Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.10.88 Special Council Minutes MINUTES COUNCIL MEETING SPECIAL MAY 10, 1988 1. Mayor Akin called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Akin, Kelly, Mayer, Sprute, Uhl. Members Absent: None. Also Present: Administrator Thompson, Attorney Grannis. 2. The purpose of the meeting was to conduct a hearing on the proposed disciplinary action relating to Stan Whittingham. The Council also added the consideration of the downtown planters. 3. Mayor Akin opened the hearing which was continued from April 18, 1988. The Council noted that the City had received a settlement offer from Mr. Whittingham's attorney. No action was taken on the settlement offer. Mayor Akin suggested the Council be appointed as the hearing board and select a chairperson. Motion by Kelly, second by Sprute to appoint the Council as the hearing board in the matter of reviewing the proposed disciplinary action relating to Stan Whittingham and to appoint Mayor Akin as the chairperson. APIF, motion carried. 4. Mayor Akin outlined the following procedures: a. Mr. Whittingham to present evidence. b. Council to hear any other evidence and question the evidence. c. Attorney to make comments. Mayor Akin noted that the hearing date of May 10, 1988 had been agreed to by Mr. Whittingham's attorney. Mayor Akin also stated that one person at a time should speak and identify themselves for the record. The Chairperson would not allow comments from the audience or allow the Council to be questioned. Any ruling of the Chair regarding procedure would be final unless overruled by a majority vote of the Council. 5. Administrator Thompson gave a brief background of the matter and introduced the following documents to be included as part of the record: a. State Auditor's report dated March 29, 1988. (Received by Mr. Whittingham prior to the March 31, 1988 special meeting of the Council and response from Mr. Whittingham dated March 30, 1988. b. Memo from Larry Thompson to Wayne Henneke, Stan Whittingham, Dan Churchill, and Larry Pilcher dated March 30, 1988. c. Memo from Larry Thompson dated March 31, 1988. d. Memo from Stan Whittingham dated March 30, 1988. e. Memo from Wayne Henneke dated March 30, 1988. f. Memo from Dan Churchill dated March 30, 1988. g. Memo from Larry Pilcher (undated) received March 31, 1988. h. Minutes of the March 31, 1988 special Council meeting. i. Minutes of the part time patrol officers meeting dated November 1, 1987. j. City Personnel Policy. k. Notice of suspension from Larry Thompson to Stan Whittingham dated April 1, 1988. 1. Request for hearing from Stan Whittingham dated April 6, 1988. m. Request from Peter Schmitz for continuance of hearing dated April 18, 1988. n. Minutes of the April 18, 1988 regular Council meeting. (hearing) o. Notification of continuance from Larry Thompson to Stan Whittingham dated April 22, 1988. The following is a summary of the testimony. Greg Corwin (Mr. Whittingham's attorney): Because I have not received copies of the abovementioned documents, and lack of time for preparation, I would ask for another continuance. I would request the hearing be held before an independent hearing examiner and have time to subpoena witnesses. Mayor Akin: It doesn't surprise me. This date of this hearing was agreed upon by Mr. Whittingham's attorney on April 18, 1988. Why hasn't there been time to prepare? Mr. Corwin: Mr. Whittingham recently retained me as his attorney. After reviewing the case, I feel many errors were made and that I could successfully challenge this action. Att. Grannis: I believe it is not reasonable to continue. Mr. Corwin: (Cites several reasons to continue and alleges several errors.) L. Thompson: The documents in question are public information. All they had to do is ask. Also, the State conducted the audit, not the City. W. Henneke: Mr. Schmitz's representative was here to view the files. Mayor Akin: I believe we've afforded due process. I feel we are the one being abused. However, looking at it from a rational standpoint, I feel we should continue the hearing to avoid the argument of not granting sufficient time to prepare. How long do you need? Mr. Corwin: Thirty days. Mr. Whittingham is not being paid, so there is no hardship on the City continuing. That will bring us into summer and it is difficult to get all 5 members. Mayor Akin: Cm. Sprute: I feel that the City is being hurt by not having a Chief to run the department. Mr. Schmitz assured the Council he would be prepared for this meeting. Cm. Mayer: Everything is being stated about individual's "due process" rights, what about the City's? Att. Grannis: The City insurance carrier's attorney recommended that the City appoint an independent hearing examiner, but I do not feel it is necessary. Cm. Sprute: Mr. Corwin: Is is assured we will proceed after 30 days? an independent I just got involved with be completely prepared. hearing examiner and the the case. I don't know if we'll I would still object to not appointing use of some of the evidence. Att. Grannis: The expense of the hearing examiner would be borne by the City. Mayor Akin: I would recommend the hearing be continued for 30 days but also extend the effective date of my resignation until July 1, 1988. Motion by Akin, second by Kelly to continue the hearing until June 15, 1988 at 7:00 P.M. at City Hall. APIF, motion carried. laws, and I the hearing Cm. Mayer: I have reservations about appointing an independent hearing examiner. Each Council member has taken an oath to uphold the don't see why they can't sit as the hearing board. I don't think examiner would help. What is the purpose of the examiner? Mayor Akin: Att. Grannis: To serve as a neutral party. Cm. Mayer: The decision still rests with the Council? Att. Grannis: Yes. But the examiner would offer an opinion. could attempt How long would it take? Thirty days until the hearing. The examiner's be presented approximately 30 days after that. to expedite. decision would The parties Cm. Sprute: Mr. Corwin: Motion by Akin, second by Sprute to proceed without the independent hearing examiner and the Council to act as the hearing board with Mayor Akin as Chairperson. APIF, motion carried. 6. The Council next considered the downtown planters. City Engineer Kaldunski stated that the HRA had approved the plan, and presented a survey showing that a large majority of businessmen supported the plan. Mr. Kaldunski stated he would have waited with the matter until the next Council meeting, but because the nursery trees were beginning to leaf out, they had to be moved as soon as possible. Mr. Kaldunski noted that he could not guarantee the price of the trees by the next meeting. Mayor Akin stated that the results of the survey surprised him, and based on all the work and cooperation that had been shown, recommended the Council proceed. Councilmember Sprute stated that he had been concentrating on preparing for the hearing and did not feel he could properly discuss the matter. Councilmember Sprute, therefore, objected to any action on the matter. Per Council By-Laws, the Council cannot act on an add on if any member oojects, therefore, the matter was tabled. 7. Motion by Sprute, second by Akin to adjourn at 8:20 P.M. APIF, motion carried. Respectfully submitted, c~ )/r " i~ Larry Thompson City Administrator Approved I 1 />{' -'- / ,'- X, \t...-,' G,.- v '-