My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2010-09-10 Cost of Government Commission Minutes
PublicDocuments
>
Office of the Mayor
>
Cost of Government Commission
>
Minutes
>
2010
>
2010-09-10 Cost of Government Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/21/2011 1:09:39 PM
Creation date
6/21/2011 1:09:33 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
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
cause someone chewed out my ear last week, you folks create commissions for what? <br />To spend more money and then you’re going to talk about stop spending money? So, I <br />guess I wanted to see if our commission is really necessary? Will we have an impact? <br />Will there be changes? Or was it something that someone just put together and it was <br />voted upon? Why was this commission really started? <br />MR. TAKABA: <br /> The Charter says <br />MS. WONG: <br /> Yeah, but why was it put in the Charter? In my mind the mayor is the <br />executive of the county. He should be the leader. He should be managing and <br />directing. What we’re doing is trying to help manage and direct when you look from the <br />outside. I like the idea. I just don’t know if it’s executable and of value. <br />MR. TAKABA: <br /> It looks like there was an ordinance passed by the Council to put <br />something like this on the Charter. And the public voted in 1998. <br />M. NICHOLSON: <br /> I just remembered there was a lot of pilikia, there were a lot of <br />complaints, and so it became an initiative to the ballot. I can’t remember what it was <br />about, but I guess in the past, I don’t think it’s been taken seriously. I would hope that <br />this time it might be taken a little bit more seriously. <br />MS. O’HARA: <br /> I think, I mean we can make the assumption whether it was serious or <br />not, there’s been a lot of issues that have prevented implementation of <br />recommendations in the last three years, i.e., the economy. And so, I think it would be <br />great if we, we’ve already asked the departments for an initial response to our five <br />questions, but in the last report, which was January ’07, the commission made some <br />very specific recommendations to certain departments. Perhaps we should send those <br />out to those departments and ask, were these implemented and if not why not? Was it <br />a budgetary problem? Was it the lack of funding? Or was this recommendation simply <br />did not make sense to them? It wasn’t useful. I think it would be great to have that <br />feedback because it would just improve our product in the end. Let’s not make <br />recommendations that are not doable at the department levels. So maybe we could <br />that. I don’t think every department received recommendations. Looking through the <br />report, focus on six departments, Data Systems, Environmental Management, Public <br />Works. And so the ones that are specifically identified and have recommendations, let’s <br />write a letter asking what’s the status on the recommendations. <br />MS. PROVALENKO: <br /> I think it strengthens our case too, in the sense that this is going <br />to be the third commission like this. And the first one probably weren’t really sure, didn’t <br />take it really seriously. Second one okay. And now we’re following up on the second <br />one. And I think it adds a lot more credibility. More strength to it. <br />MS. WONG: <br /> And accountability. <br />MS. NICHOLSON: <br /> And is that something that you can handle for us? And what kind of <br />deadline would we like these responses back? Give them 30 days? <br />MS. WONG: <br /> Can we get it by our next meeting? <br />29 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.