Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Councilmember Elvig concurred. He stated the prosecution of this individual has not been <br />finalized yet. There is not legal justification or a policy that says the City can randomly let <br />someone go for any type of cause outside of malice of their job or duty while appointed to that <br />position. He agrees with Councilmember Look that time is ticking and the end of the rope is <br />here. Once they have this abatement they have something here and have justification. Otherwise <br />they are playing judge and jury and putting themselves in great jeopardy to do that. It is a timing <br />Issue. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen stated he is always concerned as a councilmember and a lawyer that <br />people get the right to be heard. He wants the gentleman to have the ability to be heard; he <br />would never want to take away those rights. The safeguard is giving him a hearing in front of a <br />hearing examiner, and it is not the Council. There is accountability there. This individual is <br />costing the City and the taxpayers a tremendous amount of resources and money, on lunatic <br />fringe issues in his view. No one can come to the conclusion that this is not one of the worst <br />properties in the City. The question is whether it reflects negatively on the City. His position is <br />that it not only affects negatively on the City from an image perspective; but it costs the City a <br />lot of money. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated there is due process at play. now, but until they can do that he is <br />saying they would set a bad precedent and he does not know if they have jurisdiction to do that. <br />He agrees other than the timing of the issue. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen stated this has occurred for 15 years; he has documentation of this going <br />back to 1992. He questioned why this individual is being put back on the EDA as the face of this <br />City when there are these problems, whether they are real or not, but they are arguably real. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated this 'will be a great situation to fmd out how good the abatement policy is; <br />What the neighbors want is for the area to be cleaned up. With the abatement policy the cost of <br />the clean up would go on the individual's taxes. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen stated he wants to see the abatement issue addressed, but they are putting <br />people they have problems with on the City's committees. With the. abatement, the residents will <br />have to come up with the money to pay for the various contractors, and that is where he draws <br />the line. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec pointed out it has been agreed that there will probably be thousands of dollars put <br />into the abatement policy. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated if this abatement goes through and costs the City thousands of <br />dollars he would have reason to say the individual is out. Regarding Councilmember Dehen's <br />comment that the City keeps employing these people, he has not re-employed any legal court <br />action. Only three years ago did court action start on this. He would argue to table tins for 60 <br />days. <br /> <br />City Council / August 28, 2007 <br />Page 31 of 33 <br /> <br />P79 <br />