10/27/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- , '. .', M. Revised Guidelines for Park Building Rental Policy for Advocate Groups Mrs. Shirey reported that she and Councilman Haws were on a cOnmUtteeto e revise guidelines for Parks Department rented 'policy for advoc(ite ,groups. The new wording would provide for use of the community buildings for what is felt to be justifiable activity. Mrs. Beal questioned the necessity for outlining such a complicated process at all. She did not understand why political groups should'b~ placed in a) separate category. Mrs.' Shirey explained that' the purpose of'the gllidelines is to provide clarification to the staff in granting requests for use; As Mayor Anderson stated, it is ci fact sheet that spells out lOOre;:d~arly former possible arbitrary decisions by staff. Mrs. Beal referred though to the partisan non-fund raising classification which would pay the regular fee plus $5 an hour, higher than the fee for the educational classification. Mr. Murray could not agree either that a group of dentists, 'for instance, should pay a smaller fee than, say, a republican party subcOnmUttee on urban problems. Mrs. Shirey also sympathized with Hrs.. Beal's point. She noted the committee did not look at the fees but 'merely the wording on the uses of the buildings.- She, for one, would be happy to support the fee schedule for partisan groups being lOOre in line with other classifications. Comm Mrs. Beal lOOved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the Council accept the 10/22/75 guidelines and that the matter of fees be referred back to ,the Approve COnmUttee for further study. Mr. Keller was bothered about conducting tund-raising activities in public buildings. He expressed some opposition to that guideline being included. Mr. Bradley then wondered if the policies would allow a group to have a private meet::ing 'excluding the general public and he was advised that it would e be the same as an owner-tenant relationship. One privilege of that type of relationship is use of the property. The general public cannot lOOve in on tenants. But Mr. Bradley felt there is a difference in that a qommunity center is a general public building - a rental house is designated as a private house. It was suggested that perhaps that matter also be 'referred to thecomnuttee. Vpte was taken on the lOOtion which would include' also referral to the commdttee of the fund-raising classification. Motion carried, all council members voting aye except Mr. Bradley vOting no. N. Council Bylaws on Commission and Board Appointments (Copy of resolution distributed to Council) - Mayor Anderson stated that the manner in which the proposal is presented conflicts somewhat with his thinking. The differences he notes are not a personal matter with him 'but rather how he views the office of mayor regardless of who holds that offiqe. Since 'the powers of the mayor are carefully designated in the city charter, it seems rather inconsistent if the council were to use its own bylaws to designate duties and powers 'which in effect they seem to be doing under this ne~ proposal. He pointed out the following desired changes: In Section 2 under flrticle IV (2), it stated, "In addition, the Mayor shall have the power to appoint special cOmnUttees to be known as the Mayor's Special COnmUttee for " Mayor Anderson does not feel that is a power . that Council has the right to give. In the charter, the. Mayor and Council are quite separate; Council may appoint its own committees and it would seem the Mayor should have that privilege also. He would therefore suggest deletion of that passage. e In ,Section 2, Article IV(5), it states, "Within a reasonable time after the close of the, Ijear,' the Mayor shall cause, on' behalf of' the Counqil, a letter of thanks and expression of regret to be forwarded to all applica.nts who completed a Citizen Interest Form but were no~ sele~ted to serve on any BOard, Co~ssion ., . 'SG~'1": '10/27/75 - 15, :'~ ,,' . ,,~'.