|
r
<br /> ; III . "Housekeeping Items. " t ,
<br /> The Commission will at some later date decide which items
<br /> should be offered to the voters separately and which may be
<br /> lumped together in one- (or possibly -two)- ballot proposals.
<br /> There are, however, really two categories of changes which would
<br /> • be good candidates for lumping together: those which make only
<br /> technical correctionsto the charter (for example, to conform to
<br /> state law, or to clarify ambiguous language) ; and those which
<br /> propose substantive changes which do not, however, constitute
<br /> major alterations. In the category of "technical" changes, I
<br /> would include nos. 1, 4 , 6, 11, 12 , 15, 18 , and 23 . In the
<br /> category of substantive changes which are not major alterations
<br /> to the present charter I would include nos. 7 , 8 , 9 , 14 , 17 , 19 ,
<br /> and 22 . No. 2 could be considered both a technical change and' a
<br /> relatively minor substantive change. Nos. 3 , 13 , 20, and 21 all
<br /> deal with deputy directors. The really major changes proposed so
<br /> far are no.. 5 (police) , no. 10 (single-member council districts) ,
<br /> and no. 16 (reapportionment commission) .
<br /> IV. Deputy Director Issues.
<br /> It appears to me from reviewing my notes and the minutes of
<br /> the November 30, 1989 meeting that the Commission had passed a •
<br /> motion introduced-by Mr. Greenwell that would have required that
<br /> there be a deputy director position for all agencies created by
<br /> the charter, along with a private secretary position, and that
<br /> the council would be required to fund these positions, just as it
<br /> must fund the director's position. This would have required an
<br /> amendment to §4-5, and all charter sections that provide for a
<br /> "director and necessary staff" should probably have been amended
<br /> to provide. for a "director, deputy director, and necessary
<br /> staff. " Subsequently, the Commission has taken a. number of
<br /> actions on deputy director positionson a department-by-
<br /> department basis, voting that there should be a deputy director
<br /> of finance, and a deputy managing director.
<br /> •
<br /> However, the Commission also voted not to change the present
<br /> §4-5 at our December, 14 , 1989 meeting. At the February 2 , 1990
<br /> meeting it voted to keep unchanged the departments of parks and
<br /> recreation, liquor, civil service, and water supply, by
<br /> implication retaining the provision in those departments that the
<br /> only mandatory position is the director. The Commission also
<br /> voted not to require a deputy director of R&D. I apologize for
<br /> not bringing this to the Commission's attention when these
<br /> departments were being discussed, but we ought to review our
<br /> actions on the deputy and private secretary positions and
<br /> , determine whether we want to require these for all charter
<br /> agencies, or make the determination on an agency-by-agency basis.
<br /> Yours truly, 833
<br /> // r
<br /> Christopher J. Yuen
<br />
|