Laserfiche WebLink
KINDTKG OP THE OROHO COOHCII. MEBTIHG OF APRIL 10, 1989 <br />SALARY ADJOSTMEHT OFFICER LARRY TOMCBBCK* , . i. „ <br />It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by Mayor <br />Grabek, to increase Officer Tomcheck's salary from $14.ip per <br />hour to $15,692 per hour based on the 1988 labor contract, <br />effective April 7, 1989. Motion, Ayes»4, Nays*0, Motion passed. <br />REQUIRED AGENDA - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT <br />CounciImember Goetten asked to whom the last paragraph <br />pertained. Bernhardson said he could not specifically address <br />that due to the ordinance being drafted and passed prior to his <br />administration. It was his understanding that it would apply to <br />staff. Council or the public apart from the public comments. <br />Counci Imember Goetten said that she could not be in favor of <br />something that would limit the scope of her responsibility to the <br />Orono Community. She questioned who would be responsible for <br />determining what matters were inappropriate. <br />Mayor Grabek interpreted this paragraph as being a means to <br />control an unpleasant situation. Goetten said that she <br />understood that. Her concern involved who it was who deemed <br />matters to be inappropriate, and who approves whether an item <br />will be heard. <br />CounciImember Callahan felt that the Roberts' Rules of Order <br />governed the procedure for which the meeting was conducted and <br />items were brought before the Council. Callahan asked City <br />Attorney Barrett for his interpretation. Barrett believed that <br />the paragraph in question was a way in which to govern the agenda <br />for Council meetings. <br />CounciImember Goetten stated that in her opinion this item <br />should not have been a consent item and felt it was a bad <br />ordinance amendment. Barrett pointed out that the language in <br />question was not amended, but read exactly as written in 1984. <br />Goetten replied that she took exception to the 1984 ordinance. <br />Mayor Grabek expressed his belief that this paragraph <br />provided a "safeguard" to prevent a topic, of which the Council <br />has no prior information, from being discussed for an excessive <br />amount of time. <br />CounciImember Goetten reiterated her concerns as to whom she <br />would bring forth for approval any matter she wished to uP <br />at a meeting, yet not on the agenda. Counci Imember Callahan said <br />that there was desireabi lity on the part of the public and <br />Council to know the agenda in advance of the meeting. It seemed <br />to him that it would be inappropriate, perhaps illegal, to act on <br />matters that are brought up, but not on the agenda. <br />City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this item was <br />placed on the consent agenda because only the middle ot ttie <br />Ordinance was being changed. The change involved only updating <br />the Ordinance to reflect the current order of Council agendas.