|
BLT: Other people have come forward to register, also.
<br />CHAIR: And also, the memo from Constance Kiriu, which further elaborates. So let's
<br />take a second to look at all that.
<br />(10:30 a. m. to 10: 38 a. m.: Break to read materials.)
<br />CHAIR: Give me a good, practical definition of a ministerial matter, will you?
<br />BLT: A ministerial matter is basically where if someone is complying , if
<br />they come in to get approval of something and, as long as what they're
<br />submitting complies with the building code, the fire code, the subdivision
<br />code, those kinds of things, and basically you're going through a checklist
<br />did they submit this, did they submit this, are the beams the right size, have
<br />they got the required setbacks. And you're going through basically a checklist,
<br />and if they have complied with the code, you're required to give them a
<br />building permit. And so in that case it's ministerial, because it doesn't require
<br />an exercise of discretion. However, if —let's say someone wants a variance
<br />from the building code, zoning code, that's not ministerial, because you're not
<br />required to give the variance, because it is something that's different. It's out
<br />of the ordinary, and that requires an exercise of judgment and an exercise of
<br />discretion. But ministerial —and the only thing that the Supreme Court
<br />actually ruled on is building permits, where they basically said building
<br />permits, but I would argue that something similar to building permits, and
<br />other things that are ministerial would be, you know, when you're just getting
<br />a regular permit for whatever. One example in one case we're doing, you need
<br />to come and get a driver's abstract, right, you know— because they're just
<br />giving information. But building permits, probably getting their design
<br />stamped as conforming to the building code, the kinds of things like that.
<br />CHAIR: Any further time required to digest this information? Returning to the order of
<br />business, let the record show that we have reviewed the minutes of the last
<br />minute. We have Mr. Fuke here again to perhaps summarize or to reiterate.
<br />We've looked at the input of counsel, Bobby Leithead -Todd, on clarifying
<br />lobbyist registration requirements. Moreover, we've seen the memorandum of
<br />the County Clerk, Constance Kiriu, on notice to lobbyists, and basically which
<br />meets the criteria I think Mr. Frankel was seeking to obtain. So renewed
<br />emphasis on that. And we also have a letter from Mr. Fuke which makes some
<br />good recommendations on how to differentiate between an individual and as
<br />clarified definition of what the individual is, however, also noting that he is
<br />now registered as a lobbyist. So with that in mind, do you want to add some
<br />supplemental information or ideas?
<br />FUKE: No, I think that the Board has all of the information to render an opinion. I do
<br />have several questions, however, more for clarity's sake. If the Board would
<br />agree with what your counsel has advised you, you're basically saying that
<br />people who process applications that go before any boards or commissions,
<br />that when the boards and commissions have some measure of discretionary
<br />12
<br />
|