Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Case #2. <br /> <br />Consider Revisions to Subsections 2.5 and 4.5.5 of the City's <br />Charter <br /> <br />Chair Deemer stated that last fall he went to the City Council meeting and presented the <br />Commission's suggested amendment to the Council. There was a lot of resistance to the <br />last paragraph about liaison. He stated that he has asked for a version of the amendment <br />without that language. We could not convince the City Council about the short amount <br />of time this would be. By putting this language in the Charter, we might be <br />micromanaging the City Council. <br /> <br />Attorney Goodrich stated this was the focus of Council's attention. He felt they were a <br />little insulted - as if it seemed the remaining members of the Council could not represent <br />the City. When the amendment was brought to the Council, they (Council) suggested a <br />joint meeting with the Charter Commission could be held. <br /> <br />Commissioner Sherman stated that last time we discussed the time frame where we <br />would have a vacancy, f she remembered correctly, she thought it wasn't very long. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich replied that the longest period would be seven months. He explained the <br />different scenarios. He read what the Charter used to say about liaisons; however, then <br />we implemented the ward system and got rid of the liaison language. <br /> <br />Commissioner Cleveland stated that her concern is when you have two at-large <br />representatives on the City Council and they live in the same area, it's harder for them to <br />be a liaison for another area and it's good for the public to know whom to call. She felt <br />there needs to be someone who can specifically focus on an area. How do we protect <br />citizens from having all the City Councilmembers "lean" to one side. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich read the City Council meeting minutes pertaining to the discussion of the <br />proposed Charter amendment. <br /> <br />Commissioner Sherman suggested maybe we should just have a joint meeting with the <br />Council before we discuss this any further. <br /> <br />Commissioner Cleveland stated that it could be two seats - two vacancies - maybe one is <br />an at-large seat. We can change the wording - soften the language. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich noted that there are a lot of new members on the Council now - there may <br />be a different thinking. <br /> <br />Commissioner Sherman felt that the language is good - Council just took it wrong. She <br />reiterated she would be interested in a joint meeting. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer referred to the second line - to act as liaison for those whose seat <br />is vacant. . . He thought that maybe we need to be more specific. <br /> <br />Charter Commission - May 19, 2009 <br />Page 3 of8 <br />