My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0407.002 1996-1998
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
1996-1998
>
COM 0407.002 1996-1998
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/13/2008 11:38:22 AM
Creation date
5/10/2008 7:54:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
1996-1998
Communication
0407
Point
002
Author
Connie Kiriu, Legislative Auditor
Communications - Referred To
FC
Comments
Presented: FC - 8/5/97
Communications - File Code
AUD
Document Relationships
AGE FC 08/05/1997 1996-1998
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\1996-1998\Finance Committee (FC)
COM 0407.000 1996-1998
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Communications\1996-1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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).
View images
View plain text
.E O£THECOUNT}'CILRK <br /> 1 /AWAIT COUNTY BUILDING <br /> 13 AUPUNI,TTHEl:T <br /> <br /> ' HICO, ILA IVAl19G 710 <br /> [9embers of the Committee <br /> on Inter-Governmental Relations <br /> Page 2 <br /> June lti, 1989 <br /> The charter commissioners referenced the mandate as a sunset law <br /> which may have been thought of in line with the State's Sunset <br /> provisions to various State boards and commissions. In their <br /> efforts to identify applicable situations, commissioners were not <br /> able to specifically identify a particular situation where the <br /> sunset proviso would apply to county situations. The <br /> commissioners were advised by their counsel that he was not sure <br /> that such a proviso would be necessary at the county level. <br /> Other commission members caised the point that the council had the <br /> power to check into any department or program through the budget <br /> process. It was felt that the budget process did provide for <br /> adequate levels of checks and balances. <br /> The minutes are not clear as to whether the commission did <br /> identify the scope of the mandate. Some of the points raised were: <br /> 1. The Program was not meant to cover any agency or anything <br /> that is established by charter, but merely .f or programs. <br /> 2. Sunset law calls for mandatory review of all programs of <br /> the county government. <br /> 3, Intent was not to review agencies and departments, sunset <br /> law is for programs. <br /> Leyal counsel explained that the scope of the program review <br /> needed to be identified. It was also emphasized that the council <br /> would be hardpressed to determine what they are supposed to do <br /> unless the commission provided the scope of the review. Points <br /> raised were: <br /> 1. There is going to have to be some kind of distinction as <br /> to programs that are authorized by the council as opposed <br /> to programs within each department. <br /> 2. We are more concerned on those that are specifically <br /> created or funded by council. Problem would arise where <br /> agency recommends a program and council funds it. <br /> The Commission's legal counsel advised them that the definition of <br /> agency as incorporated in the charter included any office, <br /> department, commission or other governmental unit. Such a broad <br /> interpretation of agency could prohibit any review by the <br /> interpretation of 'agency'. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.