Laserfiche WebLink
COMMUNICATIONS <br />COMM. 250: FORMATTING OF CHARTER AMENDMENTS <br />From commission attorney Levi Hookano dated March 31, 2010, transmitting the <br />proposed final format of charter amendments passed by the commission. The <br />legislative research branch provided several suggestions to the format of the following <br />proposals which are explained therein: CA -1: Department of Water Supply; CA -2: <br />Data Systems; CA -3: Fire Department; CA -4: Civil Service Laws; CA -5: Merit <br />Appeals Board; CA -6: Removal of Directors Serving Under Commissions; CA -7 (Draft <br />3): Recall Procedures; CA -9 (Draft 2): Special Meeting Notice Requirement; CA -10: <br />Department of Environmental Management, Powers, Duties, and Functions; CA -11: <br />Department of Environmental Management, Requirements of Director; CA -12 (Draft <br />3): Initiation of Amendments or Revisions; CA -13: Mandatory Charter Review; CA -15 <br />(Draft 3): The Land Fund; CA -17 (Draft 2): Reapportionment to Redistricting; CA -24: <br />Electronic Notice with Newspaper Publications; CA -26: Conservation of Natural and <br />Cultural Resources; CA -29: Prosecuting Attorney Powers; CA -36: "Housekeeping" <br />Amendments; CA -38: (Draft 2): Voluntary Status of Board and Commission Members. <br />Note: This communication is for the narrow purpose of formatting the proposals and <br />that no substantive amendments will be permittetl, <br />VICE CHR. FUERTES: Do I have a motion on this communication? <br />MR. NAHALE -A: What is the appropriate motion, Levi? <br />MR. HOOKANO: The motion would be to move to approve the formatting recommendations. <br />Mr. Nahale -a moved to approve Comm. 250 and <br />adopt the formatting recommendations of the <br />legislative research branch. Seconded by Ms. Osborne. <br />VICE CHR. FUERTES: Is there any discussion on Communication 250? <br />MR. NAHALE-A: Great job, Levi and Jon; very nice, thank you. <br />VICE CHR. FUERTES: Compliments to you guys. <br />MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, there is just one thing that I want to point out regarding the <br />formatting and that is related to CA -7, Recall Procedures. That one contains a little bit <br />more of a thorough change because of the grammar. The language was, "valid votes <br />cast," as it relates to the recall election. There was a tern that "valid votes cast" cannot <br />cast a vote; which is what the language read like. So, we had to really change the <br />language in that one. I don't know if all of you have had a chance to look at that <br />proposed language in CA -7. That was the one that I had the most concerns about <br />bringing to the commission, because it changes the language. But, I believe the intent <br />and the effect is still the same. <br />