10/27/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Bradley wondered about the provision in the proposed ordinance which states membership should consist of those persons who have "demonstrated active e invol vement" . He feels possibly there should be a balance of those demonstrating' active involvement and those not so involved. It would provide a more well rounded cOmnUssion. Mayor Anderson concurred with Mr. Bradley's views. He also wondered why it was stip~lated that the membership could range from 9 to 15, to which Mr. Murray replied that it was inherited from the present ordinance. Mayor Anderson pointed out experience has shown that. on committees that can expand and contract in number, the membership is not as well structured and becomes more informal. A definite number of mel~ers creates an obligation on the appointive authority to keep the roster filled. Otherwise, the membership could dwindle down to 9 with the possibility of 6 members being appointed all at one time - necessitating orientation of all at once. Mrs. Beal thought that, 'though a definite number of members could be set for each commission, that number need not necessarily be the same for each group. Mr. Murray expressed the hope that the proposal, pending passage of the motion on the floor, would be forwarded to every identifiable group concerned, inclUding the youth representation. Mr. Williams expressed the feeling that the basic structure of the proposal seems sound. He is concerned, however, with the role that each individual cOmnUssion would play. He views the possibility of 4 separate entities all coming to the Council arguing for their constituency. The Council could be faced with dealing with each one - one at a time - in a vacumn. It might make more sense, he felt, for reports produced by the individual comaassions to be filtered by the Human Rights Council before coming to the Council. He is also troubled with the initial appointment procedure, a procedure that can be very time consuming for Council members. Some direction e should be given, perhaps through staff, with a proposal coming before the Council for advice and consent. Mr. Murray shared Mr. Williams concerns, feeling that to simplify the appointment procedure a uniform package should be adopted by the Council and presented back in the form of bylaws. Mr. Murray also spoke to the sorting out by each commission of its concerns and priorities. He feels the Human Rights Council, charged with the responsibility to coordinate and evaluate, can provide some overview and give direction as to the most important problems each commission should address. It does not totally preclude a cOmnUssion from coming to the Council. That capability was not altered. Mayor Anderson referred to the statement that "members shall be appointed through a public process which includes open applications and interview of the finalists by the City Council". He wo~dered if the inclusion of open applications would be considered mandatory or would be a part of the process. It has been the experience that to bring talent and representation at the same time to a cOmnUssion frequently necessitates recruiting an individual to fill a certain role. Often those best suited for membership are not the ones who seek out application. Mr. Bradley wondered if any thOU~lt had been given to providing more responsibility to the Human Rights Council. It appears, as written, tnat the Council would be weak and the comndssions strong. e Mr. Murray answered that that point was probably the prime controversy in the committee's deliberations. It was the comrndttee's position that it was appropriate for each commission to have a strong advocacy role but not necessarily balanced with a strong Human Rights Council, as long as the whole appeal process is not handled by the commission. 5~./' 10/27/75 - 9