Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ordinance Drafting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Councilors flag 'shareholder' wording, ask staff to clarify background-check requirements
Summary
A council member questioned whether the ordinance's use of the term "shareholder" could unintentionally require background checks for shareholders of publicly traded companies; staff acknowledged the drafting concern and said the language would be reviewed.
During the hearing a Committee member raised a drafting concern about the ordinance’s use of the term "shareholder," noting that publicly traded companies have large numbers of shareholders and that requiring background checks or fingerprints for every shareholder could be impractical or unintended.
"I'm just wondering if the word shareholder in there is going to do some unintended work," the Committee member said, pointing to several sections in the draft (identified in the record as 12-1-24 a, b and c and a related heading). Staff acknowledged the point and explained the ordinance’s intent is to ensure accountability—focusing on owners or majority owners—while asking for clearer drafting on which corporate stakeholders would be subject to fingerprinting or background checks.
The Committee member also flagged a labeling issue in the draft: the notification-of-denial heading did not include text in one place even though the substance appears in the following issuance section (noted by the member as a drafting/labeling correction). Staff indicated these are drafting items that can be corrected before further action.
