Charter Review Committee Minutes 12-08-2010 DRAFT
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Charter Review Committee Minutes 12-08-2010 DRAFT

on

  • 450 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
450
Views on SlideShare
442
Embed Views
8

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

3 Embeds 8

http://www.northassoc.org 5
http://app.quickblogcast.com 2
http://northassoc.org 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Charter Review Committee Minutes 12-08-2010 DRAFT Document Transcript

  • 1. Northampton Charter Review Committee Councilor Jesse M. Adams (Vice-chair) Colleen Currie (Secretary) Councilor Marianne L. LaBarge Councilor David A. Murphy Alan Seewald (Chair) Margaret Striebel Marc WarnerDECEMBER 8, 2010 - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 7 P.M.PRESENT: JESSE ADAMS, COLLEEN CURRIE, MARIANNE LABARGE,ALAN SEEWALD, MARGARET STRIEBEL, MARC WARNERABSENT: DAVID MURPHYATTENDING: ADAM COHEN - VIDEOTAPING MEETING; WENDYFOXMYN; STEVE HERRELL; JOHN LIND MINUTESAGENDA1. REVIEW AND APPROVE MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 10, 2010MEETING (5 MIN)COUNCILOR LABARGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.COUNCILOR ADAMS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSEDUNANIMOUSLY.2. PUBLIC FORUM (1HR 50 MIN)MR. SEEWALD - HAD WHOLE SPEECH PREPARED FOR EVERYONE HEREJUST TO MAKE CLEAR WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THE CHARTER, THESTRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE WAY OUR GOVERNMENT ISSTRUCTURED HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY PARTICULAR ISSUETHAT HAS BEEN DECIDED, WHETHER YOU’RE HAPPY ABOUT IT ORUNHAPPY ABOUT IT. WITH THOSE GROUND RULES, I WOULDRECOGNIZE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.
  • 2. STEVE HERRELL 474 ELM STREET - RESIDENT 32 YEARSTHINKS IT’S GREAT CHARTER IS BEING RE-DONE.MAYOR SHOULD HAVE TERM OF 4 YEARS. TWO YEARS TOO SHORT TOESTABLISH GOALS AND EXECUTE THEM.TERM LIMITS - TWO TERMS FOR MAYOR.SCHOOL COMMITTEE - MAYOR SHOULD NOT BE VOTING MEMBER OFSCHOOL COMMITTEE. GREATER POSSIBILITY OF TIE VOTES.MEMBERS ELECTED FOR THAT JOB. QUITE CAPABLE. MAYOR HASTOO MUCH ELSE TO DO. CERTAINLY CAN BE INVITED, ESPECIALLYTO PROVIDE INFO ABOUT BUDGET.SCHOOL COMMITTEE MEMBERS UNDERPAID. MANY LONG MEETINGS,RESEARCH, STUDY.TERM [NAME] SHOULD BE CHANGED - BOARD OF EDUCATION ORSCHOOL BOARD. IMPORTANT JOB, SHOULD HAVE MORE DIGNIFIEDNAME.WENDY FOXMYN FAIRWAY VILLAGE, LEEDSSERVED ON BEST PRACTICES COMMITTEE.SERVED ON MAYOR’S TASK FORCE ON HUMAN RIGHTS. FIRST LOOKAT CHARTER. A DISASTER OF A DOCUMENT. DIFFICULT TO GETTHROUGH.A COMPLETE RE-DO NECESSARY. TRANSPARENCY/BESTPRACTICES/GOOD GOVERNMENT A CLEARER, MORE EASILY READDOCUMENT IS NECESSARY.UNDERSTANDS WHY MAYOR ON SCHOOL COMMITTEE - BUDGET -POST-PROP 2 ½. BUT SOMETIMES THE WAY THINGS ARE ALWAYSDONE NEEDS TO CHANGE.STRONGLY SUPPORTS CHARTER COMMISSION - RE-DRAFT. MAYBESOME SPECIFIC ISSUESINTERESTED IN GOVERNMENT. GREAT CITY DESERVES A GREATCHARTER.
  • 3. MR. SEEWALD ASKED: CLEAR CONSENSUS WE NEED A NEWCHARTER. HOW TO PROCEED? BEST PRACTICES - CHARTER COMMISSION MAY BE MORE INCLUSIVE OF PUBLIC, BUT A VERY RIGID AND EXPENSIVE PROCESS. SEES BOTH SIDES. DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION?MS. FOXMYN - UNDERSTANDS THERE ARE TWO METHODS. COMMISSION EXPENSIVE ONLY BECAUSE OF EXPERT?MR. SEEWALD - TWO ELECTIONS; MAIL PROPOSED CHARTER TOEVERY HOUSEHOLD WHERE THERE IS A REGISTERED VOTER.MS. FOXMYN - HOW WOULD COMMITTEE DIFFER FROM COMMISSION?MR. SEEWALD - DIFFERENT STRUCTURE. APPOINTED BY CITYCOUNCIL AND MAYOR.MS. FOXMYN - HOW WOULD THE COMMISSION BE DIFFERENT FROMWHAT YOU’VE DONE?MR. SEEWALD - WE HAVEN’T DONE ANYTHING EXCEPT IDENTIFYTHAT A NEW CHARTER NEEDS TO BE DRAFTED. POLICY ISSUESNEEDS TO BE IRONED OUT. MAYOR CHAIRING CITY COUNCIL,CHAIRING SCHOOL COMMITTEE, TERM LIMITS, LENGTH OF TERMS,ETC.MS. FOXMYN - WITHOUT COMMISSION, WHAT’S NEXT STEP?MR. SEEWALD - CITY COUNCIL WOULD DETERMINE PROCESS.GENERALLY COUNCIL AND MAYOR APPOINTS COMMITTEE - WITHOUTFORMAL STRUCTURE OF COMMISSION - [LISTED PROCEDURES]COMMITTEE COULD DO STUDY, MAKE RECOMMENDATION TO CITYCOUNCIL, CITY COUNCIL REQUESTS SPECIAL ACT OF LEGISLATION.TYPICALLY LEGISLATURE REQUIRES CITIZENS’ VOTE BEFORELEGISLATURE ACTS.MS. FOXMYN - DID YOU DISCUSS WITH MARILYN CONTRERAS?MR. SEEWALD - YES. SHE BROUGHT SOME FIGURES ABOUT NUMBEROF COMMUNITIES THAT HAD USED COMMISSION VERSUSCOMMITTEE.
  • 4. MS. FOXMYN - FROM BEST PRACTICES POINT OF VIEW - A DESIGNWITH BEST PRACTICES - BROAD COMMITTEE - BROADLYREPRESENTATION - MAYBE ONLY ONE COUNCILOR - BUILT INPROCESS PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT -REASONABLE SCHEDULE - BUDGET - STAFFING.DON’T WANT TO DO ALL THE WORK AND NOT HAVE IT IMPLEMENTED.SHE HAS SPECIFIC COMMENTS, BUT SHE’D BE INTERESTED INSERVING ON COMMITTEE OR RUNNING FOR COMMISSION, SOWOULD NOT WANT TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC ISSUES NOW.MR. WARNER - HE’S OF MIND THAT THIS COMMITTEE SHOULD BEMAKING POLICY RECOMMENDATION. HOPES AT LEAST WE’LL MAKERECOMMENDATION FOR DIRECTION. NOT JUST THAT WE NEED NEWCHARTER.MR. SEEWALD - PROCESS THAT HAS BEST CHANCE MAY NOT BEPROCESS THAT’S MOST OPEN.MR. WARNER - LOOK AT PUBLIC RESPONSE IN THE PAST - VOTEDDOWN.LOOK AT PUBLIC ATTENDANCE NOW. EDUCATION PROCESS. ATLEAST A CLEANER DOCUMENT.JOHN LIND - RYAN ROAD - STUDIED CHARTER MANY YEARS AGO.ELECTED TO FEDERAL POSITION - PERKINS GRANT - COMMISSION.WHEN HE WOULD MENTION HE WAS FROM NORTHAMPTON, WOULDBE RECOGNIZED AS LOCATION OF SMITH AGRICULTURAL-VOCATIONAL SCHOOL. THAT’S HOW HE GOT INTERESTED INCHARTER.SMITH AGRICULTURAL-VOCATIONAL SCHOOL IN CHARTER.THREE ELECTED TO SCHOOL COMMITTEE - CALLED TRUSTEES -CONFUSION STARTED IN OLIVER SMITH WILL. REAL TRUSTEES ARETHOSE FOR CHARITY. “TRUSTEES” FOR SMITH AGRICULTURAL-VOCATIONAL SCHOOL ARE SUPERINTENDENTS. HAD BEEN CALLEDDIRECTORS.RELEVANCE TO CHARTER, EDITING NEEDED SO INDIVIDUAL CITIZENCAN NAVIGATE THE DOCUMENT AND FIND WHAT THEY ARE LOOKINGFOR.BUT WOULD LIKE TO SEE HISTORICAL ASPECTS KEPT AS THEY ARE,BUT EXPLAINED.
  • 5. SOME SUMMERS IN SOUTHAMPTON, LONG ISLAND - ATTENDS CITYCOUNCIL MEETINGS - IMPRESSED WITH WHAT THEY DO.BEFORE REVISION - WOULD LIKE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS RE FORMSOF GOVERNMENT AVAILABLE - LIKES WHAT GOES ON IN AMHERST.PROPONENT OF CHARTER COMMISSION. POOR TURNOUT LASTELECTION. WOULD LIKE TO SEE EDUCATION. KNOWS MAILING ISEXPENSIVE. EACH VOTER SHOULD LOOK AT IT. SHOULD LAST USANOTHER 100 YEARS. MODIFICATION METHODS SHOULD BEINCLUDED. AMENDMENTS CODIFIED. MAKE IT READABLE - ABLE TOFIND WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING FOR.ADAM COHEN - NORTH STREET, NORTHAMPTONSUPPORTS REVISING CHARTER FROM SCRATCHSUPPORTS TERM LIMITS FOR MAYOR - 8 YEARSMAYOR NOT CHAIRING CITY COUNCILMAYOR NOT CHAIRING OF SCHOOL COMMITTEECITY CLERK SHOULD BE ELECTED.NOT HAVING MAYOR APPOINT COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MAYBE ACOMMITTEE OF CITY COUNCIL.ELECTIONS SYNCHRONIZED WITH FEDERAL ELECTIONS TO INCREASEPARTICIPATION.PAY CITY COUNCILORS MORE.CONCERNED ONE COUNCILOR’S SUGGESTION - MOVING PUBLICCOMMENTS TO LATER IN COUNCIL MEETINGS - PUBLIC CONVENIENCESHOULD BE PRIORITY.MR. SEEWALD - COMMENT PERIOD COUNCIL ISSUE, NOT CHARTERISSUE.MR. WARNER - WHY ELECT CITY CLERK?MR. COHEN - CHECKS AND BALANCES. SHOULD NOT INCREASECONSIDERABLE POWER OF MAYOR. DO YOU DISAGREE?
  • 6. MR. WARNER - IF ROLE IS PRIMARILY CUSTODIAL -PROFESSIONALISM - DON’T NEED VOTING BLOC/POPULARITY. ONTHE OTHER HAND, IF THERE WERE A SITUATION WHERE MAYOR ANDCITY COUNCIL COLLUDED TO SIPHON OFF ALL THE BUDGET FORPERSONAL USE, AND NO ONE PRIVY TO THAT, MAY WANT TO HAVESOMEONE OUTSIDE THAT CIRCLE. BUT THINKING WHICH SITUATIONMORE LIKELY, CHECKS AND BALANCES MAY BE PROVIDEDELSEWHERE.MR. COHEN - PROFESSIONALISM OF CITY CLERK NOT A PROBLEM.BUT HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING ELECTED AND APPOINTED.RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING RECORDS, DISSEMINATINGINFORMATION. CAN BE IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHAT’S IN RECORDS.CONTROVERSY IN PAST COUPLE OF YEARS.COUNCILOR LABARGE - CURRENT CLERK WANTS TO KEEP AS ANELECTED POSITION.MR. SEEWALD - VAST MAJORITY OF MODERN CHARTERS ELIMINATEELECTED POSITION OF THE CLERK. CLEAR MOVEMENT TOWARDAPPOINTMENT - RECORDING KEEPING; STATUTORY; PROFESSIONALPOSITION. CONTROVERSY ALLUDED TO NOT AVERTED BY FACT THATIT IS AN ELECTED POSITION. HE SEES BOTH SIDES OF ISSUES, BUT FAVORS PROFESSIONALAPPOINTMENT AS WITH ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS.MS. FOXMYN - NOT WEIGHING IN - JUST CLARIFYING - MUNICIPALAPPOINTMENTS ARE HIRING PROCESSES - NOT POLITICALAPPOINTMENTS.MR. SEEWALD - AGREES - ALSO NOT EASY TO REMOVE PUBLICEMPLOYEES. USUALLY AN OVERLAY OF MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE.MR. HERRELL - THINKING OF U.S. CONSTITUTION - OVER 200 YEARSOLD - EVERYTHING LAID OUT AT BEGINNING - STILL THE SAME.THEN THERE ARE AMENDMENTS. CITY CHARTER - ALL THESE SUBNOTES - THIS WAS AMENDED,ETC., ETC. CAN’T IT JUST BE MORE ORDERLY? HAS BEEN SAID, BUTU.S. CONSTITUTION CAME TO MIND.MR. SEEWALD - NO QUESTION. INCLUDING HANDWRITTEN PORTION.
  • 7. MR. SEEWALD READ LETTER FROM ERIC STAHLBERG III. [ATTACHEDTO MINUTES.]COMMITTEE MEMBERS RECEIVED LETTER FROM MICHAEL P. CURRAN- HAD WORKED ON CHARTER IN PAST. MR. SEEWALD READ.[ATTACHED TO MINUTES.]MR. WARNER - SPOKE TO PAT GOGGINS - INVOLVED IN PASTCHARTER COMMISSION 1970S AND 1995/1996. WOULD BE WILLINGTO MEET WITH US.MR. SEEWALD - IF COMMITTEE WANTS TO MEET WITH HIM, WECOULD SET ASIDE TIME AT NEXT MEETING.MS. FOXMYN - DOES COMMITTEE HAVE DEADLINE?COUNCILOR ADAMS - MARCH.MR. SEEWALD - WOULD LIKE TO COMPLETE BY FEBRUARY.MS. FOXMYN - AGREES WITH MARC - THE COMMITTEE SHOULD MAKERECOMMENDATION RE PROCESS - WHETHER COMMISSION ORCOMMITTEE.MR. WARNER - HOW DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THIS? WHY ONLY THREEPEOPLE.MS. FOXMYN - SAME EXPERIENCE WITH BEST PRACTICESCOMMITTEE. NEVER HAD THE DAILY HAMPSHIRE GAZETTE ATMEETINGS. SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE ATTENDED. DID MAJOROUTREACH. YOU’RE UNDER THE RADAR; A FEW ARTICLES. ALSOIT’S COMPLICATED. LIKE CIVICS LESSONS. ADAM HAS BEENFOLLOWING CITY GOVERNMENT. STEVE AND JOHN HAVE SERVEDAND BEEN INVOLVED. ALSO IT’S FREEZING OUTSIDE TONIGHT.SHE’S INTERESTED. SHE WAS ON FRANKLIN COUNTY COMMISSIONYEARS AGO. THREE COMMISSIONS IN 10 YEARS, LAST ONE FINALLYPASSED. COUNTY GOVERNMENT DISSOLVED. PEOPLE DIDN’T COMETO MEETINGS.MS. STRIEBEL - ISSUE SPECIFIC PARTICIPATION, NOT STRUCTURAL.MS. FOXMYN - BIGGEST ISSUE SHE RECALLS WAS WHETHER COUNTYCOMMISSIONERS WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE ON COUNCIL OFGOVERNMENTS.
  • 8. MR. HERRELL - MARC’S LAST QUESTION. - HEARD CHRIS COLLINSTALK ABOUT IT A FEW TIMES. HE’S ALWAYS BEEN INTERESTED INHOW PEOPLE DECIDE TO GOVERN THEMSELVES. PEOPLE IN TOWN -HE TALKED UP. HE’S APPALLED. THOUGHT ROOM WOULD BE FULLAND WE’D BE LIMITED TO 2 OR 3 MINUTES APIECE.MR. SEEWALD - WHERE DID YOU HEAR ABOUT FORUM?MR. HERRELL - CHRIS COLLINS - INTERVIEW.MR. SEEWALD - JOHN, WHERE DID YOU HEAR ABOUT IT?MR. LIND - BILL NEWMAN’S SHOW AND CHRIS COLLINS AND MONTEDEL MONTE.MR. SEEWALD - CLOSING PUBLIC FORUMMR. SEEWALD - PERHAPS IF A NICE SPRING EVENING, WITH PEOPLESTROLLING BY, MAY HAVE GOTTEN MORE. WHEN WE INVITED ALLPRESENT AND FORMER MAYOR, COUNCILORS, SCHOOL COMMITTEE,AND SMITH VOC TRUSTEES - ONLY GOT FIVE AT MEETING - MAYORHIGGINS, COUNCIL PRESIDENT NARKIEWICZ, COUNCILORPLASSMAN, AND FORMER COUNCILOR BARDSLEY. GOT GREATINFORMATION. APPRECIATED THEM COMING OUT.MR. WARNER - IF IT WAS BETWEEN SPENDING X DOLLARS TO GET ANEW CHARTER, AND MUDDLING THROUGH WITH EXISTING CHARTER,WHERE WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE, WHAT WOULD BE THETHRESHOLD AT WHICH YOU WOULD SAY IT WAS NOT WORTH IT,LET’S JUST MUDDLE THROUGH.MR. SEEWALD - WILL LET COUNCILORS ANSWER THAT.COUNCILOR ADAMS - DOLLAR AMOUNT? I DON’T KNOW WHATDOLLAR AMOUNT IS.MR. SEEWALD - NOT GOING TO GET CHEAPER. WE NEED A NEWCHARTER. NEEDED IN 1971, 1985, .. NEED ONE NOW. IT’SUNWORKABLE. AND THERE ARE SPECIFIC ISSUES WHICH NEED TOBE CHANGED, E.G., BELIEVES MAYOR SHOULD NOT CHAIR COUNCILMS. CURRIE - MAY I ASK JOHN - HOW TO EDUCATE PUBLIC? HOW TOGET THEM TO COME TO BE EDUCATED?
  • 9. MR. LIND - NEED TO DO MAILING TO EVERY HOUSEHOLD. ALSO IT’SCOLD, A WEDNESDAY NIGHT, 7 P.M. NEWSPAPER COVERAGE NOTTHAT GOOD. RADIO O.K.MR. SEEWALD - WAS IN GAZETTE.MS. FOXMYN - WOULD SUGGEST OP-ED PAGE, WHETHER TO STATE APOSITION OR ALERT PEOPLE TO PROCESS.COUNCILOR LABARGE - PROBLEM GETTING REPORTERS TO MEETINGSCOUNCILOR ADAMS - A TREMENDOUS WASTE TO MAIL - WON’T READIT.MS. CURRIE - I UNDERSTAND MAILING PROPOSED CHARTER.MR. LIND - MAY NEED TO DO CALL FOR SUGGESTIONS.MR. SEEWALD - THIS MEETING WAS A CALL FOR SUGGESTIONS.MS. CURRIE - BESIDES GAZETTE AND RADIO, ALSO COUNCILORSPOSTED ON THEIR WEBSITES, SENT TO WARD ASSOCIATIONS. ITHINK IT’S NOT SEXY.MR. LIND - IF YOU WENT TO RECYCLING CENTER AND TALKED TOPEOPLE, MIGHT FIND OUT OTHERWISE.COUNCILOR ADAMS - WHAT CAN WE DO?MR. LIND - MAY BE A LOT OF REASONS PEOPLE NOT HERE. DOESN’TMEAN EFFORT LAX. TWENTY-NINE THOUSAND IN THE CITY.SOMETIMES ONE PERSON AT CITY COUNCIL; SOMETIMES 100PEOPLE.MR. HERRELL - NOT IN CHARTER, BUT IF YOU SAID YOU WEREGETTING RID OF MAYOR, YOU’D GET PEOPLE. PEOPLE LOVE CITY -IT’S WORKING.MR. SEEWALD - THERE’S A WHOLE COMMUNITY OF PEOPLE WHO SAYMAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL CAN’T DO ANYTHING RIGHT, WHODON’T/DO NEED A NEW POLICE STATION, WE DON’T/DO NEED AHOTEL, WE DON’T/DO NEED A DAM. HIS CONCERN - NO ONE WOULDSHOW UP, OR A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD SHOW UP AND TALK ABOUTTHINGS OUT OF PURVIEW. THERE IS AN INTEREST IN GOVERNMENT.SURPRISED TO HEAR PEOPLE DID NOT ATTEND BEST PRACTICES
  • 10. MEETINGS. I SAID ON RADIO, IF YOU’RE INTERESTED IN BESTPRACTICES, YOU SHOULD BE INTERESTED IN THIS.MR. COHEN - MIGHT CONSIDER SURVEY ON-LINE, AND FREE FORMCOMMENT AREA. SET FOR SPECIFIC TIME, STARTING SOON.MS. CURRIE - SEND TO WHOM?MR. COHEN - SAME NEWS AND DISTRIBUTION SOURCES YOU USED.GOOGLE HAS SURVERY AND GOOGLE GROUPS.MS. FOXMYN - DID WITH BEST PRACTICES; JUST DID WITH SOLIDWASTE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE. SEND OUT IN PRESS RELEASE.MR. HERRELL - GOOD IDEA. COULD HAVE SPECIFIC ISSUES AND ASKFOR RESPONSES.COUNCILOR LABARGE - PEOPLE WON’T COME TO PUBLIC COMMENTSESSIONS - FEEL DEGRADED; FELL ON DEAF EARS; BUT ALSOHEARS ABOUT ISSUES - LIKE JOHN HEARS AT RECYCLING CENTER.MR. LIND - RE COST OF MAILING - EDUCATIONAL PROCESS - OP-EDGOOD IDEA - NOT EVERYONE IS ON-LINE, EVEN A DEDICATEDCOMPUTER IN LIBRARY - STILL WON’T COME. HOLDING A DOCUMENTMAKES A DIFFERENCE. AND THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT DOCUMENT.COUNCILOR LABARGE - WARD 6 - A LOT OF RESIDENTS WITHOUTCOMPUTERS.MR. SEEWALD - WILL BE FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO DEAL WITH.CLOSING PUBLIC FORUM.3. ATTENDANCE AT NEXT MEETING (5 MIN)MR. SEEWALD - JANUARY 12 - ANYONE WHO CANNOT BE HERE? HEMAY BE IN TRIAL.COUNCILOR LABARGE - IF BAD WEATHER, WHO DECIDESCANCELLATION?COUNCILOR ADAMS - WOULD SUGGEST CANCELLING THE MEETING IFYOU (MR. SEEWALD) CAN’T BE HERE. VICE-CHAIR. COULD CHAIRMEETING. COULD DECIDE ABOUT MEETING BASED ON WEATHERDECISIONS. WOULD PREFER TO MOVE IT.
  • 11. MR. SEEWALD - AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING DEPENDS ON HOWMUCH WE COVER TONIGHT. IF WE HAVE OUTLINE OFRECOMMENDATIONS, AND MAGGIE COULD DRAFT REPORT, WE’D BEREVIEWING REPORT. NEED NOT BE A TOME. OUTLINE WHAT WEDID, WHAT WE RECOMMEND.MR. WARNER - GETS THE SENSE THERE WAS CONSENSUS BEFORE HEJOINED COMMITTEE NOT TO GET INTO BROAD POLICYCONSIDERATIONS, BUT THINKS WE SHOULD HAVE A DEBATE ABOUTWHICH PROCEDURE SHOULD BE USED TO REVISE THE CHARTER.MS. CURRIE - I THOUGHT WE HAD THE DEBATE. TWO WAYS TO DOIT. PEOPLE CAN DECIDE BETWEEN THE TWO. WE CAN MAKE ARECOMMENDATION. DON’T BELIEVE WE NEED TO GO OVER THEMAGAIN.DISCUSSION ABOUT WHEN REPORT WOULD BE READY FOR US TOREVIEW, WHEN NEXT MEETING SHOULD BE. JANUARY 12CANCELLED; RESCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 5.4. DISCUSSION OF ISSUES FOR REPORT TO COUNCIL (TIMEPERMITTING)MR. SEEWALD - DO WE WANT TO COME TO RECOMMENDATION ONPROCESS? [YESSES HEARD.] I’LL ENTERTAIN DISCUSSION.MS. CURRIE - NOT COMMISSION.MR. SEEWALD - WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHY.MS. CURRIE - I COULD READ MINUTES OF LAST MEETING, ANDMEETINGS BEFORE, DURING WHICH ALAN WENT ON AND ON. IACCEPT YOUR REASONING. [READ SOME OF MINUTES.]MR. SEEWALD - [HE READ] RE EXPEDIENCE MAY NOT BEPREFERABLE. IT’S SOMETHING COUNCILORS WILL HAVE TO DECIDE.DIDN’T TAKE A POSITION. MAY HAVE ADVOCATED MORE STRONGLY,BUT REALLY DIVIDED. COUNTERVAILING INTEREST - OPEN, PUBLICPARTICIPATION VS. A STRUCTURE WHICH MAY BE MORE LIKELY TOSUCCEED.MS. STRIEBEL - NOT SURE STRUCTURE DETERMINES PARTICIPATION.EITHER STRUCTURE NEEDS TO ENGAGE PUBLIC. ELECTION DOESN’T
  • 12. GUARANTEE PARTICIPATION. INVOLVES THOSE ALREADYINTERESTED IN TOPIC. APPOINTMENT - LIKE THIS - APPLIED -INTERVIEWED. TESTED MY WILLINGNESS TO BE ENGAGED IN OURTASK. NOT ALWAYS TESTED IN AN ELECTION.MS. CURRIE - GIVES OPPORTUNITY FOR BROADER MEMBERSHIP.LARGE, VERY LARGE COMMITTEE. CONVINCING PEOPLE WHO SPEAKAT RECYCLING CENTER AND TO COUNCILOR LABARGE TOPARTICIPATE.COUNCILOR LABARGE - THEY WON’T.MS. CURRIE - THERE WILL ALWAYS BE PEOPLE WHO COMPLAIN ANDARE DISSATISFIED, BUT ARE NOT WILLING TO COME FORWARD ANDDO SOMETHING TO CHANGE IT. A LARGE COMMITTEE GIVES THEOPPORTUNITY WITH METHODS OF BEST PRACTICES, BETTER PUBLICNOTIFICATION. ALL YOU CAN DO IS GET INFORMATION OUT, ANDPEOPLE DECIDE WHETHER TO TAKE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE.COUNCILOR LABARGE - AGREES WITH WENDY - LARGE COMMITTEE -INTERVIEW PROCESS - VALUABLE. WANTS COMMISSION.MR. SEEWALD - NINE LARGE ENOUGH?COUNCILOR LABARGE - THAT’S LARGE.COUNCILOR ADAMS - EXPEDIENCY - COMMITTEEMR. WARNER - HOPES YOU CAN GET PUBLIC INTEREST. MAYBE HOLDA SERIES OF DEBATES. PROCESS - WOULDN’T WANT COMMISSIONOR COMMITTEE WITHOUT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLICINVOLVEMENT.STILL WOULD NEED PUBLIC REFERENDUM.CLEANING UP DOCUMENT. EDITING. UNDERSTANDS IT OPENS UPTO POLICY CHANGES, BUT JUST HAVING A CLEAN DOCUMENT WOULDBE HELPFUL.WOULD NOT WANT TO HAVE PUBLIC REFERENDUM WITHOUT PEOPLEBEING INFORMED OF CONSEQUENCES OF DECISION. WOULD LIKETO SEE DEBATE WITH PRESENTATION OF PROS AND CONS ON EACHISSUE.MR. SEEWALD - SPECIAL ACT OR COMMISSION?
  • 13. MR. WARNER - SPECIAL ACT. SIMPLICITY.MS. STRIEBEL - DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD HAVE A LOSS OF PUBLICINPUT ?MR. WARNER - COULD HAVE A LOSS OF PUBLIC INPUT. WOULDHOPE/EXPECT WOULD STILL HAVE A FORUM TO MAKE DECISIONSTRANSPARENT AND ALLOW PUBLIC TO HAVE INPUT.MS. STRIEBEL - IF COMMITTEE APPOINTED - DOES IT COME WITHMANDATE FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION? [NO.]SO WE COULD RECOMMEND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BE INCLUDED.MS. FOXMYN - COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS TO CITY COUNCIL - WHO HAS VESTED INTERESTS IN WHAT EXISTSSTRUCTURALLY.MR. SEEWALD - AS DOES THE MAYOR. IMPLICATION IS THAT SOMEISSUES WOULD BE OFF THE TABLE - TERM LIMITS, E.G..COUNCILOR ADAMS - MAYOR DOES NOT VETO.MR. WARNER - COUNCIL COULD HAVE VESTED INTEREST. IS THEREA WAY TO INSURE INDEPENDENCE?MS. STRIEBEL - CAN WE MANDATE A REFERENDUM?MR. SEEWALD - WE CAN’T MANDATE ANYTHING. CITY COUNCIL CANMANDATE IT. I’M PRETTY SURE IN RECENT TIMES LEGISLATURE HASREQUIRED A RATIFICATION BY THE VOTERS.MR. WARNER - A COMMISSION WOULD BE INDEPENDENT OFCOUNCIL AND THE MAYOR?MR. SEEWALD - WE COULD RECOMMEND, HYPOTHETICALLY, THATTHE COUNCIL APPOINT A COMMITTEE THAT HAS A BUDGET, HASSTAFF, IS ABLE TO HIRE CONSULTANTS, SIGNIFICANT PUBLICEDUCATION COMPONENT, SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC HEARINGCOMPONENT, APPOINTMENT BY MERIT, DIVERSE, RACIALLY,ECONOMICALLY, VOCATIONALLY, REGIONALLY THROUGHOUT THECITY, VOTER RATIFICATION.
  • 14. MR. WARNER - WOULD COMMISSION PRODUCT BE SUBJECT TO VETOBY COUNCIL? [NO.] IS THERE CONCERN RE POTENTIALINTERFERENCE?MR. SEEWALD - INTERFERENCE? NO. THINKS COMMITTEE WOULDTAKE MAJOR STRUCTURAL CHANGES OFF THE TABLE.MS. STRIEBEL - COMMITTEE COULD STILL MAKE IT’S OWNRECOMMENDATIONS. LESS ASSURED ACCOUNTABILITY?MR. SEEWALD - IF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS ELIMINATION OFMAYOR AND GO TO CITY MANAGER, WOULD MAYOR SIGN IT?MS. STRIEBEL - ANTICIPATING ONLY CLARITY RECOMMENDATIONS.MR. SEEWALD - NO. TRYING TO BALANCE MOST LIKELY TO SUCCEEDWITH SOME CHANGES, E.G, MAYOR PRESIDING OVER COUNCIL.UNLIKELY THAT ANY PROCESS WOULD CHANGE BASIC FORM OFGOVERNMENT. GREATER LIKELIHOOD OF COMMITTEE PROCESSSUCCEEDING.MS. STRIEBEL - RISK - COMMISSION WOULD RECOMMEND CHANGES,AND COULD LOSE AT BALLOT BOX.MR. WARNER - IF JUST CLEARER DOCUMENT WITH LIMITED POLICYCHANGES, ONCE YOU OPEN IT UP ALL, STILL HAVE OPPORTUNITYFOR BROADER CHANGES.MR. SEEWALD - NOT SUGGESTING LIMITATION. JUST SUGGESTINGMAJOR STRUCTURAL CHANGES UNLIKELY.MR. WARNER - ANY WAY TO ESTABLISH INDEPENDENCE ...COUNCILOR ADAMS - COULD WE JUST VOTE, AND THEN GET TOOTHER RECOMMENDATIONS.MR. SEEWALD - WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.MR. WARNER - JUST WANTS TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE FULLUNDERSTANDING OF ALL RAMIFICATIONS.MS. STRIEBEL - WANTS TO LOOK AT INFO FROM CONTRERAS ...UNLESS WENDY - IF YOU HAVE A SENSE OF RELATIVE EFFICACY OFMETHODS.
  • 15. MS. FOXMYN - ONLY KNOWS ABOUT CHARTER COMMISSIONS. ISMONEY MAJOR STUMBLING BLOCK? EXPEDIENCY - TIME-CONSUMING, DEMOCRACY IS MESSY. ANYTHING GOVERNMENTDOES NEEDS TIME AND CARE. COUNCIL HAS DONE IN MINI WAYS.ISSUE IS DO YOU WANT TO HAVE INDEPENDENT GROUP,INDEPENDENT OF COUNCIL.MR. SEEWALD - SINCE HOME RULE AMENDMENT PASSED - 180COMMISSIONS; 88 HOME RULE CHARTERS [ETC. RE CITIES VS.TOWNS.]MS. FOXMYN - TOWNS HAVE GONE TO CITIES. MAJOR REVAMPING.HAVE YOU HEARD THERE ARE ENOUGH SUBSTANTIVE, STRUCTURALCHANGES WHICH NEED TO BE DONE?MR. SEEWALD - WE’VE HEARD ABOUT THINGS LIKE TERMS, TERMLIMITS, MAYOR CHAIRING CITY COUNCIL, CHAIRING SCHOOLCOMMITTEE. REALISTICALLY, NEITHER COMMISSION NORCOMMITTEE LIKELY TO MAKE MAJOR CHANGES. CLEAN UP ANDMINOR POLICY CHANGES. COMMITTEE MOST EXPEDITIOUS,EFFICIENT, AND GREATEST LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS. COMMISSIONMEMBERS IDENTIFY SELVES AS HAVING AN ISSUE.MS. CURRIE - OR ARE INTERESTED IN GOVERNMENT.MS. STRIEBEL - OR HAVE THE TIME AND RESOURCES.MR. SEEWALD - BELIEVES THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO WOULD BEVALUABLE, BUT WOULD NOT PUT THEMSELVES OUT THERE.MS. FOXMYN - IN COMMENT RE JUST CLEAN UP. CAN’T SEE HOW YOUWOULDN’T GET TO POLICY ISSUES.MS. STRIEBEL - TERM LIMITS, E.G., IS THERE AN ALTERNATIVE WAYTO CHANGE OTHER THAN CHARTER REVISION.MR. SEEWALD - TERM LIMITS IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAN’T BECHANGED WITHOUT COMMISSION OR SPECIAL ACT COMMITTEE.MR. WARNER - APPLIES ONLY TO CURRENT COUNCIL AND MAYOR?MR. SEEWALD - NONE OF THIS APPLIES ONLY TO THOSE CURRENTLYSERVING.
  • 16. MS. FOXMYN - A FEW YEARS AGO - A LOT OF TOWNS AND CITIESTRIED TO DO TERM LIMITS - REFERENDUM.MR. SEEWALD - ONLY WAY CITIZENS CAN BRING TERM LIMITS TOFORE IS TO PETITION FOR CHARTER COMMISSION.MS. FOXMYN - IT WAS DONE .. SORRY - SHE WAS REFERRING TORECALL.MR. WARNER - PIECEMEAL CHANGES - ALL WENT TO LEGISLATURE.MS. FOXMYN - MUCH OF IT UNDER THE RADAR.MR. SEEWALD - EVEN IF WE HAD COMMISSION, COUNCIL COULDSTILL AMEND BY SPECIAL ACT.MR. SEEWALD - DO I HAVE A MOTION? READY TO VOTE ON PROCESSWE RECOMMEND FOR AMENDING THE CHARTER?MS. CURRIE - MOTION - THAT WE VOTE.COUNCILOR ADAMS - SECOND.MR. SEEWALD - NEED A SUBSTANTIVE MOTION.COUNCILOR ADAMS - BELIEVES MOTION WAS TO VOTE ON WHETHERTO RECOMMEND THAT CITY COUNCIL AMEND CITY CHARTER BYCOMMISSION OR SPECIAL ACT. HE SECONDS MOTION.MR. SEEWALD - [CLARIFYING.]MS. CURRIE - MOTION - RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTA COMMITTEE TO AMEND THE CHARTER BY SPECIAL ACT.MR. WARNER - SECONDED.MR. SEEWALD - DISCUSSION? NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? - UNANIMOUS.A FEW MINUTES BEFORE WE NORMALLY ADJOURN. ANY PARTICULARRECOMMENDATIONS?ASK COUNCIL - LARGE COMMITTEE BROAD REPRESENTATION - GEO, ECONOMICALLY DIVERSE, RACIALLY, ECONOMICALLY, REGIONALLY
  • 17. INCLUDE STRONG EDUCATIONAL COMPONENT BROAD NOTICE TO COMMUNITY - DELIBERATIONS, ETC. TRANSPARENT VOTER RATIFICATIONMS. STRIEBEL - MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL THATCOMMITTEE INCLUDE THOSE CHARACTERISTICS. COUNCILORLABARGE SECONDED. VOTE - UNANIMOUSMR. SEEWALD -ASKED MAGGIE TO PUT LIST TOGETHER (FROMMINUTES OF LAST MEETING) - BY END OF JANUARY - DO WE NEEDJANUARY 5 MEETING ?MS. STRIEBEL - IS THERE VALUE IN REPORT TO CHARACTERIZECHARTER - GENERAL CONTENT - FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES.MR. SEEWALD - THINKS IT HAS TO INCLUDE BROAD DESCRIPTION OFCHARTER. ALSO NEED TO PUT IN EXACT CHARGE OF COMMITTEE -ORDINANCE ITSELF. OUTLINE WHAT WE HAVE DONE.(COUNCILOR ADAMS HAD TO LEAVE.)MR. WARNER - PROCESS FOR REVIEW?MR. SEEWALD - BRING COMMENTS TO MEETING.MS. CURRIE - AGREE WE DO NOT NEED JANUARY 5 MEETING?MR. SEEWALD - YES. WILL E-MAIL MARY MIDURA.5. ADJOURNMS. STRIEBEL - MOVED. COUNCILOR LABARGE SECONDED.