Subject: Greenhills Ohio Website Contact Submission Reply-To: Greenhills Ohio Website - Contact Us Form Dear Anthony Schuler, Thank you for your submission. You will receive a reply as soon as possible. Thanks Mayor David Moore Village of Greenhills Your submission was recorded as follows: Full Name:Anthony Schuler Comment / Question:As per Rule 17, I am putting in writing my question/concern to be placed on the agenda for the March 11, 2014 Greenhills Work Session Mayor Moore, Manager, Village Council Members, Law Director & Clerk Lives, Because of Councilman Lees biased decision I hereby appeal to the entire Body of Council to have this matter be placed on the agenda for the March 11, 2014 GHWS for complete and open discussions Please consider this an official request to include the following on the March 11, 2014 Work Session agenda: 1. Rule 2 of the Rules of Council Further, this topic deserves a COMPLETE and open discussion. Action taken at the January 7th meeting (Ordinance 2014-01-L&R) was NOT in accordance with the village charter, hence unlawfully adopted and in conflict with the Rule of Law. Each of you bears the duty to assure that this topic officially appears on the agenda. Each of you is duty bound to fully discuss and arrive at a clear and legal decision regarding Rule 2. 2. Adoption of the Organization and Rules of Council section 2.08 as amended. The video and minutes of the January 7, 2014 do not reflect the vote of Council to adopt their Rules. During the L&R Committee meeting the Chair, Councilman Jack Lee, reads aloud section 2.08 organization and rules of council, then during his report for council he comments on the definition of may & shall. ... SHALL,which makes it imperative.... -- I DO NOT LIKE TO BE THE ONE TO PUT A DAMPER ON ALL THIS BUT --- DURING JANUARY GREENHILLS COUNCIL MEETING OF 2014 THE ENTIRE GREENHILLS BODY FAILED TO ADOPT BY MAJORITY VOTE THE RULES OF ORGANIZATION THAT 2.08 STATES SHALL BE DONE AT THE 1st MEETING IN JANUARY BUT WASNT. AGAIN LET ME REITERATE, No Councilmember, nor the MAYOR, made a move, nor seconded to adopt the Rules of Council as prescribed in Section 2.08, Organization and Rules of Council, of the Codified Ordinance of the Village of Greenhills. No Motion was ever carried out. Saying of Prayer at public meetings remains “Constitutional” throughout the country and must remain written in the Village of Greenhills Rules of Council if Council is going to start the custom up after 30-35 years of not having prayer lead. The Laws and Rules Committee met to discuss this “difficulty” on 01/27/14 . The committee meeting was videotaped. No vote was officially taken or consensus reached regarding prayer! Mrs. Waltherr said, “xxx should have waited until the Supreme Court came threw with it first. Thats a good point. ( Anthony Schulers point ) Because we were not doing anything illegal until the Supreme Court said we were. I also want to remind the Law Director Jeff Forbes that during the 2014 Februarys Retreat meeting of him educating all Greenhills Officials -- Law Director Forbes defines Committee Reports is not the time for NEW BUSINESS. STATING THE INTENT DURING A COMMITTEE REPORT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A RULE 39 At the 2/18/2014 Council meeting, Councilman Lee hoodwinked Council during his committee report, indicating that the committee endorsed the deletion of the word “Prayer” from Rule 2 with the addition of “a moment of silence”. Councilman Drees explained the “need” to make change in “fear” of a “possible” lawsuit. Mr. Lee and Mr. Drees misled Council into a flawed vote. It deeply troubles me that the Mayor and a certain Council member are “practicing” a politician form of supplication. In doing so, they are in essence “establishing a religious ritual” to be delivered by a sanctimonious politician? If this continues, there certainly will be a lawsuit by those finding this establishment offensive. The moment of silence (how long is appropriate?) is equally offensive, as though any form of benediction is “unpleasant” to some. To be clear, with the “unlawfully” amended Rule 2, I DO NOT want to hear my local officials starting a public meeting with a moment of silence. Giving citizens a warm friendly greeting along with extending the time limit privileges to 3-5 minutes for residents to address council is far more pleasing to the public and to Democracy, than some awkward silence. Scheduling diverse clergy or citizens (NOT politicians) to pray or read a meditation at the start of the meeting would be fitting, dignified and truly diverse. For Council to presume to speak “religiously” on behalf of their diverse constituents is wholly and clearly unconstitutional. Council needs to understand that there is a difference between acting as an individual and serving as an elected public official. No public official, acting in an official capacity, can promote or endorse a specific religious practice. Recently, the Mayor of Greenhills instructed a Councilmember to lead in a “moment of silence” (where a prayer was invoked) “the establishment clause”. Saying prayers before government meetings must be diverse amongst all people which is why Council needs to properly amend Rule 2. This is why a church appointed representative or a local citizen should be scheduled to open our public meetings with a prayer or a “moment of silence”. Politicians who attempt to shed their personal style of “prophecy” create an unorthodox discomfort for some. Council has a Constitutional Duty to Preserve Prayer. Please repeal Ordinance 2014-01-L&R, Rule 2, and vote to amend Rule 2 in accordance with the village charter and the standard rule of law. RECOMMENDATION for Amendment of Rule 2 (Compliant with diversity and the Constitution): “...Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, followed by prayer OR a moment of silence/reflection MAY be offered, and a quorum being present, Council shall proceed with the order of business.” Respectfully submitted, Anthony Schuler
Posted on: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 13:37:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015