My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Legal Review Committee Agenda and Packet 2016 11 02
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
LEGAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
>
2006-2019 Legal Review Committee Agendas and Packets
>
2016 Legal Review Committee Agendas and Packets
>
Legal Review Committee Agenda and Packet 2016 11 02
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:20:38 PM
Creation date
9/12/2017 2:51:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
LCPKT 2016 11 02
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City Council Legal Review Committee <br />October 20, 2016 <br />Page2of3 <br />December of 2015. She suggested these rules are clear and simple and easy to <br />understand. <br />Councilmember Leh stated the draft from 2015 was in adequate and needs <br />additional information such as do's and don'ts and requirements for separating <br />the entities. <br />Councilmember Stolzmann asked if the City has a need for the 501s in addition <br />to the standing City boards. Why do we need fund raising arms of these groups? <br />Councilmember Leh stated the answer to that question should come from the <br />City Council, not the 501s. <br />Members discussed some of the various issues that need to be addressed <br />including legal addresses of the 501s; requiring non -interlocking directorates <br />between boards and the 501s; how money can be donated to the City without the <br />501; 501 use of City facilities and staff time; and possible requirements to receive <br />City benefits such as staff time and meeting space. <br />Councilmember Leh stated there are three choices <br />1. Continue as is knowing the liability concerns; <br />2. Absolute separation; <br />3. Some combination where if they meet certain rules, they in turn get some <br />City help. <br />Councilmember Stolzmann suggested the 501s should be required to be entirely <br />separate from the City. She stated this might be hard in the short-term, but in the <br />long run it is the best way to protect the City and have a clear understanding of <br />everyone's roles. <br />Councilmember Loo asked Attorney Light if there are issues with the boards that <br />have members that sit on both the City board and the 501 such as the two <br />members of the Historical Commission that sit on and represent the Commission <br />on the History Foundation. <br />Attorney Light stated that if it is a small number of members that can't control the <br />board of the 501 it is fine. He suggested that staff members can attend 501 <br />meetings but should not be official ex officio members. <br />Members were in agreement they want to recommend a full separation of City <br />boards and the 501s. <br />Next Steps: <br />Councilmember Stolzmann and Councilmember Loo will meet to create a FAQ <br />document that would explain this process to the 501s. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.