|
minutes 12-04-99Page 34 of 39
<br />RAY: I don’t think anybody wants to give up on accountability, but I think the language is problematic, and so I’ll just leave
<br />it at that for now.
<br />YOSHIYAMA: I think the specific proposal, and it may have been from the Police Department, on page 5, Section 3-16, was
<br />either we define the word "critically", or eliminate it. That was their big problem because the complaints were coming in that
<br />you’re doing a program review, but it’s not a critical review, so you’re not fulfilling the provisions of the Charter. I think that
<br />was their big problem.
<br />IRVINE: Whatever it does mean.
<br />YOSHIYAMA: Yes, what does that mean?
<br />MARTIN: If I may, Mr. Chair. If hearing what was being said over here about the Federal Government mandating that
<br />you’ve got to review it because it’s their monies and they want to know how it’s being spent, why and because, and the
<br />County’s not willing to accept, in fact that it’s true, then even if we change the word "critically", they’ll still have some
<br />potential to make decisions on that matter, I think.
<br />HERKES: What about if we change the County Council?
<br />MARTIN; Well, we’ll be doing that shortly, too, but we’ll be changing it to the same people again.
<br />HERKES: Oh yes.
<br />RAY: I think, Marni, though, the language here that the Council shall critically review every program supported wholly or
<br />partially by County funds, which the Mayor wanted eradication program, is, whether it’s a federal program or State money,
<br />or whatever, it’s still supported by County funds, and it’s right here in black and white, at least every four years, the Council
<br />shall critically review every program. I mean, that’s problematic language, in terms of the resources of the County. I’m not
<br />sure how to solve it.
<br />SANTANGELO: In the marijuana issue, George, the Federal part of it was, is our monies being used properly, but the public
<br />was demanding, through that segment of people, and what the Council wanted to try to clear up, was is it effective. Are we
<br />effectively eradicating marijuana; are we addressing the drug program in the County; etc., etc., etc. It’s really out there. And
<br />that’s why that wasn’t accepted, and that’s what that program review was supposed to have done. And then you start to set
<br />the precedence. You no longer are just looking at a program, and in many programs you don’t want to just look at it that way,
<br />but, number one, you want to look at were the monies used for the purpose that they were put there for. Then you go into a
<br />whole thing. Is this even a worthwhile program? Does it meet the spirit of the letter of what brought it into place? Should it
<br />be continued? And 200 and some of those can get really cumbersome. But in the marijuana issue, the reason the Council took
<br />that on, and again, and mandated it, and it took up a copious amount of time. It cost a lot of money at other issues that
<br />suffered in the process.
<br />HERKES: That was their choice.
<br />SANTANGELO: Nobody’s arguing that, Marni. But when we talk about 200 and 20 something programs, from the Leg
<br />Auditor’s Office that have to be every four years, and to what degree. And I just want to make this one point. When, at any
<br />time, a Council feels that sunshine has to be put on something, like the marijuana, they can ask for that. So, taking away
<br />mandatory doesn’t take away accountability.
<br />RAY: George.
<br />MARTIN: I just want to bring a point up. As long as marijuana is illegal, it’s going to be eradicated, and if people want to
<br />have a say in it, and make a change in the law, and it’s addressed at that point, but to come in and use a wording, and that’s
<br />what we’re here for now, critically review it. If that’s the word that needs to be changed, as Gary is possibly saying, or
<br />alluding to, I don’t know that that is. As you’re saying, you could still have review and where were the checks and balances.
<br />The thing is, if it is illegal, you want to change it. Fine, change it at venue, but the Mandatory Program Review -
<br />SANTANGELO: That whole impeachment process was based on that. That because they were not critically reviewing, right,
<br />that it was malfeasance or some darn thing. And as I’m saying, that’s where there was harassment.
<br />file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 12-04-99.html7/1/2011
<br />
<br />
|