01-09-25 - Charter Commission Agenda Packet.docx

Home Search

Charter Commission July 8, 2024 Page 2 47 Commissioner Trehus distributed a draft resolution that he would present in response. 48 49 The City Attorney stated that the draft resolution provided by Commissioner Trehus includes 50 authority that the Commission does not have and therefore he would recommend that the 51 Commission acknowledge the petitions as he previously recommended. 52 53 Chair Dahl suggested that details of the petitioned amendments be included in the resolution and 54 the City Attorney agreed those references could be added. 55 56 Commissioner Trehus continued to express his opposition to acknowledging the petitions. 57 58 The City Attorney provided additional details on the proper process for receipt, 59 acknowledgment, and review of the petition. He explained that the only action of the 60 Commission is to acknowledge the petitions. 61 62 The City Clerk provided additional details on the responsibility of the Charter Commission to 63 receive and forward the petitions submitted, noting that the City Council will then determine if 64 the petitions are technically sufficient and legally valid. 65 66 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Damiani, to adopt the draft 67 resolution that he presented. 68 69 Further discussion: A member of the Commission asked for details on how the Charter 70 Commission could request to amend the Charter. 71 72 The City Clerk clarified that the Charter Commission can meet and propose amendments to the 73 Charter. She explained that in this case, residents have joined together to sign and submit 74 petitions and the role of the Commission is simply to acknowledge receipt and forward that on. 75 76 A member of the Commission asked for clarification on who should abstain from the vote and 77 the City Attorney provided input. 78 79 Motion passed 9 ayes — 2 nays (Frolik and Vanderpoel) — 1 abstention. 80 81 A member of the Commission asked for reconsideration given the advice received prior to the 82 vote. 83 84 A member of the Commission expressed frustration with what the Commission adopted. He 85 noted that there was a concern that the motion suggested by staff did not include the titles of the 86 petitions, so language was developed to include those details but then the Commission instead 87 chose to use the draft of Commissioner Trehus rather than actual legal counsel. He expressed 88 concern that this action would be defective and would work against the desires of the residents 89 who submitted the petitions for their requests to move forward. 90 91 The City Attorney explained that the Commission could reconsider the motion that was adopted 92 if someone who voted in favor of the motion made such a request. He reiterated his opinion on