Laserfiche WebLink
minutes 02-09-00Page 27 of 41 <br />HERKES: So move. <br />IRVINE: Sounds good. <br />MARTIN: Does everybody know the meaning of that word? <br />RAY: Yes, they have to be able to demonstrate that they have - <br />SANTANGELO: Ben, the way it’s worded now, do you feel that would interfere with our Fire organization to not see a <br />career track here, that it would not encourage people towards excellence in trying to achieve that? <br />BEN: I think the proposal on the floor would address that. If not that, and we’re back to the three years administrative <br />experience, I would really ask that it be clarified, either through discussion so that the minutes reflect intent, so that when the <br />question of interpretation comes up, we can go back and say, hey, the Charter Commission had intended that Fire Captains <br />are included. <br />SANTANGELO: Because I think part of the intent of the language is to create a stand-up, stand-alone individual, rather than <br />one who, and I don’t like to use the word ‘cronyism’, but one who aspires to this position, and really can’t hold his own and <br />is really more dependent. It’s a large budget, I mean, even P&R is a huge budget, so we’re looking for that expertise, and I <br />understand what you’re saying but I would be reluctant to move away from something that I felt gave a good possibility we’d <br />get more of a funded individual. You know what I mean? <br />BEN: I’ve got no problems with the reason why you want to do the qualifications and why you want to set it so high. I <br />would, naturally, want to do that too, but I’m looking to be sure that, yes, I will have candidates I can consider. <br />YUEN: If I can make a suggestion. This one is a little easier than, perhaps, some of the others because we’ve definitely made <br />a motion to put the Fire Commission on the ballot, and there are qualifications now stated for the Fire Chief. Because the <br />voters are going to be voting on a Fire Commission, the qualifications can be restated slightly. For example, along the lines of <br />Steve’s motion so that there isn’t this problem that comes up as far as the eligibility of the Captains, and that’s a way to make <br />this clear. And it would be only a very slight change. <br />BEN: May I make one more comment on what I saw there? I notice on the Planning Director, there’s no reference to private <br />and public, and being a bureaucrat, when you say public and private in all the other ones, and you forget to say that with the <br />Planning, what do you mean? It was an oversight, I know. <br />RAY: Sure, we can include that. Okay, thank you. So, since we were talking about the Department Head Qualifications, do <br />we want to approve the list as submitted with the changes as talked about? <br />MARTIN: I thought that was done already. <br />RAY: Did we approve all these? <br />IRVINE: We’re talking about this page of yours? <br />RAY: Yes. <br />YUEN: Excuse me. That was approved by vote on Saturday, this list, except for Public Works because we did that <br />separately; Water, we did that separately; and the rest was voted on. <br />RAY: So how about if we’ll just regard that as a friendly amendment suggestion by Mr. Ben, to include the language on the <br />Planning Director? <br />BESS: Yes. <br />HERKES: Yes. <br />file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 02-09-00.html7/1/2011 <br /> <br />