My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN120492
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
CCMIN120492
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:02 AM
Creation date
10/28/1999 11:35:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
256 <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated generally the City indemnifies its <br /> officers and employees for damages levied by a court. In this <br /> situation, if there were a contempt proceeding and the court issued <br /> a fine, the City Council, by majority vote, would have to authorize <br /> the City to indemnify or pay the fine of the individual <br /> Councilmembers. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico asked for an explanation of the possible election <br /> dates for the referendum. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush stated that the Elections Code does not require a <br /> city to have two special elections within six months of each other. <br /> Therefore, if a special election is called in March of 1993, <br /> Council would not have to have another election until November of <br /> 1993. That does not preclude Council from calling an election in <br /> June if it desires. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr inquired whether the costs would be shared with the <br /> School District if the election were held in November. She further <br /> asked about whether there would be any cost to the City, if someone <br /> donated money to offset the cost of the election. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated there was a School Board election <br /> scheduled for November and it was likely that the costs would be <br /> shared. The Council would have to make the decision on whether to <br /> accept the donation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver indicated the decision to call an election or <br /> repeal the Kottinger ordinance should be made by a full Council. <br /> This is an important issue for the City. He reviewed the <br /> referendum process to this point. Mr. Tarver believed that the <br /> signature drive had been delayed by an issue regarding exhibits. <br /> The Registrar gave the proponents the wrong number regarding how <br /> many signatures to collect. The opponents of the petition drive <br /> made the misrepresentation that the signature gatherers were using <br /> racist remarks and tried to use that as a way to get people not to <br /> sign the petitions. The developer spent substantial amounts of <br /> money to put out two mailers telling the public not to sign this <br /> petition, because the development was a great deal for the City of <br /> Pleasanton. The proponents of the referendum had to deal with a <br /> major holiday in the middle of the collection period. Mr. Tarver <br /> had no doubt that there will be the required number of signatures <br /> to put it on the ballot. In this case, time is of the essence on <br /> both these issues and they should be dealt with immediately. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver believed the referendum and the election of a <br /> Councilmember should be together because it simplifies the process <br /> to have one election. It saves money on everybody's part, not just <br /> for the City's interest, but also for the candidates and those on <br /> both sides of the referendum issue. It will improve the debate and <br /> <br /> 12/04/92 2 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.