My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Legal Review Committee Agenda and Packet 2018 09 27
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
LEGAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
>
2006-2019 Legal Review Committee Agendas and Packets
>
2018 Legal Review Committee Agendas and Packets
>
Legal Review Committee Agenda and Packet 2018 09 27
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:20:39 PM
Creation date
10/3/2018 9:15:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
LCPKT 2018 09 27
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
68
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 Finance Committee <br />Meeting Minutes <br />August 28, 2018 <br />Page 3 of 5 <br />Councilmember Stolzmann stated it is nice to be responsive and proactive, but <br />she was in agreement that we can do all this and it won't stop what you want to <br />stop. She suggested continuing with the current regulations, tell people what their <br />options are and how to report issues. She recommended the Committee write a <br />memo to the full Council explaining the decision. If it becomes an issue the <br />Committee will reevaluate. <br />Councilmember Stolzmann moved to write such a letter and also ask staff to <br />include additional information in the newsletter so the public knows what they can <br />do. Councilmember Loo seconded. <br />Discussion on motion. <br />Councilmember Loo asked if the definitions of "trespass "and "no soliciting" need <br />to be clarified. City Attorney Light stated for the purposes of this ordinance it <br />doesn't matter. If someone doesn't leave the property when asked we can <br />prosecute either way. <br />Vote: All in favor. <br />DISCUSSION/DIRECTION — BIENNIAL EVALUATION PROCESS FOR <br />MUNICIPAL JUDGE, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, CITY ATTORNEY, AND <br />WATER ATTORNEY <br />Councilmember Leh stated we haven't done this in the past before reappointing <br />these positions. He feels we don't have good metrics or ways to evaluate right <br />now. He asked the City Attorney for ideas related to his position. <br />City Attorney Light stated is good idea and they always welcome feedback. It <br />would be helpful to determine from whom to gather input, perhaps the City <br />Manager and Directors. He stated there are samples of City Attorney review <br />documents. He stated such a process helps the City Attorney understand where <br />changes are needed. <br />Councilmember Leh stated it would be helpful to get some trends and information <br />from the City Attorney; some of that is obvious but some is not and would be <br />useful information. Most measures are really qualitative, we can determine if the <br />person is timely, helpful, over -priced, etc. <br />Councilmember Leh asked staff to find out what other cities do. Councilmember <br />Stolzmann stated ICMA has one with some good broad themes to start with. <br />Staff will bring back some options for consideration for the City Attorney <br />evaluation. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.