Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012_0319_Minutes Open_APPROVED COUNTY OF KAUAI Minutes of Meeting OPEN SESSION Approved as circulated 4/23/12 Board/Committee: CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION Meeting Date March 19, 2012 Location Mo'ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/213 Start of Meeting: 4:01 p.m. End of Meeting: 6:03 p.m. Present Chair Patrick Stack; Vice-Chair Carol Suzawa. Members: Joel Guy; Ed Justus; James Nishida; Jan TenBruggencate Also: Deputy County Attorney Jennifer Winn; Boards & Commissions Office Staff: Support Clerk Barbara Davis, Administrator Paula Morikami, Administrative Aide Teresa Tamura Audience Members: Solette Perry; Charles Iona; John Isobe; Janine Rapozo Excused Member: Mary Lou Barela Absent SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Administrative Assistant Eddie Topenio administered the Oath of Office to Carol Suzawa and James Nishida prior to the meeting being called to order. Call To Order Chair Stack called the meeting to order at 4:01 m. with 6 Commissioners present Approval of Regular Open Session Minutes of January 23, 2012 Mr. TenBruggencate moved to approve the Minutes minutes as circulated. Ms. Suzawa seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0 Executive Ms. Suzawa moved to go into Executive Session Session at 4:02 p.m. Mr. TenBruggencate seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0 Chair Stack read the Hawai'i Revised Statutes as described on the agenda that would take the Commission into Executive Session for item ES- C CRC 2012-02 Business The meeting resumed in Open Session at 4:29 p.m. CRC 2012-02 Deliberation and decision-making on possible amendments to Kaua'i County Charter related to Article VII, Section 7.05 and Article XI, Section 11.04 Charter Review Commission Open Session March 19, 2012 Page 2 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION a. Email dated 2/27/12 from Councilmember Mel Rapozo providing testimony to the Charter Review Commission in support of leaving the Charter as is with regard to the oversight of the Police Chief Mr. TenBruggencate made a motion to ask the Commission Staff to issue a press release announcing the Charter Review Commission would be taking public testimony at the next meeting on the subject whether there should be changes to the Charter with respect to the suspension and disciplinary action of certain Department Heads. Mr. Justus seconded the Attorney Winn reminded the Commission to take public testimony before motion. voting on the motion. Solette Perry: Ms. Perry introduced herself as the Regional Human Resources Director for Hawai'i Health Systems Corporation and the wife of the Chief of Police Daryl Perry. When Ms. Perry was with DHRD (Department of Human Resources Development)they looked at H.R.S. Chapter 76. Ms. Perry proposed that the Commission look at Chapter 76 which gives the definition of an `appointing authority' and the Kaua'i Police Commission's authority to do the appointment of the Chief of Police. It embeds those duties and responsibilities as the appointing authority. Chapter 76 includes specific statutory language about the in-between; the Police Commission can hire, the Police Commission can fire, the Police Commission also does the evaluation of the Chief of Police position. The in-between is what is confusing everyone so with all that authority who has the delegated power to do the disciplinary action and that is clearly delineated in Chapter 76. That appointing authority language is applied to each and every position within the State or the County and delineates that power to control this position. Ms. Perry pointed out that in her position with the State her appointing authority is the only person who can suspend her. Since language is an important piece of her work, Ms. Perry asked the Charter Review Commission Open Session March 19, 2012 Page 3 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Charter Review Commission to consider reviewing the language. Mr. Justus asked if the language in H.R.S. §76 was incorporated into the Charter would it have clarified the whole situation. Ms. Perry responded yes. It would have to do with the definitions so it was clear as to what the duties and responsibilities were of that appointing authority because that was where the ambiguity laid. With legislative provisions or collective bargaining agreements, they did not imbed any language into them so the language needs to be there to clearly clarify and delineate what the intent or authorities of that provision is. Mr. TenBruggencate said by suggesting this language, Ms. Perry was agreeing with the County Attorney's position that the language was not sufficiently clear. Ms. Perry agreed that the language was not now clear but would not agree with the County Attorney's interpretation as to who was the appointing authority for the Chief of Police. Mr. TenBruggencate said the Police Commission was clearly the appointing authority but they were talking about the authority for suspension. Mr. Nishida asked if they needed a copy of H.R.S. §76-11. Attorney Winn said Chapter 76 referred to civil service law. Mr. Nishida asked if the H.R.S. covered boards and commissions or was that authority given to the counties to do. Ms. Perry did not know but under Chapter 76 any type of opinions or Charter Review Commission Open Session March 19, 2012 Page 4 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION definitions in the H.R.S. would need to be checked with the State Attorney General's Office. Attorney Winn stated that it would not apply to any of the department heads because they were not civil service. Ms. Perry said she respectfully disagreed and again said they should ask the Attorney General's Office because Chapter 76 pertains to public employees and is covered in the preamble for all the positions and jurisdictions within the State of Hawai'i. It does include under §76-77 the exemption to the civil service which is covered by the counties. All of the positions, even though they are exempt, are covered under Chapter 76 because it is a public employment clause. Charles Iona: Mr. Iona introduced himself as presently sitting on the Police Commission and that when he took the oath to uphold the Charter and went through the training, there was not one training offered to the Commission as to the intent of the language when the Charter was drafted and why it was written the way it was written. As a retired police officer and the former head of SHOPO for Maui, they were always under the impression that the Police Commissions were the buffer between administration and the police department because it was very worrisome about the politics being played at that time and they had to work to make sure the department was insulated from the politics. Mr. Iona said §11.04 states the Police Commission is the appointing authority. The Police Commission hires the Chief of Police and if they have to remove that person there is a due process before the Police Chief can be removed. If we are not involved in the disciplinary action, the Commission can say that nothing will happen to the Chief because the removal has to go through the Commission. Usually when there are disciplinary actions there is a progression it follows to termination. The Commission performs an evaluation process and if we are Charter Review Commission Open Session March 19, 2012 Page 5 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION not part of any suspensions how can the Commission give a true evaluation of the person they are entrusted to evaluate from year to year. To help the Charter Review Commission decide on the language, Mr. Iona said the Police Chief is the only appointed position that has an employment contract with the Police Commission. Mr. Iona begged the Charter Review Commission to look at that employment contract because whatever language they put in the Charter that affects the Police Chief will also alter that contract. The Police Chief has an open-ended contract which means when he resigns, the contract ends. If he gets terminated for just cause that contract ends. He retires that contract ends. Should he, hopefully, live to 200 years old that contract will stay for the next 200 years; nothing will ever happen to that contract which was drafted by the County Attorney's Office. Mr. Iona again urged the Charter Commission to ask to see that contract which has language that pertains to when the Police Chief answers to the Mayor and when he answers to the Commission. One of the key points is that the Police Chief answers to the Commission on all administrative matters. There is language in the Charter and the Police Rules that also govern that the Police Commissioners cannot dabble in the day-to-day operations but can make recommendations which the Chief does Motion to publish a press release soliciting not have to follow. public testimony carried 6:0 Mr. Justus moved to receive the communication from Councilmember Rapozo. Mr. TenBruggencate seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0 Mr. Guy moved to receive the written testimony of Solette Perry. Mr. Justus seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0 CRC 2011-01 Proposed amendment creating a new Section 24.04, Kauai Coun1y Charter, relating to non-substantive corrections and revisions Charter Review Commission Open Session March 19, 2012 Page 6 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION (Deferred to February 2012 meeting) c. Discussion and possible decision-making on how the Commission can best achieve a review of the Charter for recommendations to correct non- substantive items as they relate to grammar, spelling and formatting errors rrors in the Charter and whether to consider budgeting for an outside editor (ongoing) d. Memorandum dated 3/1/12 from Ricky Watanabe, County Clerk, regarding responsibility for correcting non-substantive changes to the Charter Mr. TenBruggencate moved to receive the communication from the County Clerk. Mr.Justus seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0 Mr. Guy wanted to know if the wording "and without altering the sense, meaning, or effect of any charter provision;" in item 8 was applicable to all of the statements listed and why was it specific to item 8. None of the items can alter the sense, the meaning or the effect of any charter provision. Mr. Guy asked if there was blanket wording that would cover all of the items. Mr. Justus asked if non-substantive would include the entire concept Mr. Guy was referring to. Attorney Winn believed it would and did not think it would be redundant. Mr. TenBruggencate felt Mr. Guy had hit on a perspicacious point. That language was repeated in item 10 and was unnecessary in that line. Mr. TenBruggencate moved to remove the words and without altering the sense, meaning, or effect of any charter provision in item 8. Mr. TenBruggencate said he would leave that statement in item 10. Mr. Justus said his understanding was that item 10 included the word other Charter Review Commission Open Session March 19, 2012 Page 7 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION and if it was that particular subsection of that amendment,this line was referring to that as the other non-substantive changes. Mr. Justus suggested including the phrase at the beginning of the amendment under section A to read: The county attorney may propose non-substantive corrections and revisions to the charter by ordinance that shall not alter the sense, meaning, or any effect of any article. If placed at the beginning, it should cover all sub-sections. Mr. Justus seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0 Mr. Justus moved that they remove the last sentence in sub-section 10 and in section A add a second sentence after the word ordinance In making such revisions the county attorney shall not alter the sense, meaning, or effect of any article or section. Mr. Guy seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. Mr. Justus suggested the ballot question should be altered to read that the county clerk should be allowed to propose an ordinance that makes all the changes and minor errors to the Charter that must be approved first by the County Attorney and then by a vote of five (5) or more members of the County Council. Attorney Winn pointed out that section A stated that the county attorney may propose the corrections. The ballot question cannot be different from the body of the amendment and the county clerk was not mentioned in the body of the amendment. Mr. Justus moved to amend section A to read the county clerk instead of the county attorney to be followed by altering section D to read "the ordinance shall be approved by the county attorney and adopted by a vote of five(5)or more members of the County Council". Motion failed Charter Review Commission Open Session March 19, 2012 Page 8 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION The Commission was reminded that the dual use of county attorney/county for lack of a second. clerk was originally placed in the amendment while awaiting response from both offices as to their ability to make non-substantive changes to the charter. Mr. Justus said since neither office seemed willing to take on the task maybe the amendment should be that either office can propose changes be approved by the county attorney before approval by the County Council. Mr. Justus thought it was rejected on the ballot about 10 years ago because it was the county attorney who would propose the language and there seemed to be distrust from the public about the County Attorney's office. Attorney Winn cited from the County Attorney's opinion that he was skeptical of doing non-substantive proposals which do not have any legal effect because of the workload of the office. Also their office advises the County Council and it may appear disingenuous to present an ordinance proposal to the County Council and then advise the Council on the legality of the ordinance. Mr. Justus asked if the County Clerk drafted the language and presented it to the County Attorney's Office for approval would that be less of a conflict. Attorney Winn thought so but their office regularly opines on bills and approve contracts before the County Council, which is more in line with their job description than creating the language for the bills and contracts. Chair Stack said it appeared no one wanted to tackle the problem. Mr. Guy said initially they looked at various options which included an outside third party and hiring an editor so the County Attorney and the Charter Review Commission Open Session March 19, 2012 Page 9 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION County Clerk were not their only two options but he knew there were budgetary constraints. Chair Stack added that there were also time constraints. Mr. TenBruggencate moved that this proposed amendment be removed from the list of amendments being considered for the ballot this year and discuss at the next meeting about talking to the County to get the funding to hire a private attorney to go through the Charter to make the recommended changes for the 2014 election. Mr. Nishida seconded the motion. Mr. Justus thought it was important to include language that would allow the Commission to make those changes because even if they hired someone to present all the correct language if there was not some mechanism to allow those changes to be made, it would defeat the purpose. Chair Stack said it was discussed at prior meetings about contracting a professor of English or grammatical arts which would then be reviewed by the Charter Review Commission upon completion and forwarded to Council for approval. Mr. Justus asked Mr. TenBruggencate if he said the Charter Review Commission already had the authority to make non-substantive changes to the Charter. Mr. TenBruggencate referred the question to the county Attorney but thought the Charter Commission had the authority to make wholesale changes to the Charter and present them to the public. Attorney Winn said that was correct in the sense that this Commission was the one who would propose the amendments for the electorate to decide on Charter Review Commission Open Session March 19, 2012 Page 10 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION by presenting a ballot question that encompassed all the changes made to the Charter but the electorate had to know what those changes actually Motion to not consider as a ballot item in 2012 were. carried: 4:2 (nay—Justus & Suzawa CRC 2011-09 Proposed amendment revising Article XV of the Kaua'i County Charter, relating to establishing a Department of Human Resources a. Letter dated 3/7/12 from the Human Resources Taskforce to the Charter Review Commission providing a copy of the communication to the Kaua'i County Council with an update on centralizing personnel functions and services Motion to receive the letter dated 3/7/12. Mr. Nishida seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0 John Isobe and Janine Rapozo, members of the HR Task Force, were present to answer questions regarding the proposed Charter amendment and the communication that was sent to the County Council. The proposed amendment was initiated by the Cost Control Commission and endorsed by the Civil Service Commission who oversees the Department of Personnel Services. The Mayor has indicated his support of creating a Human Resources Department for the County of Kaua'i. The Cost Control Commission was informed by the County Auditor's Office that the way the Charter was constructed there was a question as to whether or not the Personnel Department could be expanded into a Human Resources Department without a charter amendment. The Cost Control Commission did get an opinion from the County Attorney that the Administration had the authority to expand the functions of the Personnel Department to a full- fledged Human Resources Department because they had related duties. The reason the charter amendment was proposed was to eventually clarify what the new role of the Human Resources or the expanded Personnel Department would eventually become. The task force has been meeting for about nine months and is close to making a recommendation relative to the proposed expansion of Personnel which will be provided to the County Council as part of the budget submittal. The Charter Commission did have Charter Review Commission Open Session March 19, 2012 Page 11 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION questions for the County Council and the Mayor but neither body could adequately respond to those questions because the task force had not yet prepared its recommendation. The task force would like to request that this charter amendment be deferred until the 2014 election in order for the task force to implement these recommendations on July 1, 2012. That would give the County about 1 %2 years to work out the kinks of what the department would be and ensure the amendment that is being proposed would accurately reflect the actual work that is being performed by the Human Resources Department. A Human Resources Department cannot be created without changing the Charter but what can be done is to expand the functions of the Personnel Department to include Human Resources functions. The difference being that the charter amendment would embed these functions so future Mayors could not revert the functions back and a Human Resources Department would be created as part of a chartered department. Once the plan is in place, if the charter amendment failed the Department of Personnel Services would remain as the Department of Personnel Services and future administrations could alter the plan. If the charter amendment were to pass, future administrations would not be able to alter the Human Resources Department without a charter amendment. Chair Stack asked if there was an economy of scale as related to the change to Human Resources. Would it add more people and would the payroll be higher? Mr. Isobe told the Commission that currently there were staff members in the various departments who were doing personnel work. The proposal was to consolidate those positions within the Department of Personnel Services and expand the functions within Personnel to include areas such as training, EEOC and other functions that currently are not part of the Personnel Department. The Personnel Department would be expanded from the current 9 people to 18 people but the body count for the County would not increase because they would be coming from existing positions within the Charter Review Commission Open Session March 19, 2012 Page 12 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION various departments and consolidating them into the Personnel Department. The economy of scale would be, in the long run, to have a centralized Human Resources Department that can uniformly support all of the different County agencies. Currently,policies and procedures within the County are not necessarily being implemented uniformly. There are different administrative issues that create legal problems for the County. By centralizing it within a single Department that oversees all personnel within the County, a lot of the issues that currently exist should eventually dissipate and the Human Resources department would be providing a singular point of guidance for all County departments. Mr. Guy asked if the departments showing a high percentage of time doing personnel functions would be the ones pulled into the Human Resources Department. Mr. Isobe said correct. Mr. Guy asked if that would eliminate those spending only 15 to 20% of their time from doing personnel functions and allow them to do more of the job they were supposed to do. Mr. Isobe said that was the hope. Mr. TenBruggencate said the charter amendment as proposed contains a measure which addresses the issue with regard to the Police Commission and provides language that gives the political arm of the County a way to get into the administrative authority in a department that was previously limited to the Police Commission. Mr. TenBruggencate moved to defer the proposed amendment indefinitely. Mr. Guy seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0 CRC 2011-17 Proposed amendment from Commissioner Justus revising Article II1, County Council, Sections 3.02 Composition, Section 3.03 Terms, and Section 3.04 Qualifications relating to Partial Districting_ a. Years and Vote tally with Difference for Ballot Questions; Population Breakdown of Each Town accordin to 2010 Census Data; Conceptual Charter Review Commission Open Session March 19, 2012 Page 13 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Layout of Geographic Areas b. Email dated 2/17/12 from Jonathan Jay regarding A District Proposal for At-large Voting and Candidate Residency Requirement Districts for Kaua'i Mr. Justus said he received lots of comments from the community, especially the Westside that they wanted to have some type of district representation in the Council. In the past,partial Council districting has been voted down but over the years the numbers between the yes votes and the no votes have shrunk considerably. The Westside community voted against the 3 district seats and 4 at-large because the Westside was included with the Southshore and their needs and desires were very different. Mr. Justus said if the island was broken into the 4 districts most people are familiar with, there would still be the at-large Council seats. The language in Mr. Justus' proposal was identical to what other Charter Review Commissions had placed on the ballot except for the change to 3 at-large seats and 4 district seats. Mr. Justus also suggested that district seats remain a 2 year term which would give the community the ability to refresh that area faster. If the at-large seats are 4 year terms that would justify the type of campaigning someone would have to do to cover the whole island. If the at-large seats and district seats were both for 2 year terms, what would be the justification to run for an at-large seat when they could run for a district seat for the same term. The 4 district seats would always be in the majority versus the 3 at-large seats which would be the minority and forced to listen to the district needs. There has always been a desire for staggered terms in the Council which this districting would create. Mr. Justus also suggested a change to the prior proposed ballot question that read"having a commission that would be a reapportionment commission for every tenth year"to include "district reapportionment"because many people do not know what reapportionment means. Mr. Justus also shared that districting had been on the ballot 4 times before but had not passed. Charter Review Commission Open Session March 19, 2012 Page 14 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Mr. Guy said districting was very appealing to him and was a good starting point for discussion. The Maui model which Mr. Jay used looks much simpler and asked Mr. Justus why he did not propose that model. Mr. Justus said he did not propose straight districts because he thought Kaua'i's population base might be too small to divide into 7 parts. It seemed the consensus that a half district, half at-large would address the idea of needing districts but also allow everyone to vote for people they felt could represent them as a whole. Mr. Justus said he was not too keen on the Maui model that Mr. Jay presented because although they have districts, everyone across the island can vote for someone in that district. A district should be the consensus of the people who live in the district to elect someone they feel represents them. Mr. TenBruggencate liked the idea of districts and whether or not the numbers had gone up in support of districting, it was not correct to say that people seemed to want districts. All of the evidence was that every single time this had come before the voters, they said no. Mr. TenBruggencate said he had a problem with 2 year terms and 4 year terms sitting at the same time in the Council because that creates `super councils' with the potential to create animosities that might not be there if everyone was at risk every election. Mr. TenBruggencate suggested simplicity and did not think the proposal was simple enough. Mr. Justus said he presented a full package with all the contingencies in it just to start the discussion. If it was too confusing it could always be proposed later on but if they could get the district thing out there and get it approved first, they could always add that in later which is why he included separate questions for the ballot question. Option A ballot question was how the district thing would work; the others are things that may or may not Charter Review Commission Open Session March 19, 2012 Page 15 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION need to be included now such as term limits. Ms. Suzawa said a no vote was a no vote and caused discomfort when it kept coming back. Ms. Suzawa suggested there be a public hearing on districting. Ms. Suzawa further said she knew what was happening with the different areas of the island because of friends and family ties and that the island was not so big that you could not keep in touch with what was going on. Mr. Nishida said he always voted against districting because he wanted to vote for all of his Councilmembers. Also having been in a split district he was not always able to vote for the people he wanted. If the reapportionment was strictly based on population, it would split Kapa`a with a portion going to the Northshore1 and a portion of Kalaheo going to the South district; Hanama'ulu would be with Wailua. Mr. Nishida thought that narrowing down the place where the vote came from could bring new people in but he was not sure it should be opened up for a public hearing until more details had been worked out. In Section 3.03, Terms, Mr. Justus moved to remove the brackets in front of for and following two years in the first and second line and delete two years for district seats and four years for at- large seats in the second sentence and the words for district seats, and more than two consecutive four year terms for at-large seats in the last sentence. Mr. Guy seconded the motion. Ms. Suzawa said instead of rushing into making changes she would like to have the whole proposal looked at in its entirety and have a sub-committee work on the language and bring it back to the Commission. Mr. Justus withdrew the motion. Mr. Guy withdrew the second to the motion. Mr. TenBruggencate moved to create a special Charter Review Commission Open Session March 19, 2012 Page 16 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Sub-committee made up of Commissioners Suzawa,Nishida and Justus to study and review districting and bring a recommendation back to the Commission. Mr. Justus seconded the motion. Ms. Suzawa agreed to chair the Sub-committee and return with their recommendation at the April meeting. Motion carried 6:0 Chair Stack asked the Staff for suggestions to take public testimony on the Mayor's authority. Ms. Davis deferred the question to Ms. Morikami noting that the Commission was at the point where they had to find the end for those issues that are to go on the ballot in 2012 to allow for the writing of the ballot questions and final legal review. Ms. Morikami said after working with the County's elections division to determine the timeline required for printing the ballot questions for the General Election, the dates were worked backwards from the State Election's deadline as shown in CRC 2012-03. It was hoped that the Commission could finalize those ballot items at this meeting to allow the legal analyst to write the findings and purpose as well as ballot questions, where needed,before the second review of the Commission and final legal review from the County Attorney's Office. Chair Stack asked what date they would be looking at if they wished to take public testimony. Ms. Morikami said based on the timeline, today would be the cutoff and the only way to consider taking items for public testimony would be to schedule a special meeting. Charter Review Commission Open Session March 19, 2012 Page 17 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Attorney Winn added that the Commission would need two more meetings to finish the redistricting because the Sub-committee would need to bring their recommendations to the Commission at the next meeting and then at a subsequent meeting the Commission could vote on those recommendations. Mr. Justus said it appeared the redistricting would have to go on the 2014 ballot. CRC 2011-13 Review and prioritize proposed amendments for consideration of placement on the 2012 ballot(ongoing review) Ms. Suzawa recapped the status of the proposed amendments. 2012 Ballot Items: CRC 2011-05 §24.01 B—(percent of registered voter signatures on petition) CRC 2011-04 §22.03 C—(percent of registered voter signatures for initiative and referendum) CRC 2011-07 §1.03—(clarification relating to the election of County Officers) CRC 2011-08 §23.01, §7.03, & §29.00 — (relating to salaries of County Officers) CRC 2011-11 §23.02 H—(term limits for board and commission members) Items deferred to 2014 or indefinitely: CRC 2011-01 §24.04—(correcting non-substantive language to the Charter) CRC 2011-09 §XV—(establishing a department of Human Resources) CRC 2011-12 §XX—(changes to the Code of Ethics) CRC 2011-15 §IXA—(no proposal brought forward by Prosecutor's Office) Mr. TenBruggencate thought that 5 ballot questions was a good number with the Sub-committee considering whether to put the question on this year's ballot "Shall the Charter Commission in the next election bring back recommendations for districting". Charter Review Commission Open Session March 19, 2012 Page 18 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Attorney Winn stated that the Commission can only make charter amendments so they would have to make a change to the language in the Charter. Mr.TenBruggencate said if they were not making a specific proposal this year they could ask the voters if they want the Commission to look into districting. Attorney Winn said they could not use poll questions on the ballot; the question would have to reflect an actual change to the language in the Charter. The Commission was advised that although they had approved the language changes to the proposed charter amendments, the findings and purpose and ballot questions still need to be written. That will give the Commission one last chance to move an item to the ballot or to kill it. Announcements Next Meeting: Monday, April 23, 2012 at 4:00 pm, Meeting Room 2 A/B When asked if there was a possibility the Commission might consider one or two more ballot questions, Chair Stack said he would like to see the Commission make a determination about the Mayor's authority and include it as a ballot question. Staff will research available dates for a special meeting and advise the Commissioners accordingly. Adjournment Chair Stack adjourned the meeting at 6:03 p.m. Submitted by: Reviewed and Approved by: Barbara Davis, Support Clerk Patrick Stack, Chair ( ) Approved as is. Charter Review Commission Open Session March 19, 2012 Page 19 ( ) Approved with amendments. See minutes of meeting.