MIN CHC 2000-05-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

in that. And if they do want to, then the Council can go ahead and amend the Charter in regard to allowing that to happen. But it's confusing. It's putting a confusing amendment forward which may or may not ever be acted on in the future. So for that reason, I think a more reasonable way is if a future Administration would like to reorganize the departments in that fashion, and they need a Charter change, and the Council agrees with them, then they can make the Charter change. Anybody else? Okay, all in favor of eliminating number 6, raise your right hand. HANDS RAISED: All Commissioners. RAY: Powers. That was unanimous. Number 10, Planning Commission IRVINE: I move we remove this from our consideration as well, due to the large amount of confusion on the part of the public about what we were doing here. YOSHIYAMA: Second. RAY: Would anybody like to speak to that? We've had a lot of discussion and input from our legal counsel. It doesn't seem to be a substantive issue, and it has paused a lot of confusion. All in favor of eliminating raise your right hand. HANDS RAISED: All Commissioners. • RAY: Okay, number 10's eliminated. The other items we discussed, and I don't really have a sense of how strongly people feel about them. Oh wait a minute, one for sure; Number 14, the Board of Appeals. That was connected with number 6, the Planning Department Functions. So I think if we're going to eliminate number 6, it makes sense to eliminate number 14. • HERKES: I move we eliminate number 14. IRVINE: Second. RAY: Can you say which is - HERKES: Board of Appeals. RAY: Moving the Board of Appeals. We have a second. All in favor? HANDS RAISED: All Commissioners. RAY: Now, the item in regard to the Special Counsel. There was a lot of discussion back and forth on that at the - We just voted unanimously to eliminate moving the Board of Appeals. 23