|
minutes 03-11-00Page 3 of 17
<br />that was appropriate, and the Planning Department has concurred with that, so that’s basically correcting what seems to have
<br />been something that shouldn’t have happened in the last election. So that’s what that’s all about; and also, this additional
<br />language just clarifying our County role in matters relating to special management area, Chapter 205 under State Law. It’s
<br />just some clarification language there.
<br />The next deals with the Legislative Research Office. Right now the County Council has two main offices; they have the
<br />Council Services Office, which are more related to the constituent concerns and Civil Service staff positions which service
<br />and basically set the agendas and prepare all the minutes for the committees, and then they have what’s called the Legislative
<br />Auditor’s Office which is not, and never has been, an auditing office. That’s never been their function. So, this is really, I
<br />guess, more calling a spade a spade, what it is, and suggesting we create, how it functions today, a Legislative Research
<br />Office, and describing as such, the way it functions now. There was a lot of discussion in regard to auditing functions, but I
<br />think that would require a whole new office, and a whole other function of the County, and while that may be worthwhile,
<br />that’s not what we’re suggesting here. We’re just suggesting a more appropriate classification of how that office functions
<br />right now, and we have tried to put in some language to encourage that office to operate more professionally. But the reality
<br />is these are political appointments. The voters have insisted on two-year terms, so the nature of that is that everything is
<br />subject to turning over as far as under the Council’s jurisdiction every two years, the way things work in terms of new
<br />majorities being formed, or not, so it didn’t seem appropriate, that being the case, to make this office independent in terms of
<br />what their function is. If they were truly an auditing office, then I think there’d be a strong argument for making that office
<br />more independent in nature, but that’s not the reality.
<br />Holdover of Members of Boards and Commissions. This is really just extending the holdover period from 30 to 90 days. Just
<br />seems more realistic to get those positions filled, and not have vacancies.
<br />Safety Coordinator. There again, it’s under the same category as calling a spade a spade. The way this thing reads in the
<br />Charter right now is not how it functions. Most of the functions that are described in the present Charter, they’re all done but
<br />they’re done by different departments and divisions. They’re not done by the Safety Coordinator Office, so basically what
<br />this would do is just move those positions and the function to the Civil Service Department. And that was a recommendation
<br />by the Administration and by a number of different departments in terms of how it functions. So, this is really in reaction to
<br />how that functions now within the County.
<br />Planning Commission powers. I covered that. That’s 6 and 10 together.
<br />Qualifications for Heads of Department of Public Work and Department of Water Supply. Right now in the Charter, there is a
<br />requirement that both of those positions be filled by a Registered Engineer. I don’t know if you remember, last year our Chief
<br />Engineer, head of the Public Works Department, retired and the Deputy, who was an engineer, but wasn’t a registered
<br />engineer, couldn’t step up into that position. So, that’s what generated a lot of discussion, whether this was necessary or made
<br />sense, and in discussing this in regard to Public Works and the Department of Water Supply, the thought was that the job
<br />requirement is really more administrative in nature for both of these departments, and there are lots of engineers, there are
<br />tons of engineers, in both departments already. So, the suggestion is to eliminate that requirement that requires a registered
<br />engineer.
<br />Impeachment. Two changes; one that I think is fairly minor is just eliminating one word, and that’s a reason for
<br />impeachment, the word ‘maladministration’. Our legal counsel, and others that weighed in on this, just didn’t feel like that
<br />was a reasonable grounds for impeachment. The more major and controversial change is in the number of signatures required
<br />for an impeachment petition. And right now, the number of signatures required are only 100, and we’re suggesting it be
<br />raised to 3% of the voters, and that would be 3% of the number of voters registered in the prior election. And that also
<br />triggered the necessity to create a procedure to verify signatures, so that’s the other part of this section. And that verification
<br />language is similar to what’s in the Charter now for Initiative and Referendum. The differences are that there would be a one-
<br />year time limit on signatures, and we wouldn’t allow signatures to carry over from one election term to another. In other
<br />words, if impeachment proceedings started in a prior term, it wouldn’t carry over to the other. That’s one suggested
<br />difference, and the other is that it wouldn’t require the statement of social security numbers which, in our train of thought,
<br />violates Federal law. There’s a good explanation of this in the summary.
<br />GRAHAM: John, could you tell us just quickly what’s the difference between ‘maladministration’ and ‘malfeasance’?
<br />RAY: The difference between maladministration and malfeasance. We do have an attorney here who was Corporation
<br />Counsel so he is probably the best person to weigh in on this.
<br />BESS: Well, it’s just my opinion, but here ‘malfeasance’ is where you have a prescribed duty and you fail to perform that
<br />file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 03-11-00.html7/1/2011
<br />
<br />
|