague asked to add his thanks, and said it would help if in some way a letter could be attached to the ordinance for clarification, so that in years to come there would be a guide'Hme for inter- pretation. \ It was suggested that the Council adjourn to Tuesday to finish the items on the Agenda. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mr. McDonald that the Council set a time for adjournment and reconvene Tuesday, Ap~il 29, 1969 at 7:30 p.m. Motion carried. The Mayor announced that tre Council will hear the items where people are in attendance. Committee Report, April 16, 1969 I 10. Kendall Ford Suit - The Manager said the Council had authorized the City Attorney to inter- vene in the Kendall Ford case; but due to lack of time, this had not been confirmed at the regular meeting on April 14. Council approval is required for the Attorney to proceed with the intervention proceeding before the next regular meeting. The Council agreed the Attorney should proceed with the clerical work necessary for intervention in the case. The Manager explained that the hearing on city intervention in the Kendall Ford case has been set for April 29, and if the Council wishes to confirm its action, the Attorney should know before that time. e Mrs. Hayward moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the City Council authorize the City Attorney to proceed with intervention in the Kendall Ford suit on behalf of the City. Mr. Wingard said the City had voted against intervention in a previous Kendall Ford suit, and asked why they were considering intervention in this case. The Planning Director explained that, although the City would not itself file a suit against the County, if someone else:c.entered a suit the city could file an intervention and take up points not brought up by the private suit. Mrs. Hayward said the Council had considered that they had asked to have state legislation prepared which was con- cerned with rezoning matters in the area within a four mile limit of the City, and that they had felt it was their responsibility to the citizens of the city to intervene in this suit under the circumstances. I Mr. Wingard said this was not an opportune time to enter into a suit, and the cooperation of the County would be better if the City avoided it. The Mayor explained that this had been discussed with the County Commission and the Cpunty Planning Commission, and that they bore no ill will toward the City. A vote was taken on the motion, Messrs. Teague, Wingard, McDonald and Gribskov were opposed. Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Beal and Mr. Mohr voted in, favor. Motion failed. The City Attorney asked that the record show that the zoning matters will be continued to April 29, since they have been advertised. e I I \ I I , 'I Mrs. Hayward moved seconded by Mr. McDonald to continue the public hearing on zoning matters to Tuesday, April 29, 1969 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber. Motion carried. , 4/28/69 - 3 .oIIl