Gordon Ziebarth Correspondence - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

section 2.09 continued- I am not suggesting the elimination of an administrator, I am suggesting a very careful and critical examination of the administrators role. I am also suggesting that if a charter is born with the present language here and in chapter 6, you will have effectively eliminated the present role of the administrator and created administrative problems that could take years to correct once:the suggested chain of command is in place. This is an extremely important issue and one that bears close scrutiny. Section 3.01. I think council should do as present and when it becomes a problem it should be a very easy issue to arouse interest in change. (above comment refers to last sentence in 3.01.) Suggest its elimination. Section 3.02. This was something in the model charter that may not really apply to our situation. If we are talking about duties of the clerk it should go into chapter 6 and if we are talking about a secretary to council we need to have administrative input at meetings which makes it difficult to be a secretary at the same time. QUESTION: What is the Charter Commissions intent? Section 3.03. What does state law say about compelling attendance of absent members and when is a member considered absent with cause? Section 3.04. I am assuming that this would eliminate Resolution 983 if it is-not-converted-to-an-ordinance prior to charter adoption.—I-think-- a closed statement on resolutions would be helpful here rather than searching the remainder of the document for exceptions to ordinances. Section 3.05, 3.08, 3.09. Regarding the time delay, my experience has been that the delay factor now has in some cases hurt the cities situation and we have come under criticism for this. Adding more delay and advertizing to developers that we 44, legislating a building moratorium two months in advance may make a critical difference in the cities ability to defend itself in court. This needs to be looked at carefully. (-3)