My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0604.001 2008-2010
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
2008-2010
>
COM 0604.001 2008-2010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/26/2021 3:15:41 PM
Creation date
11/4/2009 10:34:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
2008-2010
Communication
0604
Point
001
Author
William P. Kenoi, Mayor
Communications - Referred To
PC
Document Relationships
AGE PC 11/17/2009 2008-2010
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2008-2010\Planning Committee (PC)
REP PC 052 11/17/2009 2008-2010
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Reports\2008-2010\Planning Committee (PC)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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
<br />'" <br /> <br />... <br /> <br />approved. But as to whether anything was void because of the vote has not really been ruled. <br />And it would be an extension of the Sunshine Law that I find very bizarre, frankly. But ifthere's <br />any concern over the Commission, then just defer it till next month. We can get the new <br />transmission from the Council and that would take care of it. But I just want the record to be <br />clear that there was no ruling that any of these matters were void and there was no ruling that, or <br />even an indication that there were Sunshine Law violations ~n all the matters that they voted on, <br />other than the reorganization resolution. <br /> <br />WOODWARD: <br /> <br />Thank you. Mr. Gonzalez. <br /> <br />GONZALEZ: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Madam Director. I was going to just <br />summarize. I think the concern here is there was a previous action, June 16th, there was a <br />question on whether that action would be valid. After that action, the transmittal was sent to you <br />folks to make a decision; and that's what's before you now. And the concern is just because it <br />was redone yesterday they should be submitting a new transmittal to us to consider it, if you want <br />to follow procedurally to the "T." So that's one route. So we would continue it until we receive <br />the transmittal from their actions yesterday. <br /> <br />The other one is to say, is to just take action today because any change or defect that may have <br />existed on the 16th was addressed yesterday; and it doesn't make sense for them to have to send <br />another transmittal because they already told us they already sent the transmittal. So that's <br />basically it. You know what I'm saying? <br /> <br />WOODWARD: Yes. <br /> <br />GONZALEZ: So, you know, you can vote on it today if you want to, or you can follow <br />the procedural, follow procedure and ask, and have them retransmit it for your decision-making <br />at the next meeting. <br /> <br />WOODWARD: All right. Let me just make a comment. My approach would be since this <br />is basically not serious nuts and bolts, this is just housekeeping issues primarily, the worst thing <br />that can happen is if we pass this today is that we see it again in a month or two. But I don't see <br />any downside to go ahead and voting on this. And if it passes then we may not see it again. It <br />may save us a little time in the future. <br /> <br />LEITHEAD TODD: Mr. Chairman, and I was just going to say, and I think that we can take <br />notice of the actions of the County Council yesterday in revoting and approving this exact same <br />resolution that was in the public record. I think, you know, everyone seems to be aware that they <br />voted on it. Staff has confirmed that they voted on it. And so just like Courts can take notice of <br />what has occurred in judicial notice in other venues, I think the Commission can take notice of <br />the actions of the County Council yesterday. And, therefore, any questions about whether this <br />resolution has been approved by the correct County Council, I think have been taken care of by <br />the vote yesterday. <br /> <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.