|
minutes 03-25-00Page 24 of 34
<br />be given the choice, particularly since it’s in place elsewhere in the state. They should be able to choose, and I think there
<br />should be dialogue on it. I think there are benefits to both sides. Our potholes and parks are definitely not partisan, and I
<br />would like to see us move away from that, and I, myself, supported this in the past. But I also realize, island-wide, that there
<br />are benefits for a partisan base for an island-wide election, although I don’t think the costs are going to be as high as what is
<br />alluded to by some others. From my budget that I spent in 1990, and realizing that I didn’t spend as much as my winning
<br />competitors, nonetheless I don’t think there’s order of magnitude equal to the Mayor’s. Frankly, not as many people care
<br />about the Council positions as they do about the strong Mayor.
<br />The term of the Mayor. By the way, I think this would apply to all elected positions. I would encourage you to insert
<br />language proposed for the voters that would provide that, and this is arbitrary but I’m going to say, service during the last
<br />calendar year of an elected term, any portion of the last calendar year of an elected term, will be counted as a completed term
<br />for purposes of incumbency and qualify for re-election, for example, our current Mayor’s comments about resigning. If you
<br />implemented what I suggested, if he resigned anytime during the year 2000, he would be treated, for all practical purposes, as
<br />having served his full term. He would have served 3 out of full terms. A Council member would serve 1 out of a two-year,
<br />and I think something like that is fair. If somebody wants to resign that early to be a year before their term, then maybe, but I
<br />think you should suggest drawing a line somewhere such as a calendar year basis, or someplace. Right now it’s not clear that
<br />you’ve addressed that at all.
<br />The Planning Department suggestion of allocating the duties. I strongly believe that the Zoning Code issues, and even
<br />subdivision, are definitely Planning related, and should not be allowed to be handed over by the Mayor to a branch whose
<br />orientation is engineering. There are some of the items, like building codes and variances from that, are building related.
<br />That’s fine, but to dump it all in an engineering branch as to where streets should line up in a subdivision plat, frankly I don’t
<br />believe our Planning Department does as good a job as they should in coordinating street line-ups and layouts right now.
<br />Handing it over to engineers whose duties are for circulation and water drainage way management is not a solution to
<br />determining how our streets should be laid out. So, I don’t think we should allow that at all.
<br />On the Managing Director issue, I think the City Manager approach is not tenable in this County, and so I’m glad that you
<br />had not suggested that.
<br />OTTERSON: Be careful. You’re sitting next to me.
<br />CHILDS: That’s all right. Thank God it’s a free country, right?
<br />OTTERSON: Go ahead.
<br />CHILDS: Years ago, I thought that would be a better venue, but after being on the County Council, and seeing how a
<br />political body works, and seeing what, in my personal opinion, has been generally a low quality of people selected by
<br />Councils’ majorities and their Chairpersons to be the Clerk, the Deputy Clerk and the Legislative Auditor, in my opinion, it’s
<br />not been an impressive array of credentials by and large. Again, I’m not speaking to any individuals. If we are going to move
<br />to a system that, at least in our County, in our political culture, gives -
<br />OTTERSON: Excuse me.
<br />CHILDS: No, I’m sorry, I’m not going to.
<br />RAY: No, no, Jim. No.
<br />CHILDS: I’m afraid that we are going to create another position that could be filled by hacks and people that are not going to
<br />do anything other than protect the interest of the majority of people appointing them. And these measures that you have
<br />proposed - Well, I would suggest that you clean up some conflicting language. I really don’t think it’s going to accomplish
<br />much, whether it passes or not, but for example, you’ve got conflicting language in your Section 6-1.3 where you state first in
<br />Subsection (a) that ‘the Managing Director shall act as the principal management aide to the Mayor’. Aide with an ‘e’ on the
<br />end. Now, an aide, by every common understanding, is a junior functionary in anyway it’s been done. And then in (b), you
<br />state that ‘he or she shall supervise the administrative functionings of all agencies’. So, in that two sentences I say which is it.
<br />Further on in your Section 4.5(f), you’ve stated, and I’m not sure which page it is, there’s another conflict there, which I had
<br />trouble keeping the place because it was spread out. It seemed to be conflicting also with this and the supervisory level. I just
<br />made a note of the sections. I’m not sure which page because these are unnumbered. It states that ‘performs such duties by
<br />this Charter and others as may be assigned by the Mayor’ - This is for Department Heads, all the respective heads - ‘As
<br />file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 03-25-00.html7/1/2011
<br />
<br />
|