THIS INFORMATION IS MAINTAINED BY THE OFFICE OF CODE REVISION INDIANA LEGISLATIVE SERVICES AGENCY
FIRST -- THE FOLLOWING IS PART OF THE LEGAL ADVERTISED IN THE TRIBUNE OCTOBER 28 AND NOVEMBER 4, 2007 REGARDING RAISES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR 2008 AND REFERENCING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD TO CONSIDER THE SALARY ORDINANCE FOR 2008, FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS ACCORDING TO I.C. 36-4-7-2 (IMPORTANT TO KEEP THE I.C. CODE IN MIND).
I.C. 36-4-7-2
ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS; FIXING OF ANNUAL COMPENSATION
SEC. 2 (A) AS USED IN THIS SECTION, "COMPENSATION" MEANS THE TOTAL OF ALL MONEY PAID TO AN ELECTED CITY OFFICER FOR PERFORMING DUTIES AS A CITY OFFICER, REGARDLESS OF THE SOURCE OF FUNDS FROM WHICH THE MONEY IS PAID.
(B) THE CITY LEGISLATIVE BODY SHALL, BY ORDINANCE, FIX THE ANNUAL COMPENSATION OF ALL ELECTED CITY OFFICERS. THE ORDINANCE MUST BE PUBLISHED UNDER IC 5-3-1, WITH THE FIRST PUBLICATION AT LEAST THIRTY (30) DAYS BEFORE FINAL PASSAGE BY THE LEGISLATIVE BODY.
(C) THE COMPENSATION OF AN ELECTED CITY OFFICIAL MAY NOT BE CHANGED IN THE YEAR FOR WHICH IT IS FIXED, NOR MAY IT BE REDUCED BELOW THE AMOUNT FIXED FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR. As added by Acts 1980, P.L. 212, SEC. 3. Amended by Acts 1981, P.L. 17, SEC. 21; P.L. 15-1993, SEC 3.
THE FOLLOWING ARE PARTIAL MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 3, 2007 REFLECTING THE DISCUSSION OF RAISES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL:
A-07-33
MR. COFFEY STATED THEY DIDN'T INCLUDE RAISES FOR THE COUNCIL IN HERE BECAUSE THEY REQUESTED THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT A RAISE.
MRS. GARRY SAID THAT SHE IS GOING TO SPEAK UP FOR SOME OF THE ELECTED OFFICIALS SUCH AS THE MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK.
MR. COFFEY STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CITY CLERK GET A RAISE.
MR. GAHAN STATED THAT THEY DO NEED TO TALK ABOUT THE MAYOR'S SALARY AS WELL...
THAT BEING STATED AND ALL FACTS BEING IN ORDER LISTED ABOVE, WE, AS TAXPAYERS, WILL SIMPLY TAKE THIS TO THE STATE LEVEL AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
THUMB YOUR NOSES AT US AND ACT SO IRRESPONSIBLY? NOT WITH OUR MONIES. WHY CAN'T YOU SIMPLY DO IT THE RIGHT WAY? WE ALL UNDERSTAND THE RIGHT WAY IS THE HARDEST WAY, BUT GEE.
THANK YOU COUNCILMAN PRICE AND COUNCILMAN KOCHERT FOR VOTING AGAINST SAME AND FOLLOWING THE LAW OF THE STATE.
THE MAYOR RECEIVED A 17 PERCENT INCREASE AND THE CITY CLERK RECEIVED A 20 PERCENT INCREASE (CITING THE TRIBUNE).
THANK YOU COUNCILMAN KOCHERT AND COUNCILMAN SCHMIDT FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY. ME AND MINE DO APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICES, AND FRIENDSHIPS FORGED.
TO THE ANONYMOUS POSTER WHO ADVISED ME TO ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETING AND MAKE MY PROTESTS KNOWN THERE -- AGAIN, NOT NECESSARY. WE SIMPLY BUMP IT UP A LEVEL -- TO THE STATE; WE ALWAYS FIND SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO KEEP THEIR JOB AND DO THE RIGHT THING BY CITIZENS.
AS I ALSO ATTENDED THE SEWER BOARD MEETING THIS WEEK AND WAS HIGHLY FRUSTRATED BY EVENTS MENTIONED ON NEWALBANYEYESORES.BLOGSPOT.COM, I AGAIN APPROACHED THE BOARD ABOUT THE "HOUSE" (CONDOS) NOT ON SEWER AND WHETHER THE SEWER BOARD ATTORNEY EVER SENT A LETTER OUT. THERE WAS COMPLETE DENIAL IN THE ROOM; STATING EMC NEVER DETERMINED IF THAT HOUSE WAS ON OR NOT BECAUSE OF AN "UN COOPERATING" LANDLORD. THE EPA HAS SAID UNLESS IT IS DRAINING INTO A CREEK OR STREAM THEIR HANDS ARE TIED. IF THIS PROPERTY LIES IN A WATERSHED, I.E. FALL RUN CREEK, THE EPA WOULD BE INVOLVED.
THE SEWER BOARD TRIED TO SAY THEIR HANDS ARE TIED; BUT THERE IS A LAW ON THE BOOKS WHICH STATES (CITY LAW) THAT IF A SEWER MAIN COMES WITHIN SO MANY FEET OF YOUR PROPERTY -- YOU MUST CONNECT. OUR FAMILY HOPES EVERYONE MOVED HEAVEN AND EARTH TO HELP THIS FAMILY OUT.
HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL...AND AFTER THE HOLIDAYS; REMEMBER THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 27TH. PEACE.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Floyd Dem,
I am extremely happy to report that the family has moved, the last box was loaded up today, and all of the Christmas gifts from everyone has been sneakily delivered tonight, and those three wonderful children are sure to have the best Christmas of their lives.
As far as EPA laws, there is an several ordinances even locally that were completely ingnored by the property owner as well as the building inspector and other high level officials downtown. On is regarding allowing a offensive matter to remain in a cellar, a second is for casting offensive matter onto the land, both of which SHOULD have been enough for the city or county health department to swoop in and condemn the property, but they did not, they ignored it. In an email from the building inspector, he had told me that he would be more than happy to check the stuff in the basement, all that needs to coour is the property owner to invite him in.
(Oh, yeah I see that happening: " Hi, Mr. Building inspector, this is Mr. Attorneyman, I have a house in New Albany with over 3 feet of raw sewage fermenting in the basement of this house, and I would LOVE for you to come over and take a look at it")
But, being the holidays, and promising to raise my spirits and be thankful for what I am blessed with, and be grateful for the joy and happiness in my life, and that we were all able to bring to this one family, I will cease my ranting and say to all thank you, a million times over thank you. I am humbled and grateful for the cooperation, caring and giving.
Merry Christmas everyone.
This is very confusing.. The newspaper said that the City Council
voted to approve a 17% and a 20% salary increase for the Mayor and the City Clerk at their last meeting in December.
Why wasn't the public told about this? Do you know of any of us taxpayers who are receiving a 17% or a 20% salary increase ? How do they expect us to pay for this added expense on our property tax bills?
If this salary increase was not done according to Indiana State Law, then
how can the City Council do this ?
Did the City Council Attorney approve
this action? Who is the current City council Attorney ?
The minutes said that Councilman Coffey and Gahan wanted this salary
increase for the Mayor and City Clerk.
Did they check to see if this is legal?
Wonderful news! To me, you were the true Santa Claus!!!!!
The Health Department would simply condemn the building, forcing the low income tenants out...in the cold. The Sewer Board does have teeth, with a main running either 200 or 300 feet within the property -- THEY JUST HAVE TO PAY THAT TAP IN. I know I certainly do not want to see any more fiascos over in that building.
Truly amazing we have been fighting this since February (over sewers) when it came to our attention...yet, still nothing.
As I told the Sewer Board -- "what else is new?".
Merry Christmas to you and yours and everybody else, gosh darnit.
There will be a "ghost" publisher for my blog for a week or so...it's the Holidays.
PEACE, NA. Happy Holidays, no matter how you may believe.
I feel even the legal was wrong...and I know of no one else unless a Fortune 500 CEO which gets those types of raises.
When I worked for the Federal Government, they had a line in the sand drawn regarding how long, how much, etc. 7 percent was the maximum for a job most excellently performed.
As I do not take the Tribune...I wouldn't be aware of any other stories in this paper, but I did see none in the CJ.
Ulrich is Council Attorney. Maybe he doesn't know the laws cited?
Thanks for writing.
After a lot of research at our Library, I feel we have the answers to our questions.
More to come, and I guess it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
Our legals show a public hearing only on the 3 percent raise. They can't do this with out notifying us rite?
The legals published do only show a 3 percent raise; not the ones received.
The agenda for this Council meeting is not correct. There are two new positions showing up, not on the Agenda, that are not funded by the current budget...which would be another dilemna -- both in and of theirselves.
The State will match the legals up with the documentation submitted; the Open Records Counselor will also look at same and the wrong Agenda; and we guess the DLGF (Department of Local Goverment Finance) will take up the illegalities of these issues, if they proceed ahead.
Some votes have already changed; once some others get legal advice, maybe their vote will change to do the right thing for taxpayers.
Merry Christmas and Happiest of Holidays, New Albany.
Keep the Faith.
P.S. Another taxpayer issue occurred last week. $119,000.00 was spent out of sewers towards Sanitation as they have never separated sanitation from stormwater from drainage from sewers. One giant slush fund.
If the outsourcing of the garbage was such an excellent idea why did we just pay, without the Sewer Board's notice, vote, claims sign-off, nothing - simply told, why? How could the Sewer Board not have okayed the expenditure out of Sewer monies seeing they're all lumped together?
Is this why Garner needed that $1.00 garbage raise to get the for some reason needed $119,000.00 out of sewers for an outsourced garbage company that WAS TO SUPPOSE TO SAVE US, HEY -- MAYBE EVEN MAKE US MONEY?
Hope someone can make that Council meeting. Alas, I have family obligations.
My Council reps have already been questioned about these matters, and they have no answers either. Scary proposition, at least to me.
Post a Comment