Laserfiche WebLink
This provision is similar to the one in the present <br /> charter in the compiled present charter, Section 13.8, except <br /> that there is specific reference. The latter portion of the <br /> proposal is different. Richard, do you want to? <br /> MR. ISHIDA: The only reason why I believe that we <br /> have to have this provision added in this case covering the <br /> corporation counsel is because he cannot be removed unless <br /> the council approves his removal . <br /> This provision is to prevent the possibility that <br /> in a situation where a mayor is re-elected for a second term, <br /> the corporation counsel may have been serving under him up to <br /> the time of his re-election. He may be faced with the <br /> situation where the council and the mayor may not have the <br /> same views. <br /> One may wish to retain him. One may wish to not <br /> retain him. In other words, if the mayor wanted to retain him <br /> and he knew that the council would not confirm his appointment, <br /> he would just not send his appointment to the council for the <br /> second term because under the present provision , the successor <br /> would continue in office until a new appointment is made and <br /> confirmed. <br /> Whreas , if the mayor does not want to retain him <br /> for a second term and the council wants to retain the present <br /> corporation counsel for the second term, the mayor would <br /> then appoint a new appointment but the new appointment would <br /> never be confirmed so the existing or the present corporation <br /> counsel will continue in office. There will be a deadlock. <br /> This is just to prevent that situation. I think <br /> all of you know that in the past re-election of the present <br /> mayor they were faced with that situation and because there was <br /> no such provision of this sort, there was a deadlock until one <br /> side had to give. <br /> This is just to clarify the point that since we are <br /> saying that the corporation counsel is really serving two <br /> masters, I think this is just to clarify that point. <br /> MR. ODA: Mr. Chairman, in any event it prevents <br /> even' a temporary appointee from holding office beyond three <br /> months. Whether as an acting officer or not. <br /> MRS. KOBAYASHI : Mr. Chairman. Is this section <br /> redrafted also because we added the removal? Is this <br /> particular section only for the corp counsel because we don ' t <br /> have this provision for other department heads. But last <br /> week we took. . .removal has to be confirmed by the council <br /> and_ that ' s why we are doing this for the corp counsel? Okay. <br /> CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : Stuart, this would be a new <br /> section 5-2.6 then? <br /> MR. ODA: Yes, it would be an amendment. I 'm not <br /> proposing it. It ' s Mr. Ishida' s. I just -happen to. . . <br /> -25- <br />