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