Laserfiche WebLink
minutes 05-31-00Page 17 of 54 <br />BESS: I really appreciate the language here but I have a couple of comments. One is that to the extent that we want to <br />express a Purpose, this is like a case of first impression to me. I haven’t had any time to even massage the thing and so I feel <br />very uncomfortable in voting on something like this today when we’re putting forth the Purpose of the Charter. The second <br />thing is that I think that inherent in the document itself is the idea that this is going to provide a framework for us to operate <br />our government. Now, if it’s important to you folks to put forth an ethical standard in the Purpose, if that’s really where <br />you’re at, because the framework, as I say, it’s inherent. And again, it’s another amendment. <br />IRVINE: So, maybe we should go to Ethics instead of worrying about this. <br />HERKES: Yes. <br />RAY: So, my sense is that we’re not going to pursue a change in the Charter Preamble. Is that correct? <br />IRVINE: I guess. <br />RAY: Okay, moving to item B. Could somebody call Mr. Santangelo back in? <br />RAY: Item B, Change the name of the Department of Public Works from the Chief Engineer to the Director of Public Works. <br />HERKES: I suggested that. I’d like to make a motion that we change the name from the Chief Engineer to the Director of the <br />Department of Public Works. <br />RAY: Do I have a second? <br />IRVINE: Second. <br />RAY: Okay, discussion? <br />IRVINE: Where are we putting this? <br />BESS: I’d like to understand why we’re doing this. My point is that we have already decided to keep the Chief Engineer. I <br />mean that he has to be a registered engineer to be in charge of the department. And again, it’s just another one of these <br />amendments that may, or may not, be necessary. <br />RAY: Marni. <br />HERKES: Yes, we decided to also keep the engineer’s qualifications for the Board of Water Supply, but that’s a Director of <br />the Board of Water Supply. And if we’re going to have a Director of the Department and have administrative talents be part <br />of their job description, their qualifications, I think Director fits that, qualifications, fits that idea better than the Chief <br />Engineer. <br />IRVINE: If we do this, we already have an amendment concerning the Chief Engineer that will have a five years experience <br />in administrative capacity, so it wouldn’t really be adding another item to our list of things going to the public. Is that true? <br />RAY: Is that correct, Chris? Can we fold that in? <br />YUEN: As a legal matter, it could be included in number 7 if the Commission wished, or it could be broken out on its own. <br />We would just have to redo our explaining. It would have to say something besides just qualification of Department Heads. <br />HERKES: Is there any legal problem with changing his title to a Director rather than Chief Engineer? <br />YUEN: No. <br />RAY: John. <br />SANTANGELO: One of the reasons I like the idea, I think it’s clear to the public that it’s a Director and secondly, as a Chief <br />file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-31-00.html7/1/2011 <br /> <br />