Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-11-27HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION MINUTES MEETING OF NOVEMBER 27, 1985 The Regular Adjourned Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Huntington Beach Public Facilities Corporation was called to order by President Nowlin at the City of Huntington Beach Corporation Yard, Huntington Beach, California at 3:15 p.m. on November 27, 1985. There were present from the Board: Nowlin Wamhoff Also attending were: Dan Villella, Director of Finance Donald W. Kiser, Assistant Secretary Terry Dixon, Corporate Attorney for the HBPFC Arthur De La Loza, Deputy City Attorney Sandra Jo Freeman, Court Reporter Stephen W. Wight, Applicant Joseph J. Garafalo, Applicant Ivor M. Grant, Applicant Susan Newman, Applicant Invited Applicants not in attendance: Robert B. Beck Frank Tostado Gene Farrell Warren G. Hall Lorraine Faber Lance B. Eliot Applicants having previously declined: Mark T. Lambert Jacques Cools The meeting was called to order by President Nowlin. Roll call was taken as recorded above, noted herein to be a quorum due to the two Directors present being the sole remaining members of the Board. The September 25, 1985 Minutes were approved as presented. Mr. Nowlin announced that he would call upon the applicants for self introductions to the Board; and that he would call them in order of receipt of their applications. Mr. Beck was called upon, but was not present; and was noted as having sent a letter stating he would be out of town. Mr. Farrell was called upon, but he was not present. Mr. Tostado was called upon, but he was not present. Mr. Grant was called upon, and asked to give the Board a statement of his background and qualifications. Mr. Grant stated that he had been a resident for the past eight or nine years; that he had attended Cal Tech in Pasadena; and that he had retired from being an insurance broker about two years ago, having had his own agency. Mr. Wamhoff then made note that a representative from the City Attorney's Office was present and also a Court Reporter, as well as the Corporation's Attorney. Mr. Nowlin requested that each introduce themselves for the record. Mr. Arthur De La Loza introduced himself as Deputy City Attorney, representing the City Council. Terry Dixon, Attorney for the Corporation, introduced himself, and stated he was with the Law Firm of Bowie and Risley. Sandra Jo Freeman introduced herself as the Court Reporter and was with the Firm of Hahn and Bowersock Court Reporters. -2- Mr. Nowlin then continued calling upon the applicants. Mr. Cools was called upon, but he was not present. Mr. Kiser informed the Board that Mr. Cools wife had notified him earlier that Mr. Cools could not make afternoon meetings. Mr. Garafalo was called upon, and he was present. Mr. Garafalo stated that he had been employed with Hughes Aircraft Company in their Long Beach plant. He had lived in Huntington Beach for four years. He stated, as a result of moving from Los Angeles to Long Beach, he had become involved and had been a member on the Mayor's Fiscal Management Advisory Committee, and he had also been on the Board of the YMCA. He stated that his wife was very active with the Long Beach Symphony. Since he now lived in Huntington Beach, he desired to make a contri- bution of his efforts. He stated that he had gained business experience from being with the Hughes Company during its growth. Susan Newman was called upon, and she was present. Mrs. Newman stated that she had been a resident of Huntington Beach for the past fifteen years. She had served on the Huntington Beach Planning Commission. She had been the Chairman of the Huntington Beach Community Clinic, and she had been partially responsible for the reopening of the clinic after it had closed. She had completed a tour as Treasurer of the Retarded Childrens Association in Long Beach. She also had been a part of a fund raising committee for the Long Beach Symphony. She was the portfolio manager for a family trust as well as having her own personal stock portfolio,_ and she was involved with stocks on a weekly basis. She indicated that she was well knowledgeable of the City and informed the Board of several of her past activities. She went on to state that she had firm convictions as to her seeing the responsibilities of serving on a Board or Commission, as being to the constituents and as being for the good of the community. Mr. Wamhoff then presented a hypothetical situation regarding bonds and responsibilities, and general discussion followed between he and Mrs. Newman. -3- Mr. Nowlin asked if any other applicants were present, and Mr. Kiser stated that Mr. Wight was present and had been at the former meeting. Mr. Wight indicated he had returned in response to the letter of invitation. He said, he had nothing to add to his former statement, unless the Board had any questions. The Board indicated that there were none. Mr. Kiser mentioned that of the former applicants who had statements, that Lorraine Faber and Lance Eliot had been invited, but they did not attend. Mr. Hall was also noted as having been invited, but he had sent a letter stating he would be out of town due to illness in his family. Mr. Wamhoff noted that the total list of applicants also listed Mr. Lambert. Mr. Kiser stated that he was an earlier applicant, but he had declined due to being on the Environmental Board. Mr. Nowlin stated that the Board had several actions to perform, including the filling of three vacant positions, as had been advertised. He noted that due to failure of the City Council to approve the former slate presented to them, he first wanted to nominate Mr. Wamhoff for re -presentation. Mr. Wamhoff stated he accepted. Mr. Nowlin requested that they act upon it, and he voted for it, and Mr. Wamhoff stated he accepted. Mr. Dixon addressed the Board, stating that in as much as the City Council had adopted a resolution disapproving of the former four nominations, the Board needed to act on the resolution in some fashion. He stated that he felt the action of nominating Mr. Wamhoff would constitute a form of action by a request for reconsideration. He further stated that the next question was, what would happen, if the renomination were dis- approved, but that he would recommend that not be addressed at this time. Mr. De La Loza then requested permission to be heard, and was so granted. He stated that he felt the action taken on nominating Mr. Wamhoff had resulted in a one to zero vote, and that the Bylaws required a majority vote of disinterested members. Mr. Dixon stated that the Bylaws did require a majority vote of three members to conduct any business. However, since there were now only two members remaining, and that action needed to be taken regarding the Council resolution, he saw nothing inappropriate in the action that had been taken. Mr. De La Loza stated that the action should be able to withstand close scrutiny, and as he saw it, this would not be the case due to the vote being a fifty per cent approval. Mr. Wamhoff pointed out that if the Board were down to one, that member could appoint the other four members. Mr. De La Loza stated that was correct. Mr. Nowlin asked, if Mr. Wamhoff were to resign, then he would be able to act? Mr. De La Loza stated that was correct. He went on to state that in such case as Mr. Nowlin being the sole member, that he could appoint one and then those two could appoint Mr. Wamhoff. Considerable discussion followed between the Board and the two attorneys regarding one at a time or appointing three at this time. Mr. De La Loza first suggested one at a time and submit to the City Council, but later stated they could elect three, and submit all three in an order of selection. Mr. Nowlin pointed out that the first suggestion would not expedite the selection process, as he understood was the desire of the Council. Mr. De La Loza stated the Council was willing to call special meetings for this purpose. Mr. Nowlin stated that this might be so, but not necessarily so with the Board to call special meetings. Mr. Dixon stated he felt that the main issue was to -present a slate of appointees to the Council. Mr. Wamhoff made a point that he :had no intention of assigning any order to a selection of three, and that he would consider all to be equal. Mr. De La Loza stated he had proposed the action on one at a time to give the Council the opportunity to act on the appointments individually. Mr. Nowlin -5- stated that the Board was conducting a meeting of the Public Facilities Corporation, and that it was not for the convenience of the City Council. At this point in the meeting, Mr. Nowlin called for a recess. Upon reconvening the meeting, Mr. Dixon addressed the Board, stating that he and Mr. De La Loza had discussed the issues during the recess in an attempt to agree on the most expeditious procedure for the Board to follow. His recommendation to the Board was to nominate three persons, one at a time, and at the end of that, to make the request for reconsideration of Mr. Wamhoff, as had been previously discussed. Mr. Nowlin asked, if they selected three, could those three then sit on the Board and have a voice? Mr. Dixon stated that once they were elected, yes, they could sit and act on the Board. Mr. Nowlin then stated that he did not agree with Mr. De La Loza, in his reading of the Bylaws. He again stated his preference was to first nominate Mr. Wamhoff, and asked Mr. Dixon, if he could suggest a proper wording. Mr. Dixon stated that it became a procedural matter, and he would not be comfortable with this being a first action. He suggested that three could be appointed, submitted to the Council; and the resubmission of Mr. Wamhoff could occur later. Mr. Dixon stated that he considered the most important thing was to follow a procedure that could not be challenged, but that at some point in time, action needed to be taken on the Council resolution. He felt this could be accomplished after the appointment, submission, and non -rejection of three new members; who could then act on the issue of a resubmission. Mr. Wamhoff stated, he wanted to nominate three as being qualified, all equal, and that he did not have any preference of one over any other. He nominated Mr. Stephen Wight, Mrs. Lorraine Faber, and Mrs. Susan Newman. Mr. Nowlin stated, he had heard the nominations, and that he voted in favor of them. Mr. Nowlin asked if the appointing action had been correct? Mr. Dixon stated that as far as he could see, it was in light of a need to continue the Corporation's business, and now that there were three new appointees, they could be submitted. He stated, next would be to await action, if any, by the City Council. Mr. Kiser pointed out that a past policy of the Corporation had been to send each appointee a letter requesting signature of accepting or rejecting the appointment. Mr. Nowlin requested this action be taken. Mr. Nowlin noted that one of the appointees was still present, and asked, if he would accept. Mr. Wight stated, yes, he would accept the appointment. Mr. Nowlin asked if there were any further comments or audience communication? Hearing none, he adjourned the meeting to January 29, 1986. Donald W. Kiser Assistant Secretary, HBPFC Note: Statements referred to hereinabove are noted as being in general only, and are not, nor intended to be verbatim quotes. Approved: President Wi Secretary/Treasurer -7-