My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1984-11-12
Charlottesville
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1984
>
1984-11-12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/26/2003 8:26:32 PM
Creation date
8/26/2003 8:12:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Meeting Date
11/12/1984
Doc Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
WORK SESSION: <br /> <br />SOUTH AFRICAN- <br />INVESTMENT <br />DIVESTITURE <br /> <br />ZONING <br />ENFORCEMENT <br />PROGRAM <br /> <br />443 <br /> <br /> Mr. David Toscano, a member of the Social Dewelopment Commission, <br /> commented on the report prepared by the FinanCe Department on South <br /> African divestment stating that the Sullivan principles do not speak <br /> to the political matters. Mr. Toscano also questioned the validity <br /> of some of the studies cited in the report. <br /> <br /> On a question from Mrs. Gleason, Mr. Buck stated that restricting <br />doing business with firms which deal in Sonth Africa would probably be <br />illegal due to the procurement law. Mr. Brick stated that he felt the <br />proxy~method used hy the University or.Virginia was futile. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix stated that he felt it was important to keep in mind <br /> <br />the City employees' perception of the effects of divestment and it should <br />be stressed ~hat. their retirement benefits will not be affected <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck agreed with Mr. Hendrix, adding that the plan is a defined <br />benefit plan and should a loss result from divestment, the taxpayers <br />would be the ones affected. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck stated that he felt divesting from firms which are not <br /> <br />signatories of the Sullivan principles would he a socially responsible <br />position, wo~ld not be a high risk proposition because many signatories <br />are blue chip stocks, and that the position'would reward those companies <br />who are Sullivan signatories and encourage others t° become'signatories~ <br />Mr. Buck added~ that he woUld like to see other cities and the State divest <br /> <br /> also. <br /> <br /> Dr. Gunt <br /> did feel that <br /> reaffirm the <br /> felt the City <br /> that it was <br /> <br /> On a-que <br />stated t~hat <br />would be in f, <br />and flagrant <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck <br />considered on <br /> <br /> ~ Mr. <br /> <br />1) keep exist: <br />3) shift enfo: <br />shift to Cemm~ <br />tion to shift <br />administrator <br /> <br />not merely r'e~ <br /> Mrs. Carl <br /> On motio: <br /> voted to meet <br /> as exempted b <br /> <br />Inf°l.~?i°n A <br /> (~~2~etj <br />President <br /> <br />er stated that'while she had not decided on the issue, she <br /> <br /> it would reflect the principles of CharlotteSville and would <br />2ity's position on segregation. Dr. Gunter added that she <br /> <br /> should not always take 'the course of least resistance and <br />nportant to bring these issues before the community. <br /> <br />~tion by Mr. Lloyd Smith, Planning CommiSsion member, Mr. Buck <br />~ile the policy could be expanded to other countries, he <br />~vor of restricting it to South Africa because of the unique <br />)olicies of the~ government. <br /> <br />stated that he felt it was healthy for the issue to be <br />both a community and .individual basis. <br />.~ix stated that four options existed for zoning enforcement: <br />~ng'mechanism, 2) increase staff within.present mechanism, <br />rcement to Community Development, and 4) increase staff and <br />mity Development. Mr. Hendrix stated it was staff's recommenda- <br /> <br /> enforcement to Community DevelOpment and hire a new zoning <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix added that the program would be proactive, <br /> <br />~ctive. <br /> <br />:er stated her support of the recommendation. <br /> <br /> by Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mrs. Gleason, Council unanimously <br /> in executive sessi, on to discuss personnel and legal matters <br /> <br /> Section 2.1~344(a)(!) and (6) of the Virginia Freedom of <br /> <br />ng was adjourned. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.