MIN CHC 2009-07-17.tif - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

to a laptop, everyone in this county could be watching this presentation. Again, this is just about how do we educate ourselves to participate in civic life in this County, and I think in doing that, pulling ourselves together. You read in the paper a lot about splitting the County, and it's because people don't feel connected. This is just one way to look at how we could all be connected on a practical level. I'm not sure if that fits into some of the things David Frankel is going to speak about regarding the Public Trust. What is in the Sunshine Law's policy is that in a democracy the people are vested with the ultimate decision - making power. Government agencies exist to aid the people in the formation and conduct of public policy. Opening up the government processes to public scrutiny and participation is the only viable and reasonable method of protecting the public's interest. That is my comment on the public and the public trust. It's not adding something in or out, but just thinking about that in terms of the bigger picture of the Charter, and what we are all doing here. The second thing is the Prosecuting Attorney, and I also wanted to make some comments at the same time about the Corporation Counsel. I realize that is not on your agenda and you would not be able to discuss that at this meeting, but I would like to make comments on those two attorney positions that are discussed in the Charter. My comments each go back to the whole idea of creating more integrity, more trust, and more transparency of the different functions of the government to the public. Under Prosecuting Attorney, I would just like to suggest something be put in here to address the point that it is really the Prosecuting Attorney that is the one that is charged, and has the responsibility, to enforce the Sunshine Law. State Office of Information Practices issues opinions, but they don't enforce, they don't investigate. I would just like to see something in here that would stress that some of that responsibility is investigating and enforcing the Sunshine Laws; Sunshine Laws meaning open meeting provisions and complying with the rule that there not be private meetings and decision - making, rather than open meetings where the public can hear what is going on. Similarly, in the second sheet that I have here, under Corporation Counsel, these are really comments to testimony that was given on May 8, 2009. Reading the minutes, I think that it was Commissioner Jarman who addressed the issue of the conflict of interest of the Corporation Counsel, between the Mayor's Office, or the Executive Branch, versus the Legislative Branch. She raised a couple of proposals; that perhaps the Corporation Counsel should not be part of the Mayor's cabinet, and therefore part of that very small hui team, and more independent, since it really sways the relationship to be very cozy on one side versus more distant to each of the Council Members, who, in theory, that office is representing equally. One of her other suggestions was really perhaps the second in command, which is now called the Assistant Corporation Counsel, perhaps that person should really take primary responsibility for matters dealing with the Council. What I wrote up here is really sort of incorporating that idea, just one way of doing it. There was some talk about maybe this person shouldn't be called the "assistant." I put in "associate" just to address that minor point. I think this is really the division that goes on in a couple of the other Counties. This isn't anything personal to Lincoln Ashida, in my mind it is a very structural and systemic conflict that is there. So, you would have the "Associate Corporation Counsel" have primary 3