My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CHC 1979-07-03
PublicDocuments
>
County Clerk - Council
>
County Clerk
>
Charter Commission
>
1980
>
Minutes
>
CHC 1979-07-03
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/19/2018 10:49:53 AM
Creation date
6/19/2018 10:22:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
AGE/MIN (Charter Comm.)
Agency
Charter Commission
Year
1979
Meeting date
7/3/1979
Type
MIN
Document Relationships
AGE CHC 1979-07-03
(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.
/
111
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
who is supposed to be acting, not only the twenty-nine or <br /> thirty days,but even during the commission meeting. <br /> There might be others who have a stronger <br /> reason why it should be eliminated but I think it is better <br /> to have that language in there. I would rather use the word <br /> "broad" rather than "vague". It is very broad and the intent, <br /> I think, is to give the mayor some authority, expressly, to <br /> supervise the executive departments. <br /> MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Trulson, did you have a <br /> motion? <br /> MR. TRULSON: Yes. <br /> MR. SCHUTTE: Was there a second to that? <br /> MR. OMONAKA: Second. <br /> MR. CADINHA: Mr. Chairman. Discussion. With <br /> regards to authoritative control or responsibility with the <br /> mayor, I haven ' t thought this one through, but we have, in <br /> the consistency that we have tried to bring to the new charter, <br /> asked for all department heads to be appointed by the mayor <br /> with confirmation by the council and the removal step would be <br /> purely on the part of the Mayor, if one was necessary. <br /> I just throw this out to the commission, what <br /> would happen if commissioners were to be appointed, confirmed <br /> and removed, if necessary, by the mayor, if we are to be <br /> consistent insofar as the commissions are concerned? Would <br /> that do anything, administratively, to facilitate this control <br /> and general supervision verbiage? Or is it something we don 't <br /> want to do? I don ' t know. I was just thinking about this. <br /> The mayor would exercise a little more control then he has now <br /> by being able to remove a commissioner. <br /> MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner <br /> Cadinha, at the present time you are stating that the mayor <br /> cannot remove a commissioner once he is appointed. <br /> MR. CADINHA: There is no provision for it. <br /> I was just looking at the Police Department, Chapter 2, and <br /> it just says. . .The members- shall be appointed by the mayor <br /> with the approval of the council in the manner prescribed. . . <br /> oh, excuse me, evidently, I haven ' t done my homework . <br /> MR. OMONAKA: The commission members are <br /> confirmed by the council, page 30. <br /> MR. CADINHA: I know they are confirmed but <br /> the removal step. . . <br /> MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. I believe this <br /> particular portion here, Executive Branch, Departments or <br /> Agencies under Commissions, the reason for that is because <br /> -9- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.