|
<br /> tl
<br /> '~",:.- ....':..~r : '1''7:?.'~\
<br /> j
<br /> , The Chair ruled that the entire Council could vote on the procedural question
<br /> I
<br /> e i of whether an appeal should be lodged, that the question of appealing the
<br /> I Court's decision was not a judicial question, ,rather that it was one of policy !
<br /> an whether city ordinances were properly observed and whether it was desired :
<br /> to protect them. I
<br /> I
<br /> Councilman McDonald asked if the action taken at this time then would be to table the t
<br /> ,
<br /> matter. Assistant Manager said that staff recommendation wo.uld be to table the petitio.n ,
<br /> for action on the rezoning while appealing the Judge's decision in the matter, He said I
<br /> J
<br /> [legal remedies should be explored .before going ahead on the petition. If the Judge's ,
<br /> [deCiSion was overruled in an appeal~ he said, then the petitioners themselves wo.uld have :
<br /> to ask the Co.uncil how to address the problem. Mr. Lang added that the action taken
<br /> would depend upon the order in which it was taken. If proceeding with the appeal was 1,1
<br /> authorized there would be no obligation to do anything further. If some response to i
<br /> the petition was decided upon, then he suggested that the response might be to table or
<br /> in some other fashion suspend action.
<br /> Councilwoman Campbell said she felt she was victimized by the procedures in this matter.
<br /> She said she was never asked whether she had read the minutes of the one meeting she
<br /> missed, and she was not allo.wed to' participate in the decision even though she had read
<br /> the minutes. However, Council members Beal and Keller were asked that question about the:
<br /> meeting they missed and so were allowed to vote. Mr. Long said the question was not so '.
<br /> e much whether the minutes'were read as it was that they did not constitute sufficient , '
<br /> evidence in the Court's opinion. Mr. Moulton added that it was his understanding that the:
<br /> meeting missed by Councilwoman Campbell - the joint Planning Commission/Council meeting -
<br /> 'was considered a hearing where testimony was presented. The meeting not attended by
<br /> Council members Beal and Keller was not considered a hearing, no testimony was presented.
<br /> With reference to the Council vo.te on whether the appeal sho.uld proceed, Mr. Moulton said
<br /> it was probably appropriate that the entire Council could make that decision as a legis-
<br /> lative body, but that would not keep the members sitting as a court from going ahead and
<br /> fulfilling their function as judges and making a decision on the rezoning issue. I
<br /> ,
<br /> I
<br /> Council President Williams speaking from the Chair was of the opinion that if the Council >'1
<br /> "
<br /> ,decided to proceed with the appeal, for all practical purposes the, Judge's ruling would ,~.'
<br /> I be held in abeyance until a decision on the appeal was rendered and that it would be im-".~:
<br /> proper to make a multiple decision - appealing the decision and once again voting upon
<br /> the rezoning issue. Mr. Lang said there was no reason the Council could not do both,
<br /> but doing both would have the effect of rendering the appeal moot which meant there would':
<br /> be no decision. He said he was certain that if the Council decided to act ,on the rezon- f
<br /> ing, Mr. Green's attorneys would advise the Court of that fact and the appeal would then:",}
<br /> be dismissed. ., "' ~.__._ ~.:.c:~~~;;:i~:::.;I____-<t.,;'o~....~L~~':=:'''_;'.~i.'<l:!r.,,;....~,.....:::>:.>.; ;:";:-"'" . ,--,-":-.--~,,",,,".,~.......-..--,~..._.,,~,,,,,, ti..~:1
<br /> e / Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Keller that staff proceed with the "-
<br /> appeal of Judge Spencer's decision in the matter of rezoning the Cen- Comm
<br /> ( tennial Boulevard property of Earl Green and that no further action on 11/20/74
<br /> the rezoning be taken until a decision was received from the Court on Approve
<br /> the appeal.
<br /> , \
<br /> lCouncilman Murray was in favor of the motion. He was bothered that what started as \
<br /> !quasi-judicial actions by a legislative body now appeared to be full court actions ~~
<br /> jpeople elected as councilmen were being referred to as judges, and dining rooms were\
<br /> ibeing referred to as courts. He said he was really concerned about the erosion of \
<br /> Ithe political process when piece by piece and step by step he found he was no. longer,
<br /> jin a ~egislati~e or politica~ role. T~at was not the intent of the ,people in el~ct-'
<br /> ling h~m as the~r representat~ve, he sa~d, and though there was noth~ng at stake ~n
<br /> Iterms of his own vote on this issue, it did seem just one more step and he was ready \
<br /> ,to resist that. I
<br /> I .
<br /> I Mr.Long~
<br /> :Councilman Keller asked about the time element involved in making the appeal.
<br /> , replied that it could probably take five to' six months befo.re a final decision was ,
<br /> mage __ Mr. Keller recognized the ~ppli~ant' s frustration b~t ag~eed with .Mr. Mur~ay' 51 'J.',
<br /> comments. He said the term "quas~" ev~dently meant someth~ng d~fferent ~n some ~n- ~
<br /> , ,'I
<br /> stances. To him, judicial was judicial, and he felt in same cases he was not qual~- ~
<br /> '.' fied for that po.sition. He thought the problems which would be created if the Court ~
<br /> found against the city would far exceed the personal problems of Mr. Green. He ex- !
<br /> j 0'
<br /> pressed sympathy for the applicant's position but could see nO alternative to pro- ,....
<br /> j
<br /> ceeding as recommended. I
<br /> \
<br /> Councilwoman Campbell said she was in favor of going ahead with the appeal. She said
<br /> she would like to think this CO'3,l!.~:JJJla..(LeI?~c:t,e.<! ,e.f!...ective Je.gi_~l.ation ~T1.9...._~hCl,~_~!Le._~
<br /> _ ~.. h, _..
<br /> 11/25/74 - 3
<br /> 4cn ~ ~ '",
<br />
|