Laserfiche WebLink
Gene Flores, member of the Charter Review. Committee, stated <br />that the Committee wished to make one recommendation; that <br />public hearings were held, but that at no time was there <br />enough citizen input to develop other alternatives; that the <br />Committee:wished to present a recommendation:that the entire <br />Committee could support as the best possible:answer. <br /> <br />Robert Gunton, member of the Committee, stated that he had <br />considered preparing a minority opinion; and' he called atten- <br />tion to Sections 402 and 416, one dealing with compensation <br />for Councilmen, and the other with publishing the full text <br />of ordinances; that he would rather see the Councilmen accept <br />their present salaries and continue°publishing ordinances in <br />their entirety. <br /> <br />Patricia McGuigan, a Committee member, stated that she cast <br />dissenting votes on a number of items and she would be very <br />happy to discuss any of those items with the Councilmen and <br />give her views; that there was very little citizen interest <br />in the Charter revisions; and that the Committee would cooperate <br />in spreading the word to the citizens. <br /> <br />Dorothy Smith of the League of Women Voters stated that her <br />organization is very interested in the proposed Charter changes, <br />and that Sections 415 and 416 should be carefully considered <br />because of the citizens' need for informafion. She suggested <br />that publication of a brief explanation of the purpose,of <br />each ordinance in non-legal language, printed in full-size <br />type would be more valuable than the publication of the entire <br />ordinance. Mrs. Smith also stated that the League is concerned <br />with the number of separate measures, and questioned whether <br />the voters could be well enough informed on the revisions by <br />November. She suggested that the revisions dealing with the <br />personnel system might be voted on at a separate election. <br /> <br />Richard Kreisler, 11661 San Vicente Boulevard, Los Angeles, <br />representing the Police and Firemen's Benevolent Associations, <br />commented on a number of recommended changes in the personnel <br />rules, as follows: <br /> <br />Section 912 and 1001 - opposed the elimination of the <br />term"civil service" and the substitution of the term <br />"personnel" because state and federal case law refers <br />to "civil servants" and the change could cause legal <br />confusion; <br /> <br /> Section 1002 - opposed exempt classification for de- <br /> partment heads because of potential political pressure; <br /> <br /> Section 1005 (d)- opposed because it could adversely <br /> affect promotion of eligible employees; <br /> <br />Section 100S (e) - opposed the one year maximum for <br />eligibility lists in preference of the existing 2-year <br />maximum on the basis that the list would not stagnate <br />within 2 years; <br /> <br />Section 1005 (f) - opposed the concept of selection <br />at random should there be too many applicants for <br />one position because it is unfair; <br /> <br />Section 1006 - opposed the deletion of the rule of $ <br />because it avoids manipulation by the City; and opposed <br />the addition of a minimum of 6 months for probationary <br />period; and opposed denial of hearing rights to pro- <br />bationary employees; <br /> <br />Section 1008 - opposed 90-days suspension as an exces- <br />sive disciplinary measure; <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 256 JULY 6, 1976 <br /> <br /> <br />