HomeMy WebLinkAboutRoy Worksheet Step 1 September
September 7, 2004
E-mail from Roy Bashaw
********************************
You suggested that I e-mail everyone to let them know what I intend to propose.
Unfortunately my lack of technology probably prevents me from trying to send to
everyone, so I am sending this to you and requesting that you send it to everyone you
choose.
First, the simple part. Tom Sponsler took two hours last meeting and made a presentation
and answered questions. It sounded good and based on what I know about his ability and
and his integrity, I suggest that he be placed on the agenda for consideration as a
consultant. I intend, then, to move that the committee approve him and that the city
contract with him in the terms and conditions of his proposal, the contract to be in such
form as the city attorney deems fair, and in the best interests of the city, and in
accordance with the legal requirements for a personal service agreement. If someone
else moves I will readily second the motion, and will be content with whatever decision
the committee then makes.
Secondly, the long part. I took a couple of hours this labor day and drafted, for my own
use, a rough and very preliminary "Step 1" of the Charter Edit Worksheet Instructions'"
It is not what I expect to end up with. In fact Step 1 has to be the subject of unanimous
agreement, after we have heard and considered all the advice we get from everyone. But
I believe that it at least gives me some idea of the questions I think should be asked.
What concepts and policies found in the present charter do we want to retain. What
follows is not an approval of the policies so much as an acceptance of them in some form
and with changes. The references are to Article and Section in the existing charter.
ARTICLES I AND II. Concepts ok
ARTICLE III. Sections 1 2 and 3 ok, subject to comments below as to elected Recorder
and Judge. Sections 4, 5 and 6 ok. Subject to comments below
ARTICLE IV Section 1 ok. Section 2 ok, subject to comments regarding Mayor as chief
executive if city manager form, Section 3 ok
ARTICLE V ok in concept
ARTICLE V Concept ok
ARTICLE VI Section 1 subject to comments below. Section 2 first clause ok but
remainder is subject to comment. Sections 3 & 4 ok in concept.
ARTICLE VI-A ok but subject to comment re: elective judge, and vacancy
ARTICLE VII. OK BUT subject to comment.
ARTICLE VIII. Concept ok, but subject to comment below
ARTICLE IX Sec 1 ok except limits in penalty are better established by ordinance
Sec. 2 not ok. 15-mill levy confers no authority, and is unnecessary & confusing.
Sec 2a, not ok; delete it Comments below. Sec 2b, not ok. Delete. Section 3, omit' see
comment below. Section 4, 5,6 and 7. Omit. See comment below
ARTICLE X Sec. 1, ok in concept ,but see comments below
ARTICLE XI Sec 1,2 and 3 concept ok. Sec 4 archaic. Subject is dealt with by state
statute, and better to handle by ordinance
ARTICLE XII State statute has preempted. Omit
ARTICLE XIII Sec. 1. Concept ok, subject to comment below. Sec 2. Omit. Let council
organize the city by ordinance. Sec. 3. concept ok except council must control salaries.
Sec 4 & 5. ok
ARTICLE XIV Should be organized by ordinance
ARTICLE XV Concept ok
ARTICLE XVI Concept ok
ARTICLE XVII Sec 1 is ok. Sec 2 See comments
ARTICLE XVIII Sec. 1, delete - no authority. Other sections ok in concept but better
provided by ordinance
ARTICLE XIX Sections 1 and 2, ok in concept. Sec 3 & 4 Do not approve. See
comment below.
ARTICLE XIX a Don't touch without knowing more.
ARTICLE XX Airport. Ok
ARTICLE XXII Don't touch without knowing more
ARTICLE
ARTICLE XIII
COMMENTS
ARTICLE III Sec 1 & 2 Raises issue of elected vs. appointed officers. Consider separate
Sec 6, Statutes govern this.
ARTICLE IV Sec 2. If mayor remains chief executive, and there is also a city manager,
the charter must carefully define the areas of authority of each, or confer auth on the
council to do so by ordinance.
ARTICL VI Sec 1. OK but needs update; and depends upon what officers are elected or
appointed. Sec. 2 First clause is ok, but stuff about tax levy should be left to state law.
ARTICLE IX Sec 1. Concept ok but limiting penalty by charter is not necessary and it's
better to have council limiting it by ordinance. Sec 2 Delete. a limit of 15 mills/ dollar
means nothing . Power to tax is inherent but limited by state constitution. Secs 2a and 2b.
Omit. Bonds are already sold. Sec 3 Special assessments. Covered by statute. Sec 4.
Omit. already covered by statute/ Sections 5-7 omit. It is best for charter simply to say
that bonded indebtedness must be authorized by vote of the people (except revenue
bonds, maybe)
ARTICLE X Sec 1. Ordinances, resolutions, orders and simple motions should have
their roles described
ARTICLE XI. Sec. 1-3 ok but unnecessary. Sec4 is archaic. Subject should be
governed by statutes or ordinances.
ARTICLE XII Sec 1-3 are ok but state statute has preempted the property tax process and
these serve no purpose.
ARTICLE XIII. Sec. 1. Concept ok but affected by role, if any, of city manager.
Sec. 2 Delete. Provide by ordinance and not locked into charter. Sec 3 Concept ok but
city council should control salaries.
ARTICLE XIV Should be organized by ordinance.
ARTICLE XV. Concept ok.
ARTICLE XVI Concept ok, if the idea is that no utility can be sold without vote of
people.
ARTICLE XVII Sec 1 ok. Sec 2, Need to know more about this.
ARTICLE XVIII Sec 1 This confers no levy authority Sec. 2Concept ok but would be
better if done by ordinance.
ARTICLE XIX Sec 1 & 2, concept ok. Section 3 is problem. The council in another part
of the charter has the ultimate power to govern (except as otherwise provided in the
charter), and the Park Commission is separately elected. In this provision the Park
Commission has control of all park lands and of park funds. This has to be resolved by
charter. It is evident that they have gotten along and it would be well to find that out how
and to spell it out.
ARTICLE XX OK.
ARTICLE XXI This says city must support the city band as well as possible, but levy
has no effect in state law. Spirit of city involved
ARTICLE XXII. What's this?!