My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2000-05-31 Charter Commission Minutes
PublicDocuments
>
County Clerk - Council
>
County Clerk
>
Charter Commission
>
2000
>
Minutes
>
2000-05-31 Charter Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/1/2011 3:59:01 PM
Creation date
7/1/2011 3:58:49 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
minutes 05-31-00Page 13 of 54 <br />RAY: Discussion. Page 17. <br />IRVINE: The same thing I just said. I think you’ll find that you didn’t make a motion. <br />SANTANGELO: That’s correct. That should be Santangelo, not Ray. Thank you. <br />RAY: Other corrections, comments? All in favor? <br />COMMISSIONERS: Aye. <br />RAY: Financial Status Report. As of 4/30, we show a balance of $68,376.82. <br />Communications in your packets today. Communications from Councilman Elarinoff; Milton Pavao with the Department of <br />Water Supply; Harry Takahashi, Director of Finance; and Rudy Legaspi with the Mayor’s Office. <br />Unfinished Business. Transition Language, Boards and Commission Membership and Council Districts. Chris, you want to <br />go through this and summarize it, where we are. You should have received communications from Mr. Yuen in regard to his <br />read on options. <br />SANTANGELO: Mr. Chairman? <br />RAY: Yes. <br />SANTANGELO: Point of personal privilege. With the communications in dealing with Takahashi, I just had a question and <br />this may not be the place to bring it up but I would try. If there’s some things that we’ve considered such as the City <br />Manager, things like that, Mr. Yuen, in the past, has the Commission made, like, some sort of a document that was passed on <br />to the next Commission that gives them kind of a heads up on what may have been considered so that they could quickly get <br />to that or anything like that? Have we ever done anything like that? Is that being considered? <br />RAY: Yes. What we received was full sets of minutes and, theoretically, they were somewhat organized, but they really <br />weren’t. So we are going to try to leave as clear a record, and also I think it’s a good point you brought up that in terms of <br />valid information, legal opinions, arguments, that we think would be helpful and worthwhile to the County Council or <br />whoever might be dealing with some of these policy issues, we’re going to try to get that information out so that the Council, <br />or whoever, has that as a resource in regard to dealing with some of these issues that may come up in the future. So yes, we <br />are going to make every effort to do that. <br />SANTANGELO: Thank you. <br />RAY: Okay, Chris. <br />YUEN: This is an issue that we left open at the end of the last meeting and some of the Commission members wanted to <br />actually see how much of a conflict there was. We proposed that there would be a requirement that some Commissions <br />change from having a more general geographic requirement to having one member from each Council district. At the present <br />time, some of these Commissions – Well, let’s just talk about Water and Salary. They each have, at present, two members <br />who are in the same Council district. I think it’s both in Council district 6. And then the question comes up what do we do as <br />far as the taking of effect of this amendment. I think we should, rather than just leave it an open question that somebody has <br />to worry about later, spell out what we want to do. The two basic alternatives are: Alternative (1) is to allow the sitting <br />members to serve out their full terms and when the Mayor appoints new members, the Mayor would have to appoint a <br />member from a district that’s not represented on the Commission. And I’ve written language that would do that. Alternative <br />(2) would be to disqualify one of those members of the Commissions – one of we’ll call the duplicate members, or the <br />overlapping members, or the over-represented members. And if you want to disqualify the member, then you have to come <br />up with some method of deciding who would be disqualified. There’s only, as I said, on these two Commissions that we’re <br />going to the single member districts, there’s only one pair of overlapping members on each of those two Commissions. <br />Looking ahead, we’re talking about the Liquor Commission. There’s no duplicates on the Liquor Commission, so if we went <br />to nine single members on the Liquor Commission, the Mayor could simply nominate two people from the districts that are <br />not currently represented. So those are really the alternatives – the decision that has to be made on the alternatives. <br />file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-31-00.html7/1/2011 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.