01262004 Regular Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Memo To: From: Subject: Date: Mayor Robert Habingreither and City Council Members Charter Review Commission Minority Report of the 2003-04 Charter Review Commission January 9, 20014 The 2003-04 Charter Review Commission, appointed by the City Council in July of 2003, has concluded its work. As not all members of the Commission fully supported and could not in good conscience endorse all the recommendatigns made to City Council in the majority report, this minority report is respectfully submitted to the City Council for your consideration. The minority report endorses all the recommendations oft_he majority report with the following exceptions: A. Substantive Revisions 1. Section 3.02(a)(2) re~ardin[ r,esidency requirem,en~, for City Council members ,: No charter change is recommended. Rationale: In attempting to remove what some members of the Commission felt were "ambiguities" in the existing City Charter, the resulting Commission recommendations will add more ambiguity than they will clarify. For example: Requirement (A) The, person.must, sle, ep, at night at the, residency; Is this to be interpreted as one night a week...two nights...four out of seven nights? Is the language intended to mean a majority of nights of each week...each month...each year...or every night 365 nights a year? The literalist might assume day-sleepers would be excluded from City Council membership. While one may admire the intent of such language, one must question execution of that intent. The vagueness and lack of specificity in the language of this requirement, as proposed, falls far short of achieving the stated purpose of providing "a more objective b~is for.determining residency". It does in fact only add additional layers of ambiguity and the potential for unnecessary political intrigue as candidates and political factions attempt to trace the sleeping habits of their opponents during .'°the year preceding the election." Requirement (C) , The person must use the residency,address as the pers0n~S home address on ,,documents such as employm,ent,,recor, ds~ resumes, business cards, government fo~s an, d lo.an ao~}lications; In using the language "documents .such as," the Commission recommendation leaves to the fertile imagination exactly what other "documents" might be required. The result is more ambiguity...not less. As to the five recommended documents: