2000-03-08 Charter Commission Minutes

Home

minutes 03-08-00Page 24 of 35 HERKES: God, let’s not create another department. RAY: Yes, it’s not an auditing department, and it doesn’t warrant that type of independence. I share her concerns but I don’t have any suggestions on how to do that. IRVINE: Somehow I feel that we failed, a little bit, to address that internal audit thing which, I know, Finance was wanting us to do, although they didn’t state it very solidly. But it is something that our independent auditors tell the County we need every year. But I agree with you, we’ve done our best with this. RAY: Okay. YUEN: Let me bring up one fine point with this. The way I’ve written this up, the Legislative Auditor is abolished, and if you’ll notice this, it says that ‘the Council may establish a Legislative Research Office’. So what the point of this is that, and as with everything, the final decision is yours, but the thought here is that if you left the Charter about the Legislative Auditor being the same, Council could say no, we’d rather have it the way we used to have it, and we just keep the Legislative Auditor’s Office, and we never implement the Legislative Research Office. That would be a possibility. The way this has been written up here, there is no such thing as a Legislative Auditor anymore, and if the Council wants to have a Legislative Research Office, then they have to implement it according to how it’s written in the Charter. HERKES: Good, good. I think that’s a step in the right direction. I think that’s a huge step. Thank you. HIGASHI: So, when we form the ballot question, it is to delete that office and to implement the Legislative Research Office? YUEN: Right. It would say something like replace the current Legislative Auditor with a Legislative Research Office. RAY: So why wouldn’t you say ‘shall’? YUEN: Well, if they don’t want to have a Legislative Research Office, then they don’t have to implement it. HERKES: And also, ‘may’ makes them, at least, think about what they want. They might set some goals, and might have some outcomes. RAY: The last part of this is that you eliminate the Legislative Auditor. So the big difference there is that the head of this new office is appointed by a majority of the entire membership of the Council vs. appointed by the County Clerk, but that’s, in effect, the way it is now since the majority picks the County Clerk. It effectively works the same way. HIGASHI: Just one other question. In terms of creating the department, right now the Director, or Connie, makes the same amount as the County Clerk. Do we have to describe a compensation level, or how do we work that part? YUEN: No, I think the Council just puts it in the position classification plan, and they could set it at a higher or a lower level if they wanted to. It would be by ordinance. I don’t think that you want to do that in the Charter. It really should be up to them, although I’m trying to think now if this is a Salary Commission - HIGASHI: In the Charter, it’s spelled out as far as they have some code in terms of what they pay. YUEN: Actually, I think this becomes a Salary Commission pay scale, if they pass the Salary Commission Amendment. Otherwise, it’s a Council pay plan issue. HERKES: That’s interesting. The Legislative Research Director is a Salary Commission? HIGASHI: I think it’s set by the Salary Commission, but right now, it’s the same as the County Clerk. IRVINE: They do set it. I think it was just last meeting, when you weren’t here. Is that right, Roland? That we had a lot of discussion about these salaries and where they set them, and tried to make it clear that we didn’t expect every Department Head to get paid the same amount just because they were a Department Head, because there were varying qualifications. And I think everybody agreed that they should be free to set those salaries differently. file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 03-08-00.html7/1/2011