|
Transcript of Meeting of April 29, 2000Page 23 of 64
<br />heard today from Captain Beach. I think Captain Beach, and another member of the public who testified
<br />today here, brought up some very legitimate concerns, and that is let’s not repeat the kinds of problems
<br />that we’re seeing today with the Police Commission, or at least perceived by some of us, with the Police
<br />Commission. I mean we don’t need two of these things going on. And please change it to nine members.
<br />Do not make it five members. Please, please don’t fool around with that any more.
<br />And by the way, with respect to the at-large seats, one of the other reasons – I think even if I was for this
<br />thing, I would ask you to delete it because there’s so many what ifs that go along with this proposal that
<br />it is really confusing, really confusing. I realize I’m not an exceptionally bright person, and so maybe I
<br />get more, as the Mayor says I’m confused again, more so than maybe some others, but I say this in all
<br />sincerity that this may be the thing that kills it all. And all your hard work, and all these other good
<br />things, many of these good things that you put in here, may just go by the wayside. People may just
<br />hang it up.
<br />It’s been proposed, with respect to appointments to Boards and Commissions, that you’ve heard from
<br />people today, and I think at other times, that the Council propose some names. I think, in principle, that
<br />makes for greater accountability. I think it makes for greater accountability. One gentleman came up
<br />here and said maybe what happens is, like, there is a civilian board that sends three names forward, or
<br />nine names, or whatever it is. Maybe that makes more sense. I don’t know. I think the Council should
<br />have some say so, and of course we do in terms of whether we ratify the Mayor’s appointment or not,
<br />nomination. If I could just say -
<br />RAY: So do you support the Council making these appointments with the confirmation by the Council,
<br />or not?
<br />TYLER: Well, I think the idea of having some citizen group maybe appointed to bring forward the
<br />names is maybe a better idea. Maybe one from each Council district because I think it’s difficult – I
<br />can’t speak for the Council members but I’m just trying to think about this in terms of my ability to do
<br />this as frequently as it seems to need to be done because of resignations or failure to come, or
<br />something, or whatever. So maybe a citizens group might work. I don’t know. Maybe a citizens advisory
<br />group. I don’t know. I’m not really prepared to comment on that, but I do think that all Boards and
<br />Commissions should be nine members, one from each district, with the qualifications that I mentioned.
<br />Department of Environmental Services. I think the principle of this is excellent. Once again, I’m a little
<br />concerned about a new department and I just want to be sure that we’re not shifting the inability to deal
<br />with these very, very, very important things to another department where someone moves over there and
<br />now the same thing goes on.
<br />Planning Department functions. This should be taken off, should not be on the ballot, and I’m going to
<br />say here, since I was the author of most of the Charter Amendment, that if you’ll look at the Charter
<br />carefully, you will see that the word ‘advise’ the Council, ‘advise’ the Mayor, ‘advise’ the Planning
<br />Director is in there. It is nowhere’s in there about decision making, and Mr. Yuen spoke this morning
<br />about the history of this. If you’ll go back and look at the State Law, you will see that, at one point, the
<br />Legislature, I believe it was in the late 60's, gave the authority for the Planning Commission, and I
<br />believe then, when the CZM, Coastal Zone Management Act came in, and the responsibilities were
<br />given to the State, the Legislature did that. By the way, it’s not consistent with the Constitution because
<br />we have a Home Rule Charter and the Constitution provides that Administrative functions, etc., shall be
<br />superior to the statutory requirements, and I draw your attention to that section of the Constitution. It’s
<br />Article VIII, Section 2. It says ‘Charter provisions with respect to political subdivision’s executive,
<br />legislative and administrative structure and organization shall be superior to statutory provisions, subject
<br />to the authority of the legislature’, etc. And it corrected that, I believe, when the SMA, Chapter 205(a)
<br />file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 04-29-00.html7/1/2011
<br />
<br />
|