Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03311982MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - MARCH 31, 1982 MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN ROBERT FITZMAURICE AT 2:05 P.M. PRESENT: ROBERT FITZMAURICE, CHAIRMAN, EARL WITHERBY, VICE CHAIRMAN, GEORGE LA PORTE, MARTIN LEWIS, GEORGE McCLEARY, EUGENE POPOW, RENE VAN DE VOORDE, BOARD ATTORNEY, DANIEL KILBRIDE, CITY ATTORNEY, ARTHUR MAYER, BUILDING OFFICIAL. CHAIRMAN FITZMAURICE ADVISED THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING WAS TO DISCUSS THE RULES OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AND TURNED THE MEETING OVER TO MR. VAN DE VOORDE. MR. VAN DE VOORDE STATED THAT THE PROCEDURE NOW CALLS FOR THE CITY TO PUT ON ITS CASE FIRST AND SUGGESTED THAT IT MIGHT BE ADVANTAGEOUS FIRST TO ASK THE VIOLATOR WHET~RHE ADMITS OR DENIES THE VIOLATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING IF WE WOULD BE WASTING OUR TIME HEARING ALL THE TESTIMONY. ALSO, THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING SPECIFICALLY TO ALLOW FOR FINAL ARGUMENTS FROM EACH SIDE. ANOTHER POINT IS THAT AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE, THE BOARD CAN DISCUSS AMONG THEMSELVES AND ASK QUESTIONS OF WITNESSES AND COUNSEL, BUT CANNOT ASK THE ALLEGED VIOLATOR. MAYBE THIS SHOULD BE CHANGED SO THE ALLEGED VIOLATOR CAN BE QUESTIONED. MR. VAN DE VOORDE POINTED OUT THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS CAN AND SHOULD ABSTAIN IN THE EVENT OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND IT SHOULD BE DET~J4INED WHAT CONSTITUTES A CONFLICT. CHAIRMAN FITZMAURICE REMARKED THAT IF A CASE HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO THE BOARD, IT WAS HIS INTERPRETATION THAT A VIOLATION HAS BEEN COF~4ITTED. WHY WOULD THE VIOLATOR HAVE TO ADMIT HIS GUILT? MR. VAN DE VOORDE EXPLAINED THAT THE FACT THAT HE HAS BEEN CITED DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE HAS COMMITTED A VIOLATION. HE MAY FEEL THAT THERE ARE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES. BY GETTING INITIAL INPUT POSSIBLY SOME TIME COULD BE SAVED. THERE IS A PROVISION THAT THE BOARD ATTORNEY READS THE PARTICULAR CODE THAT IS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN VIOLATED AND THAT WOULD BE THE LOGICAL PLACE TO ELICIT A STATEMENT FROM THE VIOLATOR. THERE SHOULD BE SOME KIND OF FORM IN THE RULES TO ALLOW FOR THIS. MR. KILBRIDE SUGGESTED THAT THIS SHOULD FIT UNDER RULE 7, SUB-PARAGRAPH C (3) - AMEND TO INCLUDE THAT AFTER THE VIOLATION IS READ, HE THEN IS REQUESTED TO ADMIT OR DENY. MOTION BY MR. WITHERBY, SECONDED BY MR. LEWIS, TO DIRECT THE BOARD ATTORNEY TO INCORPORATE INTO THE RULES WORDING TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ALLEGED VIOLATOR WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADMIT OR DENY THE VIOLATION AND STATE ANY EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES. CARRIED. MOTION BY MR. POPOW, SECONDED BY MR. WITHERBY, THAT RULE 7, SUB-PARAGRAPH ~BE AMENDED TO CREATE A NEW SUB-PARAGRApH C (5) WHICH WOULD PROVIDE THAT THE BOARD SHALL BE AUTHORIZED TO REQUEST EACH PARTY TO A HEARING TO SUMMARIZE THE EVIDENCE IT HAS PRESENTED AND THAT THE BOARD~SHALL FURTHER BE EMPOWERED TO LIMIT THE LENGTH OF SUCH SUMMARIES ON A CASE TO CASE BASIS. CARRIED. MOTION BY MR. WITHERBY, SECONDED BY MR. LEWIS, TO MODIFY RULE 7, SUB-PARAGRAPH C 6), TO ALLOW THE BOARD TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE VIOLATOR DIRECTLY AS WELL AS THE WITNESSES OR THE COUNSEL. CARRIED. BOTH ATTORNEYS WERE IN AGREEMENT THAT THE RULES WITH THEIR AMENDMENTS WILL HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR APPROVAL. DURING A DISCUSSION OF SECTION 7-215, SUB-PARAGRAPH (4), OF ORDINANCE NO. 0-81-17, IT WAS DECIDED THAT IF A CASE IS NOT DECIDED AT THE HEARING, AND ANOTHER MEETING IS NECESSARY, THE VIOLATOR, AND COUNSEL SHOULD BE INVITED, BUT THEY WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO TAKE PART IN ANY DISCUSSION. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT ALL MEET- INGS ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. MR. VAN DE VOORDE POINTED OUT, TOO, THAT THE BOARD CANNOT DISCUSS A CASE AMONGST THEMSELVES. THERE IS A CODE OF ETHICS IN EXISTENCE REGARDING CONFLICT OF INTEREST WHICH WOULD APPLY TO THE BOARD, STATE STATUTE 112.311, AND THE CLERK WAS ASKED TO GIVE EACH MEMBER A COPY. IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT IN ADDITION TO THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS IT COULD BE STATED THAT FURTHER SHOULD BE DEEMED OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST TO THIS BOARD IF THE FOLLOWING SITUATIONS OCCUR, AND THEN LIST THE KINBS OF THINGS TO BE AVOIDED. THERE FOLLOWED A DISCUSSION ON THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED IN NOTIFYING A VIOLATOR AND SETTING UP A HEARING WITH THE BOARD. IT WAS AGREED THAT WHEN THE CLERK SENDS OUT A NOTICE OF VIOLATION HEARING, A COPY SHOULD BE SENT TO EACH MEMBER OF THE BOARD SO THAT THEYMA¥ DETERMINE IF THERE IS ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST. IN CHECKING OVER THE LIST OF CODES AND ORDINANCES WHICH WILL COME UNDER THE JURIS- DICTION OF THE BOARD~ IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT THE FORMS BE AMENDED SO THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OR DEPARTMENT IS NOT SHOWN, BUT RATHER A SPACE FOR INSERTION OF WHICHEVER DEPARTMENT IS CONCERNED, MOTION BY MR. WITHERBY~ SECONDED BY MR. McCLEARY, TO DIRECT THE CLERK TO DELETE FROM THE FORMS ANY MENTION OF A SPECIFIC DEPARTMENT SO THAT APPLICABLE DEPART- MENTS CAN BE INSERTED AS THE CASE ARISES. CARRIED, AFTER A DISCUSSION REGARDING WHETHER THE BOARD COULD LEGALLY HEAR CASES AT THEIR NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON APRIL 14 SINCE THEIR RULES HAVE NOT YET BEEN APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, IT WAS DECIDED TORE-SCHEDULE THE MEETING TO APRIL 21, BY WHICH TIME THE COUNCIL WILL HAVE HAD THE CHANCE TO APPROVE. MOTION BY MR. WITHERBY, SECONDED BY MR. LEWIS~ TO AMEND RULE 10 TO READ: "IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE BOARD, THE BOARD ADOPTS FOR USE IN ALL MATTERS THAT MAY COME BEFORE THIS BOARD~ THE FORMS THAT ARE SET FORTH IN THE ADDENDUM' HERETO, AND AUTHORIZES SUCH OTHERS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED IN SPECIFtC/SPECIAI INSTANCES, AND INCORPORATES THE SAME IN THE RULES OF THIS BOARD." CARRIED. MOTION BY MR. LEWIS, SECONDED BY MR. McCLEARY, THAT THE TEMPoRARy CHAIRMAN, MR. FITZMAURICE, AND THE TEMPORARY VICE CHAIRMAN, MR. WITHERBY, BE MADE PERMANENT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THEIR TERMS EXPIRE IN OCTOBER. CARRIED. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:15 P.M. -2-