2000-07-12 Charter Commission Minutes

Home

Charter Commission - Transcript of Meeting of July 12, 2000Page 7 of 45 1990 Charter Commission, and at that time, the Commission thought about what to do with the Council members and, looking at the possibility that their districts might get changed during their term in office and the logical thing to do, of course, is not to let it effect their term of office. At that time, there were no Boards and Commissions with district residency requirements. Then in ‘94 and ‘96, Planning and Police got changed so that there were district residency requirements for them, but it did not specify, for those two, what would happen if you reapportioned somebody and if they ended up not being in the district anymore. So, it’s out there as a gray area. MARTIN: No, I agree with you that if, in fact, the Reapportionment Commission does make changes, then these people would be effected. What I’m saying is if there is no change, and what’s the criteria for change? Is it population? Different things that come into play, yeah? So, if that hasn’t changed, the lines stay exactly where they are unless the State reapportionment is going to do something. YUEN: If the lines don’t change then nobody’s district is effected. If the lines change, but nobody lived close enough to the lines, it’s possible that nobody will be effected by the redistricting. MARTIN: Sure. Well, that’s what I’m saying. I think if we explain what’s going to bring this about and why this is needed. True, it’s a mundane issue until the Reapportionment does what they’re going to do and if, in fact, they do nothing then it still maintains it’s mundane-ness, if you will. It doesn’t do anything. But I think that it is needed. I agree with you that there may be cases that may arise and I think it’s got to be explained in such a manner that people can understand it and why it’s being done. YUEN: If I could just make a suggestion. If we could pass the – And actually, the explanation that’s in the Digest is longer than what’s in the Charter. It’s like a one-liner in the Charter and there’s about a four- or five-sentence description in the Digest. if we could pass the change to the Charter and then have this discussion when we go through the Digest as to how to explain this. That might be the best way to do this. MARTIN: So moved. HIGASHI: Second. RAY: Okay, we’re voting on No. 16. All in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. RAY: Okay, opposed? Motion passes. Okay, Marni – HERKES: Thank you. RAY: We’re having a little trouble with No. 15, the Ethics, so if you could pull that on to your radar screen and take a look at it, and see what Chris did. We held off voting on No. 15, and maybe let Sue share her concerns that she had with you. IRVINE: When I came upon this and then looked in our Charter where it actually fits, it really doesn’t read very well the way we’ve got it stuck in here, and I’m not sure of exactly what should be done. And then I said ‘did anybody else have some thoughts like that’. Enactment and Policy is a little odd. That’s page 32. Because it’s talking about elected and appointed officers and employees shall do such and such, and on page 33, under Section 14-4 is where we talk about conduct of employees. file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 07-12-00.html7/1/2011