CC Min 1994-03-28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

opportunity to respond to the accusations and present a defense (this meeting was her opportunity to respond.) In response to Councilman Greenalch's description of due process, Mr. Morgan stated the right to an impartial hearing was missing. Mr. Morgan stated that an impartial hearing was at the heart of due process, and he did not know if the Council could be impartial or not. Special Counsel Jackson advised that all these elements as listed by Councilman Greenalch and Mr. Morgan are not required in a non-disciplinary action. An opinion or expression by a legislative body does not require all these steps. In answer to Mr. Jackson's questions of his understanding of this issue, Mr. Morgan stated that once the Council has moved away from a disciplinary proceeding one is left with, in essence, only a political procedure. "To the degree you proceed politically as opposed to juridically with all the trappings and limitations of a judicial office or court, then you deprive yourselves of what is most important -- and that is the ability to say your colleague has received justice. If it is your intent to do justice, you may be unable to do that...I am keenly aware of the distinction of your acting as a disciplinary body and your acting as a political group." Councilman Greenalch asked Mr. Morgan, "are you saying that a political action of its essence involves a lack of justice?" Mr. Morgan said justice involves the concept of the person finding justice, the trier of fact in a court, as being not personally involved in the proceeding at issue; and, if there is a personal bias then that person must recuse himself or herself. It is impractical if your position to recuse yourself, but then you do not proceed with the legitimacy that would attach were you judges. Any decision you make will necessarily produce a result in which the public can have confidence in one thing only -- and that is a political decision as opposed to a judicially arrived at decision." Councilman Greenalch stated that Mr. Morgan was equating justice with legal justice and any other thing that is not a legally determined act is a political act and not an act based on fact. "A reasonable person can look at facts and draw a conclusion that he or she mayor may not choose to prosecute in a court of law, and that does not mean that those facts are not the basis for forming a solid judgment that can embody a non-juridical concept of justice. In this world there are more than two definitions of justice. One, a juridical definition, and the second a political definition. There is also an ethical definition of justice and that is what is under consideration here. One cannot equate the law or a judgment of a judge necessarily with what is the right and the ethical judgment to make. That does not mean one is biased, that does not mean one has strong feelings towards another individual, it means that one is acting rationally and reasonably as he or she understands the facts do dictate. And one cannot abandon his or her conscience either to the law or to politics. One can only abandon his conscience to him or herself based on the facts." Councilman Greenalch stated he respected the right of Mr. Morgan to defend his client, but would not let Mr. Morgan give him the definition of ethical justice and force him to choose between judicial justice or political justice. Mayor Buchan gaveled for quiet and asked the audience not to applaud. In response to comments by Mr. Morgan, Vice Mayor Claire asked him if it would make a difference to him and his client if he and Councilman Greenalch recused themselves. Regular Meeting Minutes MINUTE BOOK NO. 52 March 28, 1994 Page No. 195 Page II ì --......--- ."r----'" .- . ,- ."""--. ,--.-.--.......---.