HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic HandoutComments on Draft June 21, 2012 Charter Update Minutes
from: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher[a@Vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229)
The following are suggested corrections to the Draft Minutes of the Newport Beach Charter
Update Committee's June 21, 2012 meeting as presented in "Attachment A" in the agenda
packet distributed on June 25 for consideration at the June 28, 2012 meeting.
• Page 1 includes an extensive discussion of an approval of minutes without identifying
what minutes are being discussed on approved.
o Suggested change: IV. APPROVAL OF JUNE 14, 2012 MINUTES
• On page 3:
o In the second paragraph from the end, it is unclear from the minutes if the City
Manager was purportedly reporting the comparative "total" compensation paid
directly to the Council members, the direct compensation plus the cost of benefits
paid by the cities, or some other figure, and also if the higher compensation paid
to Mayors is part of the averages. If this was clear at the meeting, it should be
clear in the minutes, particularly since the figure quoted for Newport Beach
Council Members is difficult to reconcile any number reported to the public in any
recent budget.
o In the final paragraph, "PERS" is more commonly referred to as "CaIPERS" in
City documents.
• On page 4,:
o at the end of the fourth paragraph:
"recommended that the Council not recehote-d receive any retirement benefits"
o in the following sentence:
• My recollection is that Finance Director McCraner said that offering
PERS (or PARS) benefits was required by law, so staff could not "opt
out" of offering benefits, but individual Council members were not
required to accept them. That is quite different from the statement in the
minutes which suggests the IRS requires Council members to participate
in a PERS.
As on page 3, PERS might be Ca/PERS
Draft June 21, 2012 Charter Update Committee Minutes corrections Page 2 of 2
• On page 5:
o In the second multi -line paragraph:
"He noted that he has spoken to Elizabeth Starr Stahr"
o In the first line of the third paragraph from the end, "would affect the changes of
the Charter being amended' is probably supposed to be "chances."
o In the second paragraph from the end, the draft minutes suggest I recommended
changing Master Plan to General Plan. I did not recommend that, and was in
fact shocked that the change was made without any further discussion and
without a request for investigation by the Planning Division:
Suggested change: "Jim Mosher suggested changing ""atee Ran to General
Plans anel not Change chanpin_gsubsection ^ in Section 707 c and
questioned if the reference to Master Plan in Section 707(a) might be to
what is now called a General Plan,`
• On page 6:
o In the third line, "other departments head" is probably meant to read "other
department's head" or "other department heads."
o Both motions refer to changing "Sections" when in it appears a single
"Section" is being voted upon; and the Section being voted on in the second
motion was most likely 709 rather than the 708 indicated.
■ Suggested changes:
"... approve the recommended change to Sections Section 707, ..."
"... approve the recommended change to Sections 7 Section 709, ...