My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Legal Review Committee Agenda and Packet 2016 03 31 Minutes
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 03 31 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:20:38 PM
Creation date
8/16/2016 9:40:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
LCPKT 2016 03 31 Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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 />Page 2 of 3 <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 501s 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.