Laserfiche WebLink
CHAIRMAN SAKATA: From what I gather right now, you <br /> are responsible to the liquor Commission, to the liquor control <br /> adjudication board plus the Mayor. <br /> MR. KUNIYOSHI: Yes. <br /> CHAIRMAN SAKATA: And from what I gather again, <br /> rather than be responsible to the Liquor Commission because of the <br /> fact that you have daily things going on, it would be much better <br /> for you to be under the Mayor because according to Section 7-3. 5, <br /> "Administrative Supervision. The department of liquor control shall <br /> come under the general supervision and control of the mayor. " So, <br /> are you saying that perhaps as the present setup is not as workable, <br /> that it would better that the director, department of liquor control <br /> be under the direct supervision of the mayor because of the working <br /> situation, daily situation, rather than be responsible to the <br /> liquor commission? <br /> MR. KUNIYOSHI: As I said I'm only responsible to <br /> the liquor commission for providing administrative services and to <br /> the board. I would prefer. . .well, according to the Charter it <br /> says general supervision. The question of general supervision is <br /> still not clearly spelled out. The same thing with the mayor and <br /> the council. Supposedly, the charter is supposed to set up what is <br /> considered the administrative duties and what is considered as the <br /> charter, I mean the County Council duties. But no matter where, <br /> sometimes there are gray areas where the power lies. In this case, <br /> primarily as I said, I deal with the Mayor on the day-to-day opera- <br /> tions. The only idea, it could be, and I don' t think it happens <br /> often, but there may be some possibilities that some of the liquor <br /> commission members may feel in the past, present or the future, <br /> because the commission appoints the director, that they feel, <br /> some of them they feel, that the director should come under their <br /> supervision. And then I say that there may arise a conflict as to <br /> which way the director should listen to. To the members of the <br /> commission or to the Mayor? So all I'm saying, that maybe it <br /> should be specifically spelled out that if there is no change and <br /> the commission should appoint my successor, it should be clearly <br /> spelled out somehow that the commission and the adjudication <br /> board has no supervision for daily operation that they should be <br /> vested only in the Mayor. It looks like in the charter that it' s <br /> kind of spelled out but I don' t know whether this is clear enough. <br /> Maybe it should be spelled out more clearly. <br /> MR. TRULSON: The liquor commission has seven members <br /> and the control adjudication board has five members. If there <br /> were the liquor commission with its seven members and the control <br /> adjudication members with five, twelve members total, comes under <br /> one heading and then they would choose the department heads <br /> directly. Would that be a more workable solution than the way it <br /> is now? One of them selects you, and yet you are answerable to <br /> two, plus the mayor. If you had the twelve members, and those <br /> twelve members could spread off into a subcommittee, that would be <br /> the adjudication board, but if there was twelve of them to select <br /> a director, would it be a straighter change? <br /> - 10 - <br />