2000-03-08 Charter Commission Minutes

Home

minutes 03-08-00Page 28 of 35 RAY: So you’re speaking in favor of going ahead and doing this? I don’t have any strong feeling. IRVINE: Yes, like I said, I don’t know. I’m just talking. HIGASHI: But I believe that was the feeling that was sort of a conflict of interest. That’s why we searched around to put it different places, and then we were going to put it under Public Works, but they also have a division, Board of Appeals, in terms of engineering and building, so for lack of a better place, we put it under Corp Counsel. RAY: Chris, any thoughts? YUEN: I honestly don’t think it matters that much. If I were to say where it had the least conflict of interest, but they still have somebody that could do the servicing, I would say the Mayor’s Office, frankly, because the administrative functioning of the Board of Appeals, they need to have somebody who sends out notices to people that they’re going to have meetings, that calls the Commissioners if they have a change in place. It’s that kind of administrative liaison, I think we’re talking about here. Corp Counsel has an attorney who is advising, very often, the person who is against what the Planning Director had done before. But I think it’s more of a perception thing than reality, and there it’s difficult because people can perceive conflicts of interest wherever the thing is placed, which is why I began by saying I don’t think it’s that big an issue. HERKES: I like that. I think that’s a good idea, but I think the Board of Appeals could be enlarged into being an ombudsman for the citizens in the County in the Mayor’s Office in order to provide services. But that’s down the road. That probably isn’t now, but I like that under the Mayor, Administrative. I think that’s much better than the Corporation Counsel. I’ve been through hearings in the Legislature, trying to put the small business defender somewhere. Can’t go into DBEDT, and so they put it in Budget and Finance, and one of the Finance Committee members said, well, maybe we’ll just put it in Budget and Finance because that’s who’s got the money, and I said, well, that’s not a bad reason. But it’s hard to find places to put these Boards and Commissions that doesn’t have a conflict somewhere. IRVINE: Maybe it’s time to maybe just move that we drop this from our consideration since it doesn’t seem to be terribly important and we can’t find the perfect place for it. MARTIN: That’s a fabulous idea and I think a motion is in order. IRVINE: I so move. MARTIN: Second. Next. YUEN: You know what. Since you’ve got a big summary which includes this print-up, I hear what you folks are saying, but you can drop it later. How’s that? You know why? Because if you drop it now then you’ve got this summary that’s gone out. HERKES: We have a motion on the floor with a second. IRVINE: Fine. I withdraw my motion. HERKES: And I’m going to vote ‘no’ on it, and I want to vote. YUEN: You have the veto power, being that you have only six members here to vote. RAY: We’ll follow that recommendation and who knows, we might get some interesting testimony. Number 15. these Department Head Qualifications. So the only change there is we include Finance in here, right? MARTIN: Well, that and - YUEN: Could I ask a question? The Planning Director now has been changed, not just moved, but before the Planning Director is an either/or. I wrote this up the way that I thought it had been voted on, but the change would be that the Planning Director would have to have five years experience, three years in an administrative capacity. The present Charter says that you can do that, five years training experience in a responsible Planning position, or you can have a degree and three years experience. And I don’t know which is tougher, but do we specifically want to make that change? file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 03-08-00.html7/1/2011