On facebook, we asked what issue do you want president obama and congress to address this year . President upon is expected to announce plans for federal contractors to pay employees at least 10. 10 an hour. House speaker john potter was asked about the issue when he spoke with reporters today. Heres a look. What do you think about these actions by congress . Do you have any support . The president has the authority to raise the minimum wage for the federal contracts. That understands the game. This affects not one current contract. It only affects future contracts with the federal government. I think the the question is how many people of this executive action actually help . I suspect the answer is somewhere close to zero. When it comes to the federal minimum wage, when you raise the cost of something, you get less of it. We know from increases in minimum wage in the past that hundreds of thousands of lowincome americans have lost their jobs. And so, the very people the president pur
vice president olague: we were told president miguel: i am not interested in a challenge from a member of the public. with the city attorney comment? it is really the secretary of the commission who is charged with reviewing the minutes and the tape to determine what action the commission took. here is my understanding of what happened two weeks ago is that the commission declined to certify the eir, provided direction to staff on what the inadequacies were of the eir. no determination was made at that hearing of whether or not recirculation would be required. the project approvals were continued to january 27, along with the certification, with i think the expectation again, the secretary will need to confirm this as well with the expectation that the eir would be changed to address the commission s direction. if recirculation is required and there was not enough time between now and january 27 to effect that recirculation, another continuance may be in order in ja
if recirculation is required and there was not enough time between now and january 27 to effect that recirculation, another continuance may be in order in january. but the commission did provide direction and referred to some correspondence in the record and some comments that were made, as well as making comments themselves about what the inadequacies were and what changes needed to be made to that eir, and that the commission had the ability to consider that correct it changed and amended eir in january. and that some additional public notice was required because of the recirculation issue, and it was continued again, and that staff could advise commission. and one other point, on this question of the memo, this paragraph, one clarification, i thought that paragraph was intended to mean that there is the ceqa context, where the commission can direct how to correct or improve an eir or the ceqa document, whenever it is. there is also the project approval context, where the c
was out here five, 10 minutes challenging the commission s role, as i remember it. commissioner moore: i recall that the city attorney stated that the commission had found the eir inadequate and basically restated our decision. what went beyond this was the banter, giving each other more breathing room. as far as i am concerned, i did not see that for me to put into question adding a couple of pages to the existing eir and everything would be fine. just like commissioner sugaya, it was almost re-scoping. there were substantial issues already missing from this eir, brought up clearly and concisely in the original draft comments when we first read the draft eir. but the department or whoever chose to completely ignore that. the shortcomings were only restated. there are almost identical to what was missing in the draft eir. i felt completely safe to not agree with the continuance, but did not feel threatened the decision would be made was the decision we made. in addition, ever
alternatives or things that may not have been analyzed. hose commissioners who t that way. president miguel: commissioner olague? vice president olague: i would ask the city attorney to review the transcripts of that hearing and to determine what the intention of the motion was, really. we seem to have some debate even from one of the persons who voted for the motion. i just think as soon as possible we need to have a public hearing that we have been planning for over a year about ceqa and the department s approach to it, and i guess we also have to include now what authority the commission has or does not have as relates to this issue, since we were challenged so clearly by the project sponsor s attorney, i felt, last hearing. i think for whatever reason president miguel: we were told vice president olague: we were told president miguel: i am not interested in a challenge from a member of the public. with the city attorney comment? it is really the secretary of the