COM 0406.000 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Finance Committee-49 November 12, 1996 MR. DE LIMA: Well, quite frankly, quite frankly, it'll be the appointing authority. So, would be the Corporation Counsel would be, actually, negotiating with the respective attorneys within the scope of the procurement law. I tell you right now, if this Council wants to continue the system that we have employed, I don't think anybody would have any objections to that. This was initiated by the Corporation Counsel. So, the Department of Finance, as I understand it, Department of Finance has to understand that, is insisting that the Council be in the loop. The Corporation Counsel, quite frankly, wanted to take the Council out of the loop but the Finance Department refused to sign off on any matter that the Council was not involved with. So, this would take us out of the loop for police appointees and I can see the logic of it, but, quite frankly, you can require them to come in with a particular resolution. I'm more, and i could live with that. So, I don't have any problem with withdrawing this petition if that's the desire of some Councilmembers, particularly the ones that are gonna be coming back. So, Mr. Arakaki, Mr. Ray, I look towards your leadership on this matter. MR: CHILDS: Mr. Chairman, would not an alternate strategy be to approve this resolution acknowledging, perhaps, sound reasoning of the law, but to keep, in fact, the funding in the Corporation Counsel's account for this purpose relatively low, so that Corporation Counsel would, in effect, need to come to us for transfer of funds but not for hire of the Council and that would not result in the same check and balance. CHR. OSORIO: Any comments? MR. ARAKAKI: I don't know, I think--- CHR. OSORIO: Mr. Arakaki. MR. ARAKAKI: I'd like to leave it the way it is, they come to us. MR. DE LIMA: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my motion. CHR. OSORIO: Second, withdraw on the second? Page 12