Frisco council members should have understood their insurance vote |

Frisco council members should have understood their insurance vote

Bonnie G. Moscatelli, former council member - Frisco

It has been reported that some Frisco council members want to revise an ordinance that they passed but did not understand. Why would they pass an ordinance that they did not understand?

It is the responsibility of a councilmember to evaluate and understand an ordinance before the vote is taken.

The council members had access to their packets and all of the material therein the afternoon of Nov. 14.

At the end of proposed ordinance 03-20 in the Nov. 18 council packet, there was a note from the Frisco town attorney encouraging council members to call her if they had any questions about the ordinance or the proposed wording changes.

Council members also had a chance to ask questions about the ordinance during the hearing prior to the vote. The proposed wording changes were added by an amendment and the ordinance passed as amended on a 4-3 vote.

As outlined in Julie Sutor’s article in this paper Nov. 21, some council members must not have understood the ordinance. What is going to happen as a result of this ordinance?

The persons appointed to replace former mayor Bob Moscatelli and Councilmember Tom Connolly will have to run for election in April 2004.

Should they be elected, they will have medical benefits at a cost. Council member Dede Dighero-Tuso will need to run for re-election.

Should she win, she will have medical benefits. Councilmember Jon Zdechlik is termed out as a council member but could run for mayor.

Should he win, he will have benefits. If he does not win, he is no longer on council and it is not an issue. Councilmember Rick Amico understood the ordinance as written and has accepted the consequences of his vote.

Councilmember David Amli voted against the ordinance and has voiced no objection. Councilmember Bernie Zurbriggen declared during the Nov. 18 open session on the ordinance (quoted in the Summit Daily article Nov. 19) that he would “serve this community with or without insurance.”

So where is the problem with the ordinance – other than that the paragraph extending current benefits from the present until April 15 is illegal?

Bonnie G. Moscatelli

former council member


Support Local Journalism

Support Local Journalism

As a Summit Daily News reader, you make our work possible.

Now more than ever, your financial support is critical to help us keep our communities informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having on our residents and businesses. Every contribution, no matter the size, will make a difference.

Your donation will be used exclusively to support quality, local journalism.

For tax deductible donations, click here.

Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User