That concept is consistent with what he believes the CRC has adopted which is that the
purpose of the required hearings is that at the conclusion of those hearings, the CRC would
be able to make the appropriate revisions as they deem appropriate. Although that language
is not contained in the Charter, the Charter seems to at least replicate the majority of Section
125.63, and it is clear that the language and the concept for revisions is similar to the initial
adoption of a charter.
With that said, then what happens is the CRC is able to go through the hearing process
listening to the interested electorate, take into consideration the comments that are made, and
then at the conclusion of the hearing process be able to make appropriate amendments and
revisions that the CRC feel would be appropriate. Robert's Rules of Order, which have been
adopted by the CRC as the procedural mechanism for parliamentary process, would provide a
mechanism for making changes to the two resolutions that are presently before the CRC.
Ms. Smith confirmed with Attorney Simmons that the statutory regulations allows the CRC to
defer conversation and consideration until after the third public hearing.
Attorney Simmons stated with respect to the matters that are before the CRC and the
discussions that were held, the issue becomes what would be the process. He believes there
is the right that is inherent to deal with all the matters, including the matters that were raised at
the last meeting. In regard to the question of whether they adopt a motion to reconsider,
there are various rules with respect to motions to reconsider. As to the previously proposed
third resolution (supermajority vote to change density and intensity in the rural areas) and how
the CRC may want to deal with it, a motion to reconsideration must be made by someone who
was a member on the prevailing side, but the seconder need not be made by a member who
was on the prevailing side. The effect of the motion would be to suspend any effect of the
matter under consideration until it's acted upon, which could be at the end of the hearings.
Alternately, there could be a motion to delay consideration of all of the matters until the
conclusion of the public hearings. Attorney Simmons opined someone would easily say the
purpose of three hearings is to wait until the conclusion to make and incorporate any
amendments that seems desirable and then vote upon them and then ultimately decide what
it's going to send forward. Otherwise the hearings would not be needed.
There was brief discussion and it was determined the June 6th meeting would be the
appropriate meeting to discuss any amendments.
Motion by Scott Culp, seconded by Tom O'Hanlon, to delay adoption and final vote on the
resolutions.
All members in attendance voted AYE.
Public Hearings - Legislative
3.
Resolution No. 1 Ballot Title: Requiring Supermajority vote by County
Commissioners to transfer or change the use of Natural Lands
4.
Resolution No. 2 Ballot Title: Requiring Supermajority vote by County
Commissioners to remove lands from the County’s Rural Area
Public Comment
