My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CHC 1979-05-29
PublicDocuments
>
County Clerk - Council
>
County Clerk
>
Charter Commission
>
1980
>
Minutes
>
CHC 1979-05-29
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/19/2018 10:49:53 AM
Creation date
6/19/2018 9:43:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
AGE/MIN (Charter Comm.)
Agency
Charter Commission
Year
1979
Meeting date
5/29/1979
Type
MIN
Document Relationships
AGE CHC 1979-05-29
(Related)
Path:
\County Clerk - Council\County Clerk\Charter Commission\1980\Agendas
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Is there any discussion on <br /> this? On accepting the Preamble on page 1? It has been <br /> moved and seconded that we accept the Preamble on page 1. <br /> All those in favor? Carried. <br /> MR. ODA: Procedurally again now I think there <br /> should be an understanding that every section that is <br /> discussed and is to be acted upon should be by motion of the <br /> commission members. So, that on the record it clearly states <br /> that it has been considered and that it has been passed by <br /> motion. <br /> MR. ISHIDA: Are you suggesting by roll call? <br /> MR. ODA: Maybe that is a good idea. I think <br /> we should, as a matter of fact, by roll call, for the record. <br /> I 'm looking at this in terms of the record in the future and <br /> if somebody looks at the minutes to determine not only who <br /> voted for what, but in terms of legislative or Charter <br /> Commission intent. <br /> MR. ISHIDA: In that vein, may I suggest also <br /> that every motion that is made for adoption, or anything that <br /> is for revision, or anything like that, maybe we should state <br /> our rationale as to why we believe it should be changed or not. <br /> MR. ODA: But the rational should be part of <br /> the motion. In other words, those voting on the motion should <br /> sort of agree with the rationale of the specific, in other <br /> words, the legislative intent. . .The Commission ' s intent or <br /> thinking as to why that matter should or should not be amended. <br /> MR. ISHIDA: Procedurally, how do you handle <br /> that? <br /> MR. ODA: Maybe the motion can be made and the <br /> person making the motion should make a. . .well, maybe that is <br /> all part of the discussion following the motion. Thereby we <br /> get the rationale. <br /> MR. TRULSON: It will be difficult, in many cases, <br /> to make a motion and give all the rationale. For an example, <br /> your subcommittee is going to discuss and you will come through <br /> with a motion. All the rationale will not be in the motion. <br /> It will be in the discussion. <br /> MR. ODA: It will be on the record. <br /> MR. TRULSON: It will be on ' the record,. yes , but not <br /> incorporated in the motion. <br /> MR. ODA: We don' t have to call it r-a-t-i-o-n-a-l-e <br /> but so long as the intent is somewhere on the record whether we <br /> call it rationale, or not, during the discussion phase, after the <br /> motion is made, or preceding the motion. . .so long as it is there, <br /> I think-'that is the main thing. So that a person looking at the <br /> record-a- year, two years, five years down the line will know what <br /> the commission had considered in arriving at that decision, <br /> whatever it might be. <br /> 45- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.