|
minutes 12-04-99Page 33 of 39
<br />RAY: Anything else in that category?
<br />BESS: By the way, just as a matter of clarification, has Chris, in his going through the Charter, did he provide us with a list
<br />of housekeeping things, or his opinion on it?
<br />RAY: I don’t believe so. I think most of them have been brought out by other folks, like in the Administration, in terms of
<br />little things.
<br />IRVINE: Would it help us to have a list?
<br />BESS: I was just wondering whether or not Chris might also address or pick up whatever we have.
<br />RAY: Yes, we should start to focus on that.
<br />IRVINE: Maybe just make one list of everything.
<br />BESS: Yes.
<br />IRVINE: Good idea.
<br />RAY: George.
<br />MARTIN: Sue has mentioned about that document she is referring to, the Riverside one, and the simplicity of it. Is it possible
<br />to do ours in that manner, and make it that simple? I mean, as housekeeping comes into language, why not? Why not have the
<br />attorney look at it, and say, yes, this is possible, of a format, per se, to simplify. What’s wrong with that? Isn’t that our job
<br />here?
<br />RAY: Yes, I think it’s absolutely in our purview to consider that, and whatever else.
<br />IRVINE: Yes, for example, instead of all the language that we’ve been asked to take out in a letter, just today, from Rudy
<br />Legaspi. When they’re appointing people and they want staggered terms, they just say, appoint them so that as near as
<br />possible an equal number of terms will expire each year. That solves all of that appoint two for year, and three for two years,
<br />and four for one year, and it is pretty well written. Page C-17.
<br />RAY: Any suggestions of those types that we can bring forth, I think, would be helpful.
<br />Moving on. Mandatory Program Review. As I said, in the Legislative Auditor’s comments, but without any real solutions
<br />unless we want to do away with it, I think her suggestions are making the department more capable of dealing with it. John.
<br />SANTANGELO: John, with this Mandatory Program Review, again, part of the light that’s been shed on it is because of the
<br />way it’s been used as a harassment tool. I’d just like to make it clear that when a Council is due diligent, they can ask for, and
<br />demand, a comprehensive program review of anything they want. It’s their responsibility. So, if you don’t have this
<br />mandatory, which, if you want to talk to some people, and I don’t have all the facts, could show you that the County budget
<br />couldn’t possibly afford that sort of, when you say, Mandatory Program Review, of everything we have going. So, I’d be
<br />really in favor of people coming out with facts, and trying to delve into this a bit, but to say that if you remove the word
<br />"mandatory", the Council can, at any time, demand this sort of stuff.
<br />RAY: Marni, why don’t you talk to Connie about what they just went through and why they felt like they had to conduct such
<br />a review around that program, and why that type of review would totally be unrealistic every four years for all 200 programs.
<br />HERKES: Were they not told by the County Council to do the program review? The Mandatory Program Review for the
<br />Marijuana Program comes through the Federal Government. It is written into the fund release, as to what the program - And
<br />my understanding is that the program review was done in accordance with the Federal Government guidelines for receiving
<br />the money. I’m not sure about that, but my understanding is, it was. That the County Council, in their wisdom, mandated that
<br />the Legislative Auditor also do a program review. I have not read the report from the Legislative Auditor, but I understand it
<br />was the County Council that mandated a second program review and would not accept, whoever got the contract, would not
<br />accept their program review. I’m still not going to give up on program review.
<br />file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 12-04-99.html7/1/2011
<br />
<br />
|