City Attorney Calls Ordinance "Silly" & "Inane" - No Notice Given

Prior to Ron Calders appeal hearing, the City Attorney advises the Council describes the Discarded Vehicle 0rdinance, 2686, which was used to cite him, as silly and inane (and later "goofy") because the Ordinance states that the appeal is to be heard in front of the City Council. I removed the name of the attorney who spoke with Mr. Calder at the point at the point after the City Attorney says "I received a call at about four . . . ." The City also suggests that Ron Calder was advised verbally of his right to appeal to Circuit Court and of the date for a hearing by Council. Ron remembers neither. He was given a copy of the ordinance which advises that his appeal is to go to City Council. I was with him when he turned in the Appeal to the City and I don't recall him being told of a hearing date--that's why Ron didn't know about it until the night before the hearing. The City Attorney wasn't even sure of it on the day of the council meeting. When Councilor Calder, no relation to Ron, brings out an admission by City staff that they didnt give Ron written notice of the appeal hearing date, City Manager Brocato lamely and arguementively responds (Whoops, someone forgot to shout Point of order, Mr. Mayor!) that "Its on the agenda—I dont know what else we can do." We'll hopefully find out from a higher court that due process is still alive in Baker City and that what they could have done is what any reasonable and lawful governmental agency would have done—sent Mr. Calder a timely written notice of when he was to appear at an appeal hearing.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• chrischristie1948
• due process
• City Manager
• property maintenance
• ordinance