Item 2C: Ratification of IGR Actions of April 23, 2008

Home Browse Search

Ms. Wilson asked Mr. Smith to keep the committee up to date on the progress of the grant. 3. Council Resolution on Grant Applications Ms. Wilson recalled that when the operating agreements had initially been discussed the portions affecting grant applications had been made “pretty straight-forward.” She said recently some issues had arisen regarding grant applications that had not been anticipated and that IGR staff needed some clarification of the grant application process. Ms. Wilson noted that staff had received an email vote on the recreation grant before the CCIGR today from Mr. Poling in addition to the proxy given to the Mayor. She stressed that the email vote had not been counted but that there had been no direction regarding this in the IGR Operating Agreements. She requested clarification noting that there would have been an issue if one of the votes had been a “no” vote with the concern being that neither the IGR Operating Agreements nor Resolution 4908 (Resolution) required a unanimous vote on grants. Ms. Taylor declared that in her opinion, Mr. Poling could not vote unless he was present. Mayor Piercy noted that Mr. Poling was not exactly on leave and that it was her understanding that Councilor Poling could still act if he showed up for a City Council meeting and could still vote if he was polled by email if email was within the normal process. She agreed, however, that actions at the CIGR meetings were not in his purview if he was not present. Ms. Taylor stated she was fine with Councilor Poling acting if he the issue was not before the CCIR at a meeting and the poll was within the normal procedure of the committee. Ms. Ortiz recommended that councilors discuss the issue of absences further at the next process meeting. Ms. Taylor expressed concern that too much was being undertaken by emailing and that the CCIGR probably needed to meet more often. Ms. Wilson indicated that this raised another issue since grants did not happen on a regular or monthly basis; for instance, often grants had short timelines. She said at times staff did not even apply for a grant because of the time constraints. She had requested that the City Attorney review the rules regarding the CCIGR and the attorney determined that there was no requirement in the Resolution or the IGR Operating Agreements for a unanimous vote on a grant application. She explained that currently if the vote in the CCIGR was not unanimous, the practice was to take the item before the full City Council for a vote. This had caused at least one grant to be dropped by staff because it could not be approved by the full City Council in time to meet the grant application deadline. She asked if the CCIGR wished to continue this practice, given that it was not required by the language in the IGR Operating Agreements or the Resolution. Ms. Taylor felt that having two people approve a grant application was enough, but wanted to make sure that everyone on the full City Council was notified of the grant application. In response to a question from Ms. Ortiz about the IGR Operating Agreements requirement for a unanimous vote, Ms. Wilson clarified that the IGR Operating Agreements addressed what happens if a vote on legislation is not unanimous and was silent on what happens when a vote on a grant was not unanimous. She explained that a non-unanimous vote on legislation was required to go to the full City council and no MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 23, 2008 Page 2