|
<br />-
<br />
<br />N Procedure for Planning Commission Appointments - Discussion continued from October 17
<br />. committee on procedure for selection of Planning Commission,members. Manager in
<br />answer to Mayor Anderson explained that the municipal judge is selected by receiving
<br />r~oommendations from the Lane County Bar Association, screened by a Council subcom-
<br />/mittee, with final selection by the Council as a whole. ERA members are chosen by the
<br />.4It Council as,a whole after a nomination and screening process by a Council subcommittee.
<br />
<br />Councilwoman Beal suggested Planning Commission members be chosen in the manner used
<br />: to fill vacancies on the Council - taking application to be reviewed by all Council
<br />'members after which selection is made. Councilman ,Williams thought the subcommittee
<br />'review of applications was better. He felt more appointments would become the re-
<br />Isponsibility of the Council in the future and that a Council subcommittee would be
<br />: better able to review applications and deal with the interview process.
<br />
<br />; Councilman Murray felt it extremely important that all Council members be involved t
<br />in the selection process because of the vitally important decisions made by the Plan- '
<br />ning Commission. He said when he suggested taking applications he did not mean to :
<br />imply there should be no criteria established for selection or balance in makeup of I
<br />the Commission. He favored taking self-initiated applications from the public at
<br />large with all Council members involved in their review.
<br />
<br />Councilwoman Beal said the Council should have a list of present Commission members,
<br />lengths of terms, etc., to give an idea of the qualifications to be looked for in
<br />making appointments. Mayor An~erson suggested there should be a uniform procedure I
<br />for making appointments, otherwise the amount of time consumed could become more than '
<br />most would want to undert~ke. Betty Niven thought the Council might want to have
<br />. recommenpations from the Planning Commission itself, much as in selection of the )
<br />municipai jUdge where there is reliance upon recommendations from the Bar Associ~tion.
<br />She saidl the Commission itself also has a great deal at stake in the kinds of appoint- \
<br />ments. Councilman Murray didn't think interviewing applicants would take more than a ;
<br />'short session on one evening and felt the entire Council would be able to spare that
<br />'amount of time. Councilmen Bea1, Hershner, and Campbell agreed.
<br />r
<br />
<br />Mrs. Bea1 moved seconded by Mr. Murray to follow the procedure for appointment of ,
<br />Council members in selecting members of the Planning Commission. Comm 1
<br />. 10/24/73
<br />
<br />Councilman Williams explained that his Objection to this procedure was not so much Affirm
<br />'the time .element as it was the method. He recalled the substantial effort on the
<br />part of the Council to agree on criteria for the selection of the last Council member
<br />. to fill a vacancy. FOllowing that, there WaS effort to decide whether the applicants '
<br />interviewed met the criteria thought to be meaningful. There was no interchange of
<br />, ideas and no agreement, and the final selection was made by voting. He felt a sub-
<br />committee at least could better reach'conclusions.
<br />
<br />, Councilman Wood said he had no objections to use of a subcommittee if the entire
<br />. Council gives approval to the criteria prior to taking applications. Councilnlan
<br />McDonald favored Planning Commission appointments in the same manner used for filling
<br />; Council vacancies.
<br />
<br />". .. Vote. was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all Council members present
<br />: voting aye, except Mr. Williams voting no. ? /"
<br />/ ~
<br />
<br />'It was understood that staff would develop an application form based on the one used
<br />for Council appointment to include also a description of the duties, time involved, re-
<br />strictions in State law, etc., to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and' then pre-
<br />sented to the Council for approval before being issued. A list of present Planning
<br />Commission members in line with Councilwoman Beal's request would also .be made avail-
<br />ab1 to the. 'Counci1.
<br />.~eI)Ort on Sk~nners Butte project - Ro1lie Glass of the Eugene Jaycees gave an u ate
<br />; on the Pfogress being made on the Skinners Butte landscaping. He stated the City
<br />; has agreed to give $5,000 to start the project,. the Jaycees to match that in
<br />. materials, manpower or money. Subsequent to that, the City has given another I
<br />I $5,000. He distributed an October l8, 1973, recap showing total expenditures to '
<br />I ,. .
<br />J date of $8,000. Chuck Heauser showed some "before and after" slides of the progress
<br />made, inq1uding the removal of the old reservoir, cleanup of the new one, repair
<br />of existing railings, landscaping and irrigation. The City crews have provided
<br />b1acktop,around the west end with better access to viewpoints. Jim Cisler gave an
<br />overview of future plans, showing a map of the area and demonstrating how each area
<br />wi11,100k when completed. Councilwoman Campbell complimented the Jaycees on their 1
<br />~ . ~fforts; she also mentioned the need for repaving the access road. Mr. Glass po.inted
<br />'~~ out that it would be best to hold off on repaving until their work is finished.
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal moved, seconded by Mr. Wood, that the City Council go on record as expressing
<br />,deep gratitude for the interest shown by the Jaycees in the project and the work done.
<br />Mayor Anaerson added his appreciation, saying it was refreshing to see a gr~up take Comm
<br />action rather than simply voicing their concerns. 10/31~73
<br />A1:fii-m
<br />Vote was taken on the motion as stated, which carried" unanimously. .
<br />
<br />~......,.....,.,--.-..~-,-----_'-- __~....... L
<br />
<br />1>3~ 11/5/73 - 11
<br />
|