Laserfiche WebLink
had an opportunity to really get down and dirty into the issue and get it done with for the <br />most part. But, I don't know if this should actually be put into the Charter. I think the <br />public voice; our ability to come and speak at council meetings is an adequate and <br />sufficient venue to voice our concerns on this. Also, I have just recently suggested to the <br />Council - -on an issue that they got "hog- tied" in for two hours in the council meeting over <br />setting up an ad -hoc committee to review the budget - -that one more person is a quorum, so <br />why don't you just advertise it as a special meeting of the finance committee and have a <br />five member core group which meets all sunshine law qualifications. Then you can discuss <br />all of the issues openly and you can invite whoever you want from the administration. <br />Instead, they opted for a very restrictive ad -hoc committee type of thing. If this <br />amendment were to require nine members at all committee meetings, I just think that could <br />be restrictive in the future when they need to cut back on costs and expenses. All of these <br />meetings cost money. It may not seem big in the scheme of the entire operating budget, but <br />it all adds up. So, I like the flexibility standpoint. I think the public has an adequate venue <br />to try and get our council members to function as we like through public testimony process. <br />Filing of Council agenda, I agree with the idea of this. I don't quite understand why it's <br />problematic, other than maybe under the current system this 4:30 p.m. deadline might in <br />some instances be problematic for the clerk's in the County. But, I think that there have <br />been bi -weeks where the Council doesn't do anything actively, they have certain periods <br />through the calendar where council business doesn't get conducted on a regular two week <br />schedule like it normally would be. I think they could actually go to an eight day public <br />notification period. That is if you use that down time to get the cycle advanced a little bit <br />more. Now, the problem comes in for the clerks when huge amendments or huge changes <br />are made between a first reading and a second reading. That might be problematic if you <br />went more than eight days of advance notice. But, again, I think there should be flexibility <br />here. I do speak on all of the Charter amendments that speak about openness. I think it is <br />appropriate to give them great consideration and try to do that, again, where it doesn't <br />create a great cost. The current system is not so bad, but for anyone who tries to follow the <br />Council and for Council members, it is somewhat difficult sometimes even on a six day <br />notification to digest what is going on and how your opinion might settle out on the issue <br />and what you might come and say at a Council meeting. If you folks have watched a <br />Council meeting - -I'm sure some of you have - -often times Council members are in the dark <br />about what they are dealing with. So I think anything which further advances the timeline <br />allows not only the general public, but also the Council members to be more aware of what <br />it is they are dealing with. <br />Boards and Commissions, I understand the arguments here, I just see that CA -24 may not <br />be an important enough of an issue in relation to how it is currently and how it is proposed <br />to be changed to be a Charter amendment; I don't know if it's that important. Well, enough <br />said on that. <br />CA -26, I support this all the way; conservation of cultural and natural resources. I agree <br />with the comment that was made earlier by someone on how you don't really want to <br />clutter up the Charter too much. Federal level Constitutional scholars, they look at the <br />States and kind of laugh and giggle and say, man, look at some of these State Constitutions. <br />0 <br />