My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Legal Review Committee Agenda and Packet 2016 05 04
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 05 04
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:20:38 PM
Creation date
5/25/2016 10:55:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
LCPKT 2016 05 04
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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 />March 31, 2016 <br />Page2of3 <br />Light noted that in general, the City has procured bond counsel on a <br />transactional basis, not by term. <br />Leh asked if this process is consistent with the City's purchasing policies. <br />Light noted it is as professional services are exempt from the bidding <br />requirement. Light added the City would do an official engagement letter with <br />Wisor if the tax question is placed on the ballot. <br />501C3 ORGANIZATIONS AFFILIATES WITH THE CITY <br />Leh stated he had been thinking about whether this is a problem to be solved <br />and what the goals of this process should be. He noted it started as a liability <br />issue but now thinks that may not be the primary goal. He stated he thinks it is <br />important that whatever the Committee decides, this should not discourage <br />people from donating money or cause the 501s unnecessary disruption. <br />He continued, asking where /how should the city be involved, are the boards <br />distinct enough from the 501s, how do public records and open meetings rules <br />apply, and how is staff time allocated. He asked if addressing these issues is <br />enough of a reason to affect the City's relationships with the various boards. He <br />stated that liability alone shouldn't drive this conversation; the bigger issue is how <br />these groups raise money. <br />Leh stated people can donate to the City and still take deductions, but they don't <br />know that. Maybe there are ways to bring fold the fund raising of the 501 s into <br />the City. <br />Loo noted that if these boards want to come into the City's fold they will have to <br />abide by all of our financing and open government rules whereas if they stay <br />separate they can act on their own. <br />Lipton added that liability and reputational liability are still important and we need <br />to protect the City's interests. We want to protect both the City and the 501 <br />members, but don't want the process to be cumbersome. Make it simple, and <br />help everyone reach a good conclusion with everyone protected. <br />Leh noted some board members do not know they are appointed to the 501 <br />automatically (Cultural Council). Those boards need to decide if having a 501 is a <br />necessity to raise money. <br />Lipton stated the City is not set up to staff and manage fund raising. It has a lot of <br />overhead. <br />Leh would like to educate the 501s on their option to do their fund - raising as a <br />part of the City. He thinks it would solve a lot of issues. He worries a new policy <br />will keep people from volunteering. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.