|
minutes 02-05-00Page 12 of 66
<br />typically happens very quickly. It may be building up for a long time. The other scenario does make it considerably more
<br />difficult because, and let me just flesh this out, if you have a motion to remove somebody at one meeting, and then you
<br />schedule the meeting for two or three weeks later to actually vote on it, then, of course, the person then has the opportunity to
<br />invite public testimony at this time and it does make it considerably more difficult if it does not all get wrapped up in one
<br />meeting. Now, that’s for you folks to make a decision on how difficult you want to make it, but that is the scenario that I see
<br />possible when you say that there’s a hearing.
<br />HIGASHI: It’s not covered by Civil Service? Does he have a choice to keep it closed meeting or open meeting?
<br />YUEN: I think it could be closed at the request of the individual involved because of the personnel matter. It would be
<br />Sunshine Law exemption for a personnel matter.
<br />HIGASHI: Okay. I’m not worried about the firing too much. Implementation of something like this, supposing it’s approved
<br />by the voters, the next go-round normally the Mayor appoints the Fire Chief. In this case, what would be the scenario?
<br />YUEN: I think the implementation under the proposal as passed last time is quite clear that you have a new Mayor coming in,
<br />and the Mayor would appoint the whole Fire Commission, and then the Fire Commission would appoint the Chief. So, in
<br />essence, you have immediate implementation. There’s another thing in the Charter of how you stagger the terms, so that
<br />some people would be appointed for a full five years, so you would have people dropping out, over time, from the
<br />Commission.
<br />HIGASHI: Would rule making apply here? You know, appointing a new commission, is there time for rule making and
<br />procedures and formation? What I’m just trying to find out is if the implementation will take a while we may have to put in
<br />some interim language as to who is the Fire Chief, whether he holds over, or appointed by the new Mayor interimly, or
<br />something, so that’s the only thought I had.
<br />YUEN: Let me look at the Fire Chief. Actually, I think the Fire Chief holds over anyway, under present -
<br />IRVINE: In our thing, there are transition provisions concerning the Fire Commission. The Fire Chief serving on December
<br />31, 2000, shall serve as Interim Fire Chief. Should the Fire Chief vacate or be removed from the office before appointment of
<br />a Fire Commission , (a) the Deputy Fire Chief shall serve or, (b) the Mayor may commission an Interim Fire Chief.
<br />YUEN; Let me suggest something here. The language that you just read, and I’m sorry, I should have looked at this a little
<br />more carefully - Probably what you want to do is, you’re right, it may take the Commission a little while to either decide on
<br />whether they want to keep the old Fire Chief or hire a new one. In the meantime, it seems to me that the most logical thing
<br />would be to have the old Chief hold over, rather than have the Mayor, who comes in on the 5th of December, on the first
<br />Monday in December, appoint a Chief who, then you are in the position of having to get rid of. Or, in a sense, it may be too
<br />much of a signal from the Mayor as to who the Chief is supposed to be. But that December 31st language is not good because
<br />it’s not December 31st. The new Administration comes in on the first Monday of December. I think, as the Charter is set up
<br />now, the Fire Chief does actually hold over until removed by the Mayor, but we can work on that little bit of language. That’s
<br />a technical point, but you’re right, if I’m gathering people correctly, that the transition should just be that the old Chief holds
<br />over until the Fire Commission appoints the new Chief, and if the old Chief decides, for whatever reason, for example to
<br />resign, I think that Gary’s language says here the Mayor appoints a -
<br />IRVINE: Yes, the Deputy steps in or then the Mayor may appoint if neither one of them.
<br />YUEN: Oh, I see. The former Deputy becomes the Chief for that time period. Okay.
<br />RAY: Steve, do you have a question?
<br />BESS: Yes, I have one question. Chris, you have given us your opinion with regard to changing the language here,
<br />particularly the use of the word ‘respond’ to the statement of reasons, and not entitling the Fire Chief to a hearing. And I’m
<br />wondering whether or not the language, as worded here, he or she is given an opportunity to respond, and whether or not
<br />some resourceful attorney may say that rises to the point of ‘I have a right to a hearing’, and my question is, one, whether our
<br />record is abundantly clear that a hearing is not intended, or whether we should, in fact, add to this language to make it clear
<br />that response is not a hearing?
<br />YUEN: You’re right that a resourceful attorney could still say that the opportunity simply to sit there and respond to the
<br />file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 02-05-00.html7/1/2011
<br />
<br />
|