MIN CHC PH 2000-03-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

required to be. They still could be, but they're not required to be in the Planning Department in regard to subdivisions. So, it just says they 'may' be transferred or shared, but they may not be. The two other changes: one is in the last Charter, as part of a Charter Amendment, there was language in there which deleted the 'adopting rules and regulations having the force and effect of law' and I'm embarrassed to say, since I voted on that - I was on the Council actually and voted on that being put on the ballot, I'm not sure just why that got passed, but our attorney, who also was very embarrassed that he didn't recall it being on the ballot last time and picking up on that as an issue, did red flag it as an issue here, and didn't think that was appropriate, and the Planning Department has concurred with that, so that's basically correcting what seems to have been something that shouldn't have happened in the last election. So that's what that's all about; and also, this additional language just clarifying our County role in matters relating to special management area, Chapter 205 under State Law. It's just some clarification language there. The next deals with the Legislative Research Office. Right now the County Council has two main offices; they have the Council Services Office, which are more related to the constituent concerns and Civil Service staff positions which service and basically set the agendas and prepare all the minutes for the committees, and then they have what's called the Legislative Auditor's Office which is not, and never has been, an auditing office. That's never been their function. So, this is really, 1 guess, more calling a spade a spade, what it is, and suggesting we create, how it functions today, a Legislative Research Office, and describing as such, the way it functions now. There was a lot of discussion in regard to auditing functions, but I think that would require a whole new office, and a whole other function of the County, and while that may be worthwhile, that's not what we're suggesting here. We're just. suggesting a more appropriate classification of how that office functions right now, and we have tried to put in some language to encourage that office to operate more professionally. But the reality is these are political appointments. The voters have insisted on two-year terms, so the nature of that is that everything is subject to turning over as far as under the Council's jurisdiction every two years, the way things work in terms of new majorities being formed, or not, so it didn't seem appropriate, that being the case, to make this office independent in terms of what their function is. If they were truly an auditing office, then I think there'd be a strong argument for making that office more independent in nature, but that's not the reality. Holdover of Members of Boards and Commissions. This is really just extending the holdover period from 30 to 90 days. Just seems more realistic to get those positions filled, and not have vacancies. Safety Coordinator. There again, it's under the same category as calling a spade a spade. The way this thing reads in the Charter right now is not how it functions. Most of the functions that are described in the present Charter, they're all done but they're done by different departments and divisions. They're not done by the Safety Coordinator Office, so basically what this would do is just move those positions and the function to the Civil Service Department. And that was a recommendation by the