88-022 Ordinance - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. „ • ?,,.:.? ? 10.1-t#g uf Wvx#4 (PXxtts#Eb 0H10 44070 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR M. YVONNE PETRIGAC MAYOR T0: ALL NEMBERS OF COUNCIL 9 FROM: MAYOR M. YVONNE PETRIGACI-A' 1 DATE: MARCH 30, 1988 RE: LINE ITIIM VETO, ORDINANCE 88-22 Phone: 777-8000 I am using the line item veto, as proscribed in the City Charter, for the above captioned line in Ordinance 88-22. Reason: I have been, still am, and will continue to be, an advocate of good planning and zoning for our city. In reviewing the City Charter with legal and planning experts in other cities, the concensus of all these lmowledgable people is that this is an administration function and for the good of the city must stay as such. When Council hires a person that person, according to Charter, is "employed for the proper discharge of the duties of Council". That means he works for Council. I believe any person working for any type of good planning, zoning, code review or land use must have the freedom to work with Council, Administration, the corrmunity and corrmissions. This position should be treated by Council the same as the Building Commissioner, City Engineer, or any other department head. When Council employs one person they in essence are saying to the Administration, "We do not need nor want your help. That is why we are employing our own." Not only does this erode the administrative function in government but it costs government because the Administration still needs a person to work with the administrative entity. With the many pressures we have on us such as financial constraints, I would hope Council explores ways to work tagether with the Administration instead of ways to put another wedge between the legislative and administrative branches of government. As a cooperative option I would suggest to Council that a person with responsibilities for planning be included as a line item under the Division of Building, with that person reporting to the Building Commissioner. The initial and inmediate reason would be cooperative good planning and code review coupled with the continuance of day to day operations and a win-win situation for our city. MYP/pbf