Laserfiche WebLink
council failing to act on the nomination quickly (or rejecting <br /> the nominee. ) The first kind of problem is hard to solve through <br /> the charter. The only real mechanism which I could imagine would <br /> be to provide that if the mayor doesn't make an appointment <br /> within a specified time, ' the council may make the appointment. <br /> This would be quite awkward for the council, however: it is very <br /> difficult for a nine-member body to agree on an appointment. The <br /> second kind of problem is inherent in having council <br /> confirmation. The charter could make the process go more quickly <br /> by providing that the council must accept or reject the nominee <br /> within a specified period (for example, forty-five days) or the <br /> nominee will be deemed to have been accepted. This would force <br /> the council to make a timely decision on the mayor's nominee. <br /> It would be possible to allow board members to hold over for <br /> a limited period of time (for example, forty-five days) pending <br /> the confirmation of a successor. The major disadvantage would be <br /> that the mayor may come to count on that grace period and may <br /> procrastinate in selecting the nominee. There might still be a <br /> vacancy if the mayor delayed until the end of the hold-over <br /> period to make the new appointment. <br /> To allow a board member to hold over for an indefinite <br /> period pending the appointment of a successor solves the vacancy <br /> problem but raises other concerns. If no time limit is placed <br /> upon a holdover, someone could serve forever. If the council <br /> preferred the old commission member to the mayor's new appointee, <br /> it could keep the old member in office by successively rejecting <br /> the mayor's new appointments. <br /> • <br /> One further matter regarding boards and commissions. At our <br /> last meeting, the Charter Commission voted to clarify the charter <br /> provision concerning the number of votes necessary to take <br /> official action. I have drafted the exact language which will <br /> effectuate the Commission's actions: to replace the existing <br /> Charter §13-4 (1) with the following: <br /> (i) The affirmative vote of a majority of the entire <br /> membership to which a board or commission is entitled <br /> shall be necessary to make any action valid; except <br /> that in the case of a board or commission which has <br /> only advisory functions, the affirmative vote of a <br /> majority of those present shall be sufficient to make <br /> any action valid. <br /> 789 <br />