2000-07-12 Charter Commission Minutes

Home

Charter Commission - Transcript of Meeting of July 12, 2000Page 5 of 45 IRVINE: The other thing that I came up with, and I know it’s really, really late, but on page 29 under Section 13-10 near the bottom of the page, it says ‘prohibitions’ and then it goes on to talk about ‘persons seeking appointment or promotion can’t render or pay money or services to anyone doing it’. This seems to me the next two paragraphs and about appointing a relative, that sounds to me like it should be under the Code of Ethics. I don’t quite get – I mean, it seems like our Code of Ethics is, sort of, strewn around in here and then we’re now adding something rather odd besides. Did anybody else notice anything like that or shall we just go ahead with it? RAY: I don’t think we want to get into changing that around at this point in time, with the present time frame. IRVINE: Yes. RAY: As far as, I guess, voting on what’s before us today, maybe we should wait till Marni gets here, just in deference to her. IRVINE: In case she has something. That’s a good idea. RAY; Let’s go on to No. 16 which is the Residency and Redistricting. Chris. YUEN : This is meant to cover the situation where you have a reapportionment of Council districts and those Commissions where you’re supposed to have a member be a resident of each district. Commission member finds that he’s been apportioned out of the district he or she is supposed to represent, and this says that you will continue to be eligible to represent that district. I think the Commission understands. I’m not sure. It’s a little hard to explain. I’m not sure about the general public at this point. I think that if you didn’t say anything about this, the person would continue to be eligible and would represent. I haven’t really researched that but I think it’s the kind of thing that’s best spelled out. It is spelled out in the Charter for Council members, for the time between the reapportionment and the next election, they don’t have to worry that the line has been drawn and they’re no longer in their district. They ought to worry for the next election, but they have not become disqualified by the reapportionment of the district. It’s hard to say if it will happen or not, but it certainly could happen and it would create a question mark if it does happen in the future. SANTANGELO: John? RAY: Wait. Sue. IRVINE: I found this, kind of, confusing too, the explanation and whatnot; why do we have to vote on that or something. But maybe if, in our explanation to the people, we say ‘this is to bring it in compliance with our County Council members’ rules’ or whatever, or just say ‘as happens to the County Council’ and then it would explain what we’re trying to do here so that people would vote for it. Because it sounds like it’s a good idea. You said it, maybe, doesn’t have to be there but if you think it needs to be there and we need to devote No. 16 to that, then I think in our Digest we need to say ‘this is to make Boards and Commissions the same as the County Council as far as that kind of turnover’. No? RAY: Well, when you’re listening to Sue, look at your proposed language that she’s talking about, No. 16, and see if that is problematic along with that. It’s pretty clear to me, but anyway – John. SANTANGELO: I guess, for me, I have the conflict of how government really works and the practicality and the reality of it, and the need for this, because are we looking at, or have we had a case file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 07-12-00.html7/1/2011