My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011-01-28 Cost of Government Commission Minutes
PublicDocuments
>
Office of the Mayor
>
Cost of Government Commission
>
Minutes
>
2011
>
2011-01-28 Cost of Government Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/21/2011 1:06:55 PM
Creation date
6/21/2011 1:06:48 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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
MS. NICHOLSON: <br />But based on the format that we have now, which is totally different <br />because it’s not department <br />MR. TAKABA: <br />Yeah. I mean we can still do the finding for like say Consolidated <br />Enforcement. We come up with a finding that is inefficient because it cost too much <br />money. You have three different inspectors going out on different days to inspect that <br />same property. That would be your finding. And the recommendation would be to <br />consolidate enforcement activities for these different inspectors. I guess the question <br />would be the, why. Why are we making this recommendation? Why did we come up <br />with that recommendation? <br />MS. GARSON: <br />And I would just recommend that you call it a rationale or explanation <br />rather than a finding. <br />MS. NICHOLSON: <br />Because we’re not going to have findings for all of these, but some <br />of them. It is a further explanation. <br />MR. TAKABA: <br />It could be just a narrative to explain why you’re doing this and what <br />you’re trying to accomplish. It could be just a narrative. It doesn’t have to be a formal, <br />like Kathy was saying, you don’t have to say findings and recommendation. You could <br />just briefly explain the background as to why you’re coming up with this <br />recommendation. <br />MS. WONG: <br />I’d like to suggest for consideration when we come up with the final <br />document that we, as a commission, if I get a document that lists these are the <br />400things that I’d like you to consider. It would be kind of overwhelming for me to <br />consider all of those. But if the commission can state,these are our priorities, that we <br />would recommend a few. And then add all the ones that we have been voting on to say <br />these are the ones that the commission supports that has been recommended by a <br />body of responses that we have received. So then we have priority and then we also <br />support this. <br />MS. NICHOLSON: <br />So can you give an example of something that would be a priority. <br />MS. WONG: <br />For me the priority would be someone to address on education and <br />health, and grant writing. These are the priorities that we would recommend to the <br />council and to the mayor, and to support the overall function of the economic cost of <br />government. We support these recommendations, work hour benefits pay, travel <br />vehicle use, department specific suggestions and we have reviewed and voted upon to <br />support these recommendations. <br />MS. NICHOLSON: <br />I’m not getting the tie between say that as a priority and then these <br />items under it. <br />MS. WONG: <br />It doesn’t have to be under, it’s an also. And the priorities would be a few <br />things that we really want to address, and we’ll support these other things that other <br />people have recommended. <br />18 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.