My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC - Minutes - City Council - 5/13/2014 (3)
>
City Clerk
>
Permanent Records
>
Permanent
>
CC - Minutes - City Council - 5/13/2014 (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/15/2020 12:17:08 PM
Creation date
11/12/2018 2:40:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC - Minutes
Department
City Clerk
Sub
Clerk Records
Content
Minutes
Committee Status
Current
Document Type
City Council
Meeting Type
REGULAR
Meeting Date
5/13/2014
Retention
Permanent
Retention Type
Permanent
Security
Public
Scanner
Conversion
Scan Date
7/11/2014
Record Series
GS1016, #10260
Conversion Meeting Type
REGULAR
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Prescott City Council <br />Regular Voting Meeting <br />May 13, 2014 <br />Page 3 <br />directed the City Attorney to file a Notice of Appeal (in relation to the Pure Wafer case), <br />she questioned whether a decision had been made at the Executive Session and <br />whether a Notice of Appeal had actually been filed. <br />Jon Paladini, City Attorney, said because the order of the Judge came down as a <br />judgment, which started the 30 day time clock, and the Notice of Appeal had to be filed <br />within 30 days, this was the first Council meeting the action could be agendized to <br />precede with the appeal. He said the Notice of Appeal had been filed to preserve the <br />City's right to appeal the case. No other action had been taken. The action is to <br />authorize the City to proceed forward. <br />Councilwoman Wilcox asked if the Council had been provided any information regarding <br />the cost of an appeal. Mr. Paladini said that he thought he provided that information in a <br />memo. Councilwoman Wilcox indicated she did not receive the memo. <br />Councilwoman Wilcox said there was a fine line between directing the attorney to file a <br />Notice of Appeal and making a decision to appeal a case. A decision cannot be made in <br />Executive Session and the Council needs more information before it decides to appeal <br />a case, as it can be expensive and may or may not be the right thing to do. <br />Mr. Paladini said this item asks Council to make a decision to allow outside Counsel to <br />proceed forward with the appeal in this case. He said the discussion for the reasons <br />why were done in Executive Session. <br />Councilwoman Wilcox said it seemed there was direction given to him to file a Notice of <br />Appeal. Mr. Paladini said it was done in order to preserve the City's right. If the City had <br />not been able to file the Notice of Appeal, the City may have lost the ability all together. <br />Councilwoman Wilcox said that it seemed that item could have been an action item on <br />the Regular Meeting Agenda the same day as the Executive Session, if that had been <br />the intent. <br />Councilman Blair said Councilwoman Wilcox's question regarding cost was answered in <br />the Executive Session. <br />Mr. Paladini said he recommended going into Executive Session because he was not <br />comfortable talking about legal strategies in an ongoing litigation case, in public. <br />Councilwoman Wilcox said she did not think they needed to go into Executive Session if <br />the Council had been provided information about the cost. She said she was concerned <br />about the process and would like to see an open meeting decision scheduled the same <br />day or soon after an Executive Session. <br />MAYOR PRO TEM LAMERSON MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE ATTORNEY TO FILE <br />AN APPEAL IN CASE NO. CV-13-08236-PCT-JAT, PURE WAFER ADV. CITY OF <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.