Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013_0225_ Minutes Open_APPROVED COUNTY OF KAUAI Minutes of Meeting OPEN SESSION Approved as circulated 3/25/13 Board/Committee: CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION Meeting Date I February 25, 2013 Location Mo'ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A 2B Start of Meeting: 4:01 p.m. End of Meeting: 5: 56 p.m. Present Chair Jan TenBruggencate; Vice-Chair Ed Justus. Members: Mary Lou Barela, Joel Guy; James Nishida, Patrick Stack (4: 15 p.m.); Carol Suzawa Also: Deputy County Attorney Jennifer Winn; Boards & Commissions Office Staff: Support Clerk Barbara Davis; Administrator Paula Morikami; Administrative Aide Teresa Tamura and Curtis Shiramizu of Shiramizu Nakamura Loo, Attorneys at Law Excused Absent SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Call To Order Chair TenBruggencate called the meeting to order at 4:01 pm with 6 Commissioners present Approval of Regular Open Session Minutes of January 28, 2013 Ms. Barela moved to approve the minutes as Minutes circulated. Mr. Justus seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0 With no changes to the agenda, Chair TenBruggencate stated the agenda is approved as circulated. Business CRC 2013-07 Proposed amendment from Commissioner Justus revising Article III. County Council, Section 3.02 Composition, Section 3.03 Terms, and Section 3.04 Qualifications relating to Partial Districting (deferred from 11/26/12) c. Special Committee proposed amendment for County Council Partial Districting (Four District/Three At-Large) d. Special Committee proposed amendment for County Council Districting — Seven Districts, At-Large This item was taken out of order pending arrival of Mr. Shiramizu to Charter Review Commission Open Session February 25, 2013 Page 2 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION discuss CRC 2013-03 Mr. Justus said the sub-committee presented its report on Districting several months ago but the committee's decision was to bring back multiple ideas to the Commission to decide what direction to pursue as a body. One option presented was 4 district seats, North, South, East, and West with 3 at-large seats. The other proposal was to have 7 districts all voted at-large similar to how Maui County does their Council elections. Another suggestion was creating neighborhood boards to get more actual input from the citizens regarding their needs and concerns and address those at a more local level. It was unsure if this would be creating a separate government entity under the County or if it would be boards that would report to either the County Council or the Mayor's Office. Another idea was simply to find a way to get more public interaction with the Councilmembers by creating a regional committee where every Councilmember would be required to go out once a month to each of the communities, take public input and bring those items of concern to the regional committee. The regional committee would have to take action on those concerns and it would be a charter mandate to require the County Councilmembers to engage the public that voted them in. The committee is still at the point of deciding which direction to go with districting. Mr. Nishida said in general he did not think it was a good idea to go with districting but as part of the committee, a discussion was held on how to make it work. That was how the alternative methods came into the discussion because people feel they are not represented. But districting may not allow for that representation because now there is one person instead of seven. Mr. Guy encouraged the Commission to look broader at districting because as someone from the outer edge of the island, he sees it differently. Charter Review Commission Open Session February 25, 2013 Page 3 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Currently,there is great representation with Chair Furfaro living in that area but his term will be ending. The challenge becomes seven or none, so Mr. Guy would encourage the Commission to look at ways to broaden the reach within the communities to see if there is interest in districting because interest is all he gets in his community. Mr. Guy favors proposal two and said there has been districting in the past but he did not think it had ever been seven districts but rather a piece of at-large and then partial districting. Ms. Barela asked if the Commission was making a problem out of something that is not a problem. Chair TenBruggencate said this discussion has come up repeatedly in Charter Commissions or before the County Council and it would be nice to figure out a process to grapple with the issue. This is a question for the island and not necessarily a question for this Commission because it has been turned down in the past. Chair TenBruggencate said the Commission needs to find a way to see if there is public clamor for a type of districting that hasn't been tried yet, such as the seven districts. Chair TenBruggencate said he would be interested in hearing how to do that because the issue does not seem to have the votes right now. Perhaps a discussion with good arguments so people who are not supportive of the concept now could be convinced there is a way that improves where we currently are. The underrepresentation at various times in the distant portions of our community is a valid concern. Ms. Suzawa agreed it probably should be taken out for a public hearing but taking this many options out would be really confusing. One thing that should be straightened out before this goes out to the public is the actual districts because if it is other than the State districts where do you go to vote? How is the current districting created; is it by population? Districting must be in place before it goes before the public and the districts need to be equal whether by voters or the number of people. There are 3 State districts so there must be a formula that is fair and equitable. Mr. Stack entered the meeting at 4:15 p.m. Charter Review Commission Open Session February 25, 2013 Page 4 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Mr. Justus said Maui has a different style of district system as compared to the other islands. They have separate districts that are not population oriented such as Moloka`i and Lanai. Mr. Justus thought there must be a legal mechanism to separate districts so that it is not completely population based. Mr. Justus further explained that the 7 districts would be at-large and not restricted to people living in a district voting for the representative from that district. Mr. Justus said there has been animosity experienced with districting in Maui County where people elected in a district did not receive the popular vote of the people in that district. District representation at- large may not guarantee you get someone from that district that the people in that district feel represent them. Mr. Nishida said his support for the at-large voting is because this island's population is too small to support districting. The little districts will always feel they don't get total representation and because the County Council spends the taxpayer's money, Mr. Nishida said he wants to vote for whoever is sitting on that Council. Mr. Nishida pointed out that in a class he took one of the papers he read said that when only one person runs for a district it tends to be a man that gets elected. But when voting for 7 people, there is a better chance for women to be elected. With districting, the responsibility is to the people in that district, which can lead to pork barrel politics. Mr. Nishida said he spoke with Peter Nakamura and there are rules for how districts can be set up. Attorney Winn said she has not been told to look at these issues and the first question the Commission has is to decide whether or not they believe districting is important and or necessary. Mr. Nishida said they should have someone look at the election rules. Attorney Winn said those rules are State but with a home Charter, the Commission could decide how to set the districting up. The Commission could follow the State rules but they do not have to. Charter Review Commission Open Session February 25, 2013 Page 5 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Mr. Justus said if they go to separate districts it would not necessarily have to be equal population; it could be because of the type of geographic importance of a certain area or the uniqueness of it. Mr. Nishida and Mr. Guy suggested getting population numbers for different parts of the island along with numbers on revenue sources for each area. Mr. Guy said revenue from land value and land taxes along Hanalei Bay and Kaupea are huge sources of income for the County. The North Shore also highly markets the Na Pali Coast and Ha'ena as a tourist destination yet they come out a little bit shy on representation. Mr. Justus said districting by population could be done where the districts would be pretty close and those people would watch out for their districts while the at-large councilmembers would watch out for the entire island. Mr. Justus suggested this could help limit pork barreling. Chair TenBruggencate said this is a complicated discussion but what would be useful is if the Commissioners would start to think about a proposal that can be put in the form of a motion. Continued discussion of the different types of districting does not move this issue forward; we need a specific proposal or a means to move the discussion forward. Mr. Stack agreed this issue was necessary and desirable to the Charter and it should be considered through a motion. Mr. Stack moved to bring this matter to a vote, whether to go forward with districting or table the issue. Mr. Nishida seconded the motion. Chair TenBruggencate asked for clarification on the motion. Mr. Stack said this was not to bring the specifics to a vote but rather decide whether this is something to further explore. When asked if this item should just be moved on to next month's agenda for further discussion, Mr. Stack said with the understanding it would be brought to a motion for vote. The Commission would be remiss if this turned into an on-going debate that Charter Review Commission Open Session February 25, 2013 Page 6 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION never reaches a vote. Mr. Nishida agreed but for different reasons. Mr. Justus asked for clarification on deciding a method of choice and if that meant choosing between the seven districts at-large or the four districts/three at-large. Chair TenBruggencate said his question is what the Commission wants to do next because he is not getting a clear sense that they will be any further along next month than they are right now. Mr. Justus said the various Commissioners have requested more information with population numbers and County revenue numbers from the different areas and asked if the Commission could request that information. Attorney Winn said however they decide to split up the island it cannot be arbitrary and capricious so there would have to be a rational basis for looking at income versus looking at population. Ms. Barela said she thought they were putting the cart before the horse again as this comes up every couple of years and it would be helpful to know if there is public interest in districting. Mr. Justus stated that each time this comes to the ballot there seem to be more and more people voting in favor of the idea of districting even though he has voted against districting in the past simply because of how completely different regions were lumped together. Mr. Justus said his observation is there seems to be an interest in districting and they will find out how much of an interest there is when this goes out to the public. Chair TenBruggencate restated the motion on the floor and asked that it be deferred to the next month when Commission members have more clarity about what they want to do and are prepared to make a motion on what kind of districting should or should not move forward. Chair Stack said this is a two step process and they need to decide if they are for the concept and if Charter Review Commission Open Session February 25, 2013 Page 7 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION that is agreed upon the details can be hashed out. Chair Stack also suggested taking a vote next month as to whether conceptually the Commission wants districting or not but he would rather take a vote on it today. If the Commission agrees to districting,then it would be tasked with working on the details. Chair Stack said his motion simply was do they want districting or non-districting and if the vote is in favor of districting then figure out the details the next month. Mr. Stack said the purpose of his motion was to move districting to the fast track or get rid of it. Mr. Stack amended his motion to redistrict as a Charter amendment. Mr. Nishida seconded the motion. Mr. Nishida agreed to put districting to a vote but he will vote no because he does not agree with districting without knowing the details. Mr. Guy said he is hopeful districting will be moved forward to the ballot. Roll Call Vote: Barela-nay; Guy-aye; Justus- aye; Nishida-nay; Stack-aye; Suzawa-nay; TenBruggencate-aye. Motion carried 4:3 Chair TenBruggencate stated districting would be on the March agenda and asked that a specific proposal be brought at that time which will provide clarity for discussion. Ms. Suzawa said the proposals were last year's work and if that is not put into consideration, does each Commission member recreate their own idea or just what the committee looked at? Chair TenBruggencate said all he was asking was that the members of the Charter Commission be prepared next month for discussion to arrive at a proposal that can be voted up or down on whether to proceed with districting or not. Chair TenBruggencate said although someone may have voted no on the concept there may be a preferred proposal that can be presented to the public. CRC 2013-03 Proposed amendment creating a new Section 24.04, Kaua`i County Charter, relating to non-substantive corrections and revisions as they relate to grammar, spelling and formatting errors in the Charter and Charter Review Commission Open Session February 25, 2013 Page 8 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION whether to consider budgeting for an outside editor(On-going) a. Discussion with legal analysts Shiramizu Nakamura Loo on procedures for identifying and proposing non-substantive corrections and revisions to the Charter Chair TenBruggencate introduced Curtis Shiramizu, the Boards & Commissions' legal analyst, who was asked to assist the Commission with this task. Mr. Shiramizu said he was asked to look at housekeeping changes to the Charter and he did receive the copy of hand-written gender changes by Linda Estes. Mr. Shiramizu said he was also looking at other non- substantive changes that could be made to the Charter including grammar and spelling. Mr. Shiramizu also thought about references to Hawaii Revised Statutes, if any, and some of the provisions specifically that may or may not be appropriate in the Charter. Working from the 2010 updated version of the Charter and doing a word search in the Hawaii Revised Statutes, Mr. Shiramizu found 2 references in the Charter, Section 11.07 Police Department Appeals which makes reference to Chapters 76 and 89 of the H.R.S. The other is Section 19.07 A Financial Procedures, which references Chapter 92 Administrative Procedures Act, of the H.R.S. There were 3 references in the Charter to Revised Laws of Hawaii 1955; one in Section 17.03 C Powers and Duties of the Department of Water and refers to Chapter 145-A and the other reference is Article 21 Special Assessment Improvements and refers to Sections 146-130 to 146-171. Chair TenBruggencate asked if those references are still active links. Mr. Shiramizu said he has not yet checked on the links. Chair TenBruggencate asked if Mr. Shiramizu would be able to make a recommendation based on what the current statute terminology is for the appropriate links. Mr. Charter Review Commission Open Session February 25, 2013 Page 9 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Shiramizu said he could do that if that is what the Commission wants. Mr. Justus asked where it cites specific statutes or the Revised Laws of Hawaii would it be simpler to say in accordance to State law as opposed to citing the individual sections and would that change the meaning? Attorney Winn said the problem with saying State law is it is too vague and consists of many volumes. Mr. Justus asked if they say Hawaii Revised Statutes would they have to cite the specific ordinance. Attorney Winn said yes because the Statute has specific language whereas State law, there are so many possibilities; how would someone know which section would apply? It might be possible if it is narrowed further but it is too vague to just say State law. Mr. Justus said he was concerned with the need to change the Charter every time the State makes a change to the Hawaii Revised Statutes. Mr. Shiramizu said they might say "in accordance with H.R.S., Section 217.2, as amended" so every time it is amended it would be automatic but that might not cover all the changes that might occur in State law. Attorney Winn said the other problem is that the State may change it in a way the County does not want it in the Charter. Attorney Winn said anytime you use a document to refer to another document, you face the possibility of it changing the meaning of the original document unless you put in the language itself so that language would always be the same. Attorney Winn thought that inserting the actual language versus citing the H.R.S. section would be considered a substantive change. Mr. Shiramizu did not know if there were any updates to the Revised Laws of Hawai'i 1955 and what is currently there. There would have to be identical language from the old version to the current version to be sure if it was replaced with the H.R.S. cite it would not change the meaning found in the Charter. Attorney Winn said it would be more beneficial to know the sections that are referred to rather than in the generalities they are now discussing. The Chair said because there were so few references in the Charter Review Commission Open Session February 25, 2013 Page 10 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Charter, Mr. Shiramizu should bring those back to the Commission at a later time. Chair TenBruggencate noted that the Department of Water reference refers to something that predates the State of Hawai'i which should be looked at and asked Mr. Shiramizu to come back to the Commission with his thoughts on this one. Mr. Shiramizu said there are a couple of specific articles that need to be looked at as to whether it should remain in the Charter or be taken out. One is the Electric Power Authority and the way it is drafted it does not come into play unless the Council decides to pass an ordinance. This particular article gives the County the option to take over KIUC if that is ever necessary. Attorney Winn said that is more than a substantive change and would need to be a separate agenda item for consideration. Mr. Justus said gender neutral was brought up before and he or she may not necessarily cover all of the types of gender if you consider transgender or asexual persons. Is there a word or term that can be used that would cover the gamut? Mr. Shiramizu did not know. Ms. Barela said even if a person is transgender they are still a he or a she. Mr. Justus agreed but said not with asexual people. Ms. Suzawa suggested the term could be person or member. Mr. Shiramizu said there are still a lot of singular references in the Charter. Chair TenBruggencate commented that this is a substantial potential issue because if the Commission changes their mind the whole Charter will need to be rewritten. Chair TenBruggencate said they need to hear from Mr. Shiramizu on what he thinks the options are on what to use to refer to individuals and whether to be gender neutral or gender fair or have no gender relation whatsoever. Mr. Shiramizu said he has not thought about the alternatives. Ms. Barela liked the term "human beings"used by Chair TenBruggencate. Ms. Barela said she has sat on a lot of national boards who deal with the LGBT population who still use he/she in written form. Ms. Suzawa said current amendments refer to councilmember but Charter Review Commission Open Session February 25, 2013 Page 11 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION older sections that have not been amended use councilman. Ms. Barela asked Mr. Justus if anyone has brought it to his attention that they would prefer usage of certain words. Mr. Justus said the term he has heard is person as opposed to he or she and would be an ideal neutral term. Mr. Justus asked Attorney Winn if that would be a non-substantive term. Attorney Winn said it could depend on how it is used but, generally, no it would not be a substantive change in most sections but she would have to look at the exact language to see if it does make a difference because person could mean other things as well. Ms. Suzawa asked if during the review Mr. Shiramizu noticed if member was used more than person because they should be consistent. Mr. Shiramizu agreed that member appeared more than person. Chair TenBruggencate said member is not always appropriate because if you are talking about candidates for public office they are only persons until they become members. Mr. Shiramizu said Section 23.17 states that when any personal pronoun appears in the Charter, it shall be construed to mean either sex and asked if that sentence could address Mr. Justus' concerns. Mr. Justus asked if it would be a non-substantive change if they changed construed to mean either sex to say shall be construed to mean any person. Attorney Winn said it could mean a corporation (overtalking and Attorney Winn could not be heard) Mr. Shiramizu said it is probably a substantive change for Article 9, Public Defender, and asked if it is appropriate in the Charter since there is a state statute that created the State Office of Public Defender and would that preempt the Charter provision. Attorney Winn did not think it was preempted; the way it is written is that if Council puts forth an ordinance there could be a Public Defender position within the County. Chair TenBruggencate felt they would not mess with that Article. Mr. Shiramizu said only Hawaii County has a version that makes the creation of a Public Charter Review Commission Open Session February 25, 2013 Page 12 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Defenders Office mandatory if no other private or public agency performs this function. Mr. Guy said there is a blanket generalization of whether to use he, she, or person but the discussion will be on those words flagged by Mr. Shiramizu. It will need to be looked at in its specific context. Attorney Winn said they need to look at something written and then if they do not like a word or it is legally iffy it can be discussed instead of having a generalized discussion. Chair TenBruggencate said whatever Mr. Shiramizu suggests will eventually have to go through the County Attorney for review. Ms. Morikami suggested they start with the 2012 Codified version of the Charter with all the changes shown on another copy of that Charter, including punctuation. Ms. Davis said that version (Ramseyer) of the Charter has to be available for the public to review so they should go through the whole Charter now so it is done right. Mr. Stack moved that he/she or him/her be the default term where appropriate. Ms. Barela seconded the motion. Mr. Justus said "person" is far more forward thinking than he or she. Mr. Justus explained his knowledge and friendship with gay/lesbian/transgender/asexual associations and person is a preferred word. He or she is a limiting perspective. Motion failed 1 aye (Stack): 6 nay Mr. Guy moved to use the term person wherever it is gender specific. Motion amended to include the term member as appropriate. Mr. Justus seconded the motion. Ms. Suzawa said where the reference is already councilmember it should not be changed to councilperson to remain consistent. Mr. Guy asked if the motion could be amended to say where it is referencing a specific sex use the word person and when it is referencing Attorney Winn stated Charter Review Commission Open Session February 25, 2013 Page 13 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION there is one amendment on the floor and asked if this was an amendment to the amendment and suggested they deal with the first amendment and then consider amending the main motion. Mr. Guy said he is just trying to give better direction and when it is speaking about a board or commission use member and when it is speaking of gender use person. Chair TenBruggencate pointed out in the Article for the Prosecuting Attorney Office where they refer to the prosecutor's responsibility to prosecute those persons charged and also refer to the prosecutor as person confuses whether you are talking about the person charged or the person prosecuting. It might make more sense, where necessary, instead of using the pronoun to use the noun. Chair TenBruggencate asked the Commission to be clear on what it is asking for. Mr. Justus said that was a very valid point and asked the County Attorney if they change person to say prosecuting attorney would that be a non-substantive change. Attorney Winn replied most likely. Motion on amendment to include the term member carried 7:0 Mr. Justus moved to amend the main motion to include in those areas where person can be replaced with the noun of the office or officer intended. Mr. Nishida seconded the motion. Motion on second amendment carried 7:0 Chair TenBruggencate said the main motion as amended would be to use person or member when appropriate and in situations where it might be confusing use the noun instead of the pronoun. Attorney Winn corrected the statement to include except when you can refer to an officer use officer. Motion on the main motion as amended to use the term person or member when appropriate and when it might be confusing use the noun of the office or officer instead of the pronoun carried 7:0 Mr. Justus asked about clarifying the HLS (sic) and HRS and what they refer to. Chair TenBruggencate and Mr. Shiramizu agreed that would be Charter Review Commission Open Session February 25, 2013 Page 14 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION part of what is brought back to the Commission. Mr. Nishida said what will be proposed on the Charter will be an authorization to the County Council to make non-substantive changes to the Charter. Attorney Winn said that decision has not been made yet. Chair TenBruggencate said all they are talking about now is cleaning up grammar and gender. Mr. Justus said they have never made a motion to separate handling current changes and future changes. Attorney Winn said they have not voted on the current issue of non-substantive changes because they have not seen any of the proposed changes. The Commission can still talk about making future changes and move to send that proposal forward or vote to say they do not want someone making changes in the future without a Charter amendment. Mr. Justus said he would like to see a change made to the proposed amendment for 24.04 to include that any future amendments would be placed in their corresponding sections within the Charter once they are approved by the public. Attorney Winn said the official Charter does have all the amendments attached and the County Clerk is responsible for incorporating them but it just hasn't been done, however, there is no need to have a Charter amendment to say that the amendments should go in the Charter. Chair TenBruggencate verified to Ms. Suzawa that Mr. Shiramizu's office would be handling the formatting as well as underscoring and misspelled words as that falls within the broad category of grammatical corrections. Mr. Justus asked if the County Clerk is required to insert the approved amendments into the appropriate section of the official Charter or just at their convenience and when it is done does it have to be approved by the public? Mr. Justus stated he was speaking of the official Charter as compared with the codified version, which states it is the unofficial version of the Charter. Attorney Winn said the County Clerk is the elections officer for the County and has all the official documents and Charter Review Commission Open Session February 25, 2013 Page 15 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION he would be the one to prepare the official Charter and insert the language into it. Chair TenBruggencate asked if the proposed amendment had been voted on by this Commission that would allow the County Council to do non- substantive changes on an on-going basis. The response was no. The Commissioners thanked Mr. Shiramizu who exited the meeting at this time. Mr. Nishida moved to approve the new section 24.04 as a Charter amendment in the next election. Ms. Suzawa seconded the motion. Mr. Justus asked if this is approved as an amendment does that mean it goes to the County Attorney's Office for review and upon return the Commission can make further changes. Attorney Winn said the current motion would mean as is so if nothing else is done the Attorney will review it as currently stated and the Commission will have further chance to review it after that. Also the Commission can amend the language. Ms. Suzawa asked for verification that communication was sent to the County Attorney and the County Clerk's Offices and both were unable to handle the task of making the changes to the Charter. The Chair said County Council was asked last year whether they would hire someone to do what Mr. Shiramizu is doing but the Council said they did not have staff to do it. Would this mean 3 years from now if we had approved a Charter that had further grammatical changes, we would not have to come back through the Commission but through the County Council with the assistance of the County Attorney could make those changes. Attorney Winn stated that the Commission's Rules say a proposed amendment would be sent to the County Attorney and afterwards the Commission can make such substantive or legal changes as deemed Charter Review Commission Open Session February 25, 2013 Page 16 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION necessary. Attorney Winn said she would rather have the proposed amendment exactly how the Commission wants to present it to the voters, prior to her looking at the proposal, because if there are substantive changes made it would have to be sent back to the County Attorney for review again. Chair TenBruggencate suggested voting on the motion and if it does go forward to defer it to the next meeting for further discussion. Mr. Nishida said his motion was to move this forward because you have to separate the current changes from the future changes and he does not think the voters will approve the future changes. Overall, Mr. Nishida did not think this should pass and will vote no. Attorney Winn said approving the amendment as is will be what she makes her review on. Mr. Justus moved to include or County Clerk in subsection A following the words County Attorney. Attorney Winn asked if that wording was to be included only in subsection A because it also appears in subsection B. Mr. Justus also asked to include that wording in subsection B. Chair TenBruggencate said he would be voting against this because the Commission is doing this work through Mr. Shiramizu and the voters should not be burdened with something they probably would not approve. After a call for the question, Chair TenBruggencate said the question is whether to pass the proposed Section 24.04 regarding the County Attorney and or the County Clerk being able to make non-substantive corrections and revisions to the Charter. Roll Call Vote: Barela-nay; Guy-nay; Justus- abstain; Nishida-nay; Stack-nay; Suzawa-nay; TenBruggencate-nay. Motion failed. CRC 2013-06 Review and Approval of 2013 Meeting Schedule (Deferred 1/28/13) Ms. Barela moved to approve the schedule. Mr. Justus seconded the motion. Motion carried 7:0 Announcements Next Meeting: Monday, March 25, 2012 at 4:00 p.m. Adjournment Ms. Barela moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:56 p.m. Mr. Justus seconded the motion. Motion Charter Review Commission Open Session February 25, 2013 Page 17 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION carried 7:0 Submitted by: Reviewed and Approved by: Barbara Davis, Support Clerk Jan TenBruggencate, Chair ( ) Approved as is. ( ) Approved with amendments. See minutes of meeting.