HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 - MINUTES - 6/13/2001 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2001
An Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California,
was called to order by Mayor Kleindienst, in the Large Conference Room, 3200 Tahquitz
Canyon Way, on Wednesday, June 13, 2001, at 5:30 p.m., at which time, the City Attorney
announced items to be discussed in Closed Session, and at 7:00 p.m., the meeting was
convened in open session.
ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Jones, Hodges, Oden, Reller-Spurgin, and
Mayor Kleindienst
Absent: None
The meeting was opened with the Salute to the Flag.
REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA: City Clerk reported that.the agenda was posted in
accordance with Council procedures on June 8, 2001.
REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY ON MATTERS DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION (All
Entities) - See items on Page of agenda this date.
PRESENTATIONS: None.
HOUSING AUTHORITY: INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY: FINANCING
AUTHORITY: - No Business
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Mayor declared the meeting adjourned for
the purpose of convening as the Community Redevelopment Agency; after which,
members reconvened as the City Council.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: (3-minute limit per person on matters within the jurisdiction of the
Council)._
a) Comments on Item 1:
Mary Bruell, no address given, stated that permission is not obtained for video
recordings in banks, stores, airports and the like; that: the program is needed in
the downtown area; that the program will assist the police department in its
duties and added that the installation of cameras will also bring peace of mind to
strollers that frequent the downtown in the evening.
Martin Bruell, no address given, stated that as a retired District Attorney, this
program as proposed will be a tool for the police department; that as an attorney
he is not aware of any constitutional provisions that would be violated; that the
police department can not be everywhere, nor could the City hire enough officers
to cover the area like the cameras will be able to; that some critics may say that
the cameras violate their privacy, but the cameras will be viewing public areas,
not private. a
Roger Sunpath, no address given stated opposition to the proposed surveillance;
that each face will be imaged and linked to a database; that the cameras are not
being installed just to watch people, but are being placed in public areas and the
images are being held by the government; and that approval will result in
violation of the 4" and 5`h amendments to the United States Constitution.
Council Minutes
06-13-01, Page 2
Todd Young, no address given, stated opposition to the cameras based on
' invasion of privacy and the loss of freedom.
Garland David Waery, no address given, stated the choice to live in Palm
Springs was due to its being a small city; that the Desert Sun stated that the
cameras would be on Palm Canyon, but are actually already in place on Indian
Canyon; and the Council should be clear on what it is really saying.
Ric Service, 38155 Via Fortuna, stated that the Council should move ahead in
the refinancing of the Convention Center bonds; and that it should be known that
the merchant had discussed the cameras; that it does have a strong position of
support; that the previous speaker was actually referring to traffic cameras on
Indian, not security cameras; that the merchants do feel that the cameras will be
another tool for the police to use in deterring crime; that the Council could not
hire enough police officers to do what the cameras can do; that the cost was
misquoted in the Desert Sun; and that approval of the item will help conserve
City resources.
Doug Hassel, provider of security cameras, stated that this is just another tool for
the police to use in the fight against crime; that the cameras will be placed in
public areas where privacy needs should not exist; that the technology is needed
to help people feel safe when visiting the downtown in the evening.
Bill Feingold, no address given, stated opposition to the cameras; that the
program is sending the wrong message about Palm Springs; that if one owns a
business, the purchase of a surveillance may be warranted, but the government
should not be putting cameras up; that the only way to prevent crime is to hire
more police officers; that this program is an invasion of privacy; that right now the
City is great for tourism and the resident, but it is not Times Square, and the
cameras are unwarranted.
Allen Killfoil, no address given; stated that those who trade liberty for security,
lose both; that it may be that the police are not our friends; that recent sting
operations have tested the merchants on compliance with the law, but where is
the test for police officers;, and that it may be that the police chief needs a
recorder in his car to monitor his conversations.
Dick Sroda, P.O. Box 5066, stated that each year the Mounted Police are looking
for City support to maintain their horses; and while that support is limited, the
Council can find money for spy cameras; that it is expected that one will be
monitored in store, but one should not expect to be watched on a public street;
that it is ironic that the movie Pearl Harbor has just been released to show how
people gave their lives for our freedom, and the Council is taking that freedom
away; that if the United Kingdom is so great in its use of cameras, those who
want the cameras can live there; that the citizens have rights and those rights
should be upheld.
M.C. Edwards, writer, stated opposition and added that the idea of cameras has
' the potential to reduce private space in the City; that it does need to be
understood what is being presented; that this sounds like a "yuppie brainstorm";
that the merchants concerns are understandable, but implementation of the
program is short sighted; and questioned who exactly is promoting the program.
Council Minutes
06-13-01, Page 3
Robert Hernandez, Palm Springs Youth, stated that Palm Springs does not have
one-quarter of the crime found in Los Angeles; that the funds should be used to
help build a skate park; and that the City needs a place for the youth to hang out.
Gene Hetsell, no address given, stated that one should read the book 1984
about every two years; that the cameras give the aura of big brother; that safety
is needed, but that forethought and regulations should also be a part of the
process.
Darrell Meeks, Morongo Valley, stated that the City Attorney should be
questioned as to the potential liability concerning the cameras; and questioned if
other areas of the City request the cameras, what will the process be; that the
litigation costs in cities that have the cameras is very high; that in one city the
cameras were taken away from police department control; that in other cities the
replacement costs for the cameras is high, and repairs have to be made; that
personal advise to Council member Jones is not to support the program due to
its high cost; that approval of the program will keep business out of the area; and
that it may end up when other businesses come to town, part of the negotiations
will be for the City to provide cameras.
Mathew Talala, no address given, stated that it is not clear what people may be
doing on Palm Canyon that privacy is needed for; that the security is needed;
that the Council's responsibility is to provide for the safety of its citizens; that
while most in the City are unaware how the cameras will be monitored, it is clear,
they will not be, unless a service call is received for that area; that the Downtown
Committee worked for eight months regarding the program; that no opposition
was heard; that people who come downtown are in support; that crime is alive
and well in Palm Springs; that the Hotel Association does support the program;
and that the program has been reviewed and weighed on its merits and has
resulted in support.
Jim Stuart, no address given, stated that when one first hears of the program it
does sound like big brother; but after serving the last seven years on the State's
Parole Board, dealing with drug addicts and the like, this program should be
approved; that probationers are not allowed to attend Village Fest; that the
addition of this program would allow for those violators to be caught; that for
example in Culver City, a murderer is behind bars due to surveillance cameras;
and recommended consideration of the matter.
Paula, Safari Furniture, stated that support should be given to the program; that
the area does have a lot of crime and the cameras will help alleviate some of it.
James Cooperfield, Ex-Deputy Sheriff, stated opposition to the cameras; that
public safety is important, but that this is civil liberty.
Eric Meeks, Celebrity Bookstore, stated that the Police Advisory Committee did
review the matter; that it was explained that no audible system would be in place;
that as the Chairman, he was prevented from voting, but that if he could have
voted, the vote would have been no; that there is concern with crime; but this
situation has the feel of the secret police; that when documents were requested
regarding the grant, the story was the department did not have them, or that they
were not available; that this was a denial of public records and information; that
information submitted did not appear in the Council's packets; that in the past
Council Minutes
06-13-01, Page 4
' four years there have been many issues arise regarding the police department;
that things such as selling of police badges, illegal strip and searches; that this
type of program is a weapon that can be greatly abused; that the Council should
vote no, but should establish a full time Police Commission to monitor the police
department; that other areas in the City have an oversight body, but the police
department does not.
Bob McDonald, stated that cameras do not stop crime; that robberies occur at
liquor stores, banks, and casinos; that if the goal of the city is to reduce crime,
then more police officers should be hired or citizens should be given the ability to
defend themselves and that grant money is still taxpayer money.
Maggie Winters, 200 Racquet Club Road, stated that she had been a victim of
crime; that it is not good; that she was attacked in downtown Palm Springs; that if
there had been cameras at that time, it may be that the perpetrator would have
been caught, as it stands there has been no arrest.
Mathilda Jones, 1315 Manzanita, stated cameras are everywhere;'that they are
not in place to spy, but are here for the safety of people; that when one goes
downtown, the fact must be acknowledged that people do go downtown to
commit crime; that the cameras are needed for safety and no price is too high to
prevent rape or murder.
Maria Mason, no address given, stated that it is effective to bring up stories of
' murder or rape; that she was almost murdered, but that a camera would not have
been of assistance in her case; and that more police officers should be put on
the street.
b) Comments on matters not on the agenda:
Wendy Busig-Kohn, read a prepared statement, copy on file in Office of the City
Clerk regarding solar energy.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
COUNCIL COMMENTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS/INTERAGENCY REPORTS:
LEGISLATIVE ACTION:
1. DOWNTOWN SECURITY CAMERAS
Recommendation: That the Council authorize the purchase of equipment
necessary to provide closed circuit television cameras (CCTV) in the downtown
and uptown areas of Palm Springs to assist law enforcement in crime deterrence,
crime detection, apprehension, and prosecution, for a total of$160,143.57.
' City Manager reviewed the staff report and added that staff is being asked to do
more for less; that this will assist the police department in achieving that goal;
that the security cameras should not be viewed as big brother, rather as a small
friend; that the cameras will help in the prevention of vandalism and crime; that
everyone needs to feel secure; that cameras are located at ATM's, banks,
Council Minutes
06-13-01, Page 5
drugstores and Loew's has 27 cameras in its store; that the airport has dozens of
cameras to assist in its users security; that the downtown merchants have
expressed support for the program; that everyone's first choice is to hire more
police officers, but that is not an option; that the cameras will not intrude in one's
privacy, but will allow a feeling of security.
Police Chief, stated that the item, if approved, will come back to the Council for
the installation and software portions; that there are grant funds available; that
the department has been working on the program for several months; that now
the end of the line to decide the matter is here; that the grant funds are targeted
for cameras and can not be used to hire more police officers; that it is a
technology grant; that as the Police Chief the recommendation is to authorize the
purchase for the City to prevent crime; that some have stated that installation of
the cameras will only displace crime; that if that happens, then the cameras are
doing their job; that the crime in the downtown area is there due to tourists,
shops and opportunity; that everywhere the cameras have been installed, crime
has been reduced; that this is a proven program; that other Cities were contacted
that have the program; that the feeling is that it is the best thing for-prevention of
crime; that the communities contacted do support the program; that the
Chambers of Commerce in those same communities support the program; that
the Chamber in Baltimore did not take a position, but have had little feedback
from their community; that there are cameras already in place at the train station,
that those particular cameras use an older technology, but are likewise monitored
at the dispatch center; that the City does have an Ordinance in place that
requires convenience stores to have closed circuit television on site; that
robberies still occur, but that there would be more if the cameras were not in
place; that there will be on going costs for replacements and due to vandalism;
that there will be maintenance costs also; that the monitors will be placed in the
dispatch center and used when a request for service come in; that it is the
responsibility of the police department to try to prevent crime in this city; that the
department should be able to catch criminals who perpetrate crime; that with the
14 cameras, that will be like 56 sets of eyes; that it would take an additional 4.2
officers to cover a 24 hour period for the City; that the cost would be around $2.5
million; that this is the use of technology for what it has been invented for; that
this program will send a safe and secure message to the downtown visitor; that
from here, if the program is approved, controls will need to be set in place; that
the installation should not be done in a vacuum, but rather with media exposure;
that that policies and procedures governing the use do need to be set in place;
that the cameras will not be used to view private areas, but public only; that the
intent is not to violate people's right to privacy; that if prudent policies are set in
place, abuses with the cameras will not occur; that signs will be posted informing
the placement of the cameras; that the Attorney General was contacted to
determine who can have access and view the videos; that if the same type of law
is used as with some other records, the videos can net be viewed without a court
order; that the videos are for the eyes of law enforcement only; that the
determination of the Attorney General is pending; that should an allegation arise
against an officer, the videos could be used to view the incident; and requested
approval of the program. e
Councilmember Oden requested that the process of how the cameras will be
utilized be explained.
Council Minutes
06-13-01, Page 6
Police Chief stated that the monitors will be installed in the dispatch center; that
' there will be four monitors, with each capable of handling up to four cameras;
that should dispatch get a call for service, one dispatcher will isolate the cameras
in the area where the call for service is happening to assist the police officer in
responding to the call; but that the cameras will not be monitored unless a call for
service comes in from the area.
Councilmember Oden questioned the estimate for monitoring the cameras on a
daily basis; and how were the designated areas determined.
Police Chief stated that an additional 4.2 persons would need to be hired to
monitor the cameras for 24 hours, 7 days a week; and that the city was studied to
determine the area that had the highest calls for service; that the downtown
accounts for 25% of the calls.
Councilmember Oden questioned if other Cities used signage regarding the
placement of the cameras.
Police Chief stated none of the Cities inquired use signage; that there have been
references that there is not a lot of crime in Palm Springs in comparison to Los
Angeles; but that the crime index in LA is 4.6%, while in Palm Springs it is 6.8%.
Mayor stated that one must remember it is the number of incidents actually
reported; that in the case of the annexation of the area north of 1-10, figures were
provided to the City citing a low number of incidents called in on 911; that after
the area was annexed, the calls are much more frequent; that when the increase
was investigated, it was found that the response time to 911 calls from the City of
Palm Springs was much faster than the County, thus encouraging the use; that at
a past study session it was reported that the period of September 1, 1999
through May 21, 2001 there were 30,870 calls for service in the City; that when
the calls are broken down to areas, it is determined that a high number of those
calls are concentrated in a specific area; that in order to provide safety and
security to the residents a higher form of technology needs to be employed; that
there will be more "eyes" on the street to assist the police officers and requested
the description of services offered by the Downtown Experience Office.
Police Chief stated that the downtown experience office was established in 1998;
that it has been a good concept; that there is permanent staffing in place and it
has made a difference in criminal activities downtown.
Councilmember Oden clarified that the reports given to Council indicate that the
majority of crime is in the downtown corridor.
Police Chief stated that 25% of all crime in the City does occur in the downtown
area.
Councilmember Hodges stated that this issue has a bad feeling about it; that a lot
of thinking and input has been considered; that even the coworkers at her
' business have opinions regarding the issue; that most do indicate that while
liking the aspect of security, the feeling of big brother is there; that there is private
property involved; that even though references have been made to security
cameras at the airport, that is a federal regulation; that the wants of the
merchants is heard and appreciated; but she personally has not heard that
Council Minutes
06-13-01, Page 7
people are afraid to walk downtown at night; that having a lot of activity
downtown is what the Council has wanted; that it is a good thing; but to add
cameras to watch your activities is something that can riot be supported; that it is
good that the departments are out seeking grants, but in this case, it is not a
grant that should be used.
Councilmember Oden questioned the City Attorney on any legal liability.
City Attorney stated that the staff report does contain some analysis regarding
legal liability; but that the City Attorney has not been consulted on the matter and
has no formulated opinion.
Councilmember Oden stated that the question before the Council is not whether
it supports the police chief and the department, but one on using cameras to
monitor the downtown; that it is not a comfortable idea; that phone calls, e-mails,
individual contacts have been made; that there are cultural differences in this
community; that opposition by individuals does not mean that they are criminals;
but that it is the feeling that is created by the cameras; that'a little more
investigation needs to be done on the issue; that there are issues on the
monitoring and who will do the monitoring; that the Cities number one revenue
generator is tourism, and that the City needs to determine the effect the cameras
may have on it; that each time the media has addressed the issue, it has been
negative; that a negative message is being sent out regarding the program; that it
is not the message the City wants or needs to be sent out; that there may be
other ways we can participate with our police department to help curb the
criminal activity and that it may be that our Community needs more involvement.
Councilmember Jones stated that he was not in agreement with Councilmember
Oden; that this is a worthwhile program; that there is no more research that can
be done on the issue; that many hours have been spent in reviewing the issue
and comparison with other Cities; that in Europe, virtually every place has
cameras; that it is a proven fact that crime is deterred; that the main concern of
any visitor is crime; that the cameras will be a favorable asset for our European
tourist; that he personally does not understand the invasion of privacy issue that
people are speaking of; that one does not go downtown to have sex, but rather to
be in a public atmosphere; that the City does not have additional funds to hire
more police officers; that this City has two to three times the crime of Cathedral
City; that the grant funds can not be spent on any other program; that this is a
public safety issue; that every male member in his own family has served in the
military; that this type of program does not take away from the liberties they
fought for; that it is an important aspect to place signage around town indicating
the use of the cameras; that in itself that will be a deterrent; that what would
happen if someone was a victim of crime, that could have been prevented if only
the cameras had been put in place; that the tourism industry supports the
program; that the downtown merchants support the program; that the program
will not frighten away any customers; that the direction of the police chief and
department should be supported; and recommended approval.
Councilmember Reller-Spurgin commented that it is sad that the Council has to
have this type of discussion; and added that it is clear we now live in a society
that has to be watched; that to think there have been 30 rapes in this corridor
alone in one year is unconscionable; that there is concern that the City Attorney
has not reviewed the matter; that when an issue such as this that involves the
Council Minutes
06-13-01, Page 8
possibility of civil liberties, the attorney should have been the first consulted; and
that it is difficult to make a decision when the legalities of the issue have not
been determined.
Mayor stated that the issue is not whether the Council supports the police
department; that all on the Council support the department; that the request is for
a new technology; that the program will increase the presence downtown; that it
is this Council that has helped recreate the downtown; that with the recreation,
more crime has resulted; that it is clear the City can not add additional officers;
that the cost is prohibitive; that if the Council provides a presence of 16 camera
locations, crime will be deflected; that the criminal element is there and growing;
that implementing this program will provide a vehicle for the police department to
use; that it may in fact assist the fire department on its calls for service; that
anytime a community makes a change there is apprehension; that if the Council
recalls, when he, as a newly elected Mayor, started bringing a laptop to
meetings, there was criticism; that it was perceived that the Mayor was not
listening; that it was just a tool to enhance the performance of his duties, just as
this is a tool for the police department; that the concept has merit; that it is a
good use of grant funds; that it will help deal with the criminal element downtown;
that the question of whether it will displace crime is valid; that it is not clear where
the criminal will go, but that this is where they are now; that this is a first step;
and that this will be a good use of technology for the City.
City Manager stated that this is a State grant, thus the question on legality is
' answered; that the State would not offer grants on something that would be
legally questionable; that the issue is a policy decision of the Council; and that
the issue of public access to the videos will be addressed by the City Attorney
should the Council approve the program.
Councilmember Reller-Spurgin questioned how long the tapes would be kept.
Police Chief stated 90 days.
Councilmember Reller-Spurgin stated that she did tour the dispatch center to see
where the monitors would be placed; that after the visit there was a change in her
perception of the intent; that the monitors are not constantly watched; that if
something occurs the dispatcher can pick up the situation immediately; that
originally she felt it may not be the right thing, but after the visit, it is clear that this
is a public safety issue and that it is the responsibility of the Council to provide for
the safety of its citizens.
Councilmember Hodges questioned if the program will result in the hiring of a full
time employee.
Police Chief sated that if the Council wants the camera monitored constantly, that
is one issue, but it is not recommended or the best use of manpower; that when
a call comes in the dispatcher will handle the call, while another dispatcher
' monitors the camera to assess the situation.
Council Minutes
06-13-01, Page 9
Councilmember Hodges stated the Council might wish to consider placing
signage, but not the cameras.
Minute Order 6859 as recommended was presented; after which, it was moved
by Jones, seconded by Kleindienst and carried b,y the following vote that
MO6859 be adopted.
AYES: Jones, Reller-Spurgin and Kleindienst
NO: Hodges and Oden
ABSENT: None
2. GARDEN SPRINGS
Recommendation: That the Council approve a Settlement Agreement, copy on
file in Office of the City Clerk, with Garden Springs Apartments, a California
Limited Partnership, located at the southeast corner of Indian Canyon Drive and
San Rafael Road. A4369.
City Attorney reviewed the staff report and recommended approval.
Minute Order 6860 and Resolution 20069 as recommended were presented;
after which, it was moved by Oden, seconded by Jones, and carried by the
following vote that MO6860 and R20069 be adopted.
AYES: Jones, Oden, Reller-Spurgin and Kleindienst
NO: Hodges
ABSENT: None.
3. BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS
On June 6, 2001, Council directed this matter be continued to this date for
appointments of Board Members and Commissioners.
Councilmember Oden questioned the process; that it is not comfortable in doing
the appointments in this matter; that this situation is like a personnel matter; and
that he will not take part in the discussion.
City Attorney stated that an appointment to boards and commissions is not a
personnel matter.
Councilmember Oden stated that he personally would not hold a discussion on
individuals that have applied for board and commission openings in a public
setting and added it is unethical.
Councilmember Jones questioned what direction Councilmember Oden wanted
to take with the appointments.
Councilmember Oden stated that he did not want individuals discussed at a
public meeting.
Councilmember Hodges stated that there is no discussion; that the Mayor makes
his nominations and the Council approves the nominations or not.
Council Minutes
06-13-01, Page 10
' Councilmember Oden stated that there are some recommendations that were not
made by the Council; that the Council is aware of the situation and that the
situation is unchanged.
Mayor stated that the Council should fill as many positions as it can; that there
are two commissions that there may be disagreement with; that those two can be
held to the last and be considered separately.
Mayor made the following appointments:
a) Commission Appointments: Terms ending 6-30-2004.
Administrative Appeals Board 2 Nina Clifford, Incumbent Re-appointed
Edward Joseph
Airport Commission 3 Chuck Cheeld, Incumbent Re-appointed
Bert Engelhardt
Gary Lueders
Human Rights Commission 3 Dean Stephen-Kauffman, Incumbent Re-appt.
Michael McCulloch, Incumbent Re-appointed
Joseph Aguanno
Library Board 3 Janice Lyle, Incumbent Re-appointed
Richard Hostrop, Incumbent Re-appointed
Lynne Bushore (term 6-30-03)
Parks & Recreation 4 Bruce Bushore, Incumbent Re-appointed
Dale Holt, Incumbent Re-appointed
Nancy Bentinek
David Darrin (term 6-30-03)
Personnel Board 1 Sidney Chambers, Incumbent Re-appointed
Public Arts Commission 2 .Leo Cohen, Incumbent Re-appointed
LeeOna Hostrop, Incumbent Re-appointed
Rent Control Commission 3 Nancy Blee, Incumbent Re-appointed
Michael Holzman, Incumbent Re-appointed
Bob Turanchik
Villagefest Board 2 Eva Karlstrom, Retail
Scott Meredith, Retail
after which, it was moved by Reller-Spurgin, seconded by Hodges, and carried
by the following vote to ratify nominations.
AYES: Hodges, Jones, Reller-Spurign and Kleindienst
NO: Oden
Council Minutes
06-13-0 1, Page 11
Mayor presented nominations for the Planning Commission as follows:
Planning Commission 2 Mark Matthews, Incumbent
Re-appoinited
Stephen Payne
after which, it was moved by Reller-Spurgin, seconded by Jones, and carried by
the following vote to ratify nominations.
AYES: Jones, Reller-Spurgin and Kleindienst
NO: Hodges and Oden
Councilmember Oden stated opposition to the process.
Mayor questioned the basis of the opposition.
Councilmember Oden stated that without discussion on the Commission where a
no vote was rendered, it implies something amiss; that the names-of individuals
were read; that the public may think that something is wrong with someone who
garners a no vote; and the entire process is upsetting.
Mayor questioned if the process was different this year.
Councilmember Oden stated that the process was different; that
recommendations were made by the Council, but were not accepted by the A
Mayor.
Mayor questioned if the reference is being made to the Historic Site Preservation
Board.
Councilmember Oden stated that the issue should not, be debated.
Councilmember Jones stated that while one may not like the process, it is in the
City's Charter; that it is the Mayor's privilege to make the nominations, but that
the process should not have been misleading.
Councilmember Reller-Spurgin stated that each time Commission appointments
have come up the full Council has been involved in the process; that in fact,
Councilmember Jones did not even attend the scheduled interviews; and that the
Mayor did ask for recommendations from the Council; that one of the individuals
that she recommended was not nominated by the Mayor; but that this is the
process.
Councilmember Oden stated at that last meeting he questioned the process; and
added that if his involvement does not matter, his time should not be wasted.
City Attorney stated that the process works by the Mayor nominating an
individual for a commission or board; that the nomination must be approved by
the Council; that if the Mayor makes no nominations, then no one is put forward;
that for example with the Historic Site Preservation Board, the Mayor could
nominate individuals one by one and then the Council could approve or
disapprove of each individual nomination.
Council Minutes
06-13-01, Page 12
Councilmember Oden stated that would be satisfactory.
Mayor stated that there are four individuals that could be placed forward for
nomination to the Historic Site Preservation Board.
Councilmember Jones stated that he personally did not participate in the
interview, and therefore did not waste the 15 hours used in the interviewing.
Councilmember Oden stated that in that case, Councilmember Jones voted on
something that he had no participation in.
Councilmember Hodges clarified that the Council's obligation is to vote on the
nominations; that the Mayor accepted the recommendations and input of the
Council and has come to his own determination regarding the nominations.
Councilmember Reller-Spurgin stated that the nominations do not mean the
Mayor did not listen to the Council; that personally she does feel she was a part
of the process, but that the Mayor simply has different opinions on some matters.
Councilmember Oden stated that the Council did have the opportunity to
participate, but that in the future it does need to be clarified, that the
recommendations made by the Council can or can not be embraced by the
Mayor.
Mayor stated that in the case of the Historic Site Preservation Board, there were
four recommendations for three of the individuals; that one of the individuals did
not get a consensus of votes; and therefore he is nominating the four as
presented.
Councilmember Jones stated that the Historic Site Preservation Board was his
responsibility to short list; that time was spent in considering the applicants; that
it was indicated that the Mayor would not reappoint one member from the Board;
that when that was learned, it was felt that the time spent on the process was a
waste; that it was then he dropped out of the process; that when something is
predefined, what does it matter whether you participate or not; that the process is
outlined in the Charter; that the Charter is what governs; that while one may not
agree with the outcome, the way the Charter is written, it is clear the Mayor does
have the prerogative to nominate, with Council ratification.
Council Minutes
06-13-01, Page 13
Councilmember Hodges stated that in this case when the Council got to the point
of recommendations on individuals, specific discussion was held on one
individual; that discussion is not reflected in this particular nomination.
Mayor directed that the following Boards and Commission be reopened for the
application process.
Historic Site Preservation 4 Re-open
Village fest Board 1 Re-open-Jeweler
ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE ITEMS: None
ADDED STARTERS: None
REPORTS & REQUESTS:
CITY COUNCIL reports or requests
PUBLIC reports or requests
STAFF reports or requests
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, Mayor declare the meeting adjourned.
PATRICIA A. SANDERS
City Clerk
D