Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />Mr. Henry raised the point that the Planning COmnUssion will be meeting <br />January 24 in an all-day session with Manager and Planning Director. It <br />would be preferable that all members' appointments be confirmed by that <br />time. <br /> <br />-.-/ <br /> <br />Mrs. Shirey felt the two gentlemen should be reappointed, with further <br />discussion relating only to future appointments. Mr. Williams agreed, <br />feeling incumbents should be clearly aware well in advance of expiration <br />of their terms of any discussion that mi ght be forthcoming regarding <br />reappointment. In the first place, said Mr. Williams, it would be an <br />affront to the organization to withhold reappointment of an already-elected <br />President; too, Dr. MacKinnon has been through the extensive review, <br />evaluation, and selection process by the Common Council and, because of <br />the timing of the vacancy, his first term was only for two years; therefore, <br />he has not even completed what would be a normal term. <br /> <br />Mr. Murray felt that, given the timing of the present situation, <br />reappointment should perhaps be made, though he does tend to favor <br />review each time a reappointment is necessary to see who would best <br />qualify. <br /> <br />Mayor Anderson thought that setting certain standards for positions would <br />be a good idea but felt that, should an incumbent meet those standards, <br />he or she should be eligible for at least one reappointment. <br /> <br />Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />It was understood discussion on reappointment procedures would <br />be scheduled for a future Committee meeting. <br /> <br />Councilman Haws noted his intent to vote "no" on this item, saying he was not <br />voting against the appointment of Messrs. Maxwell and MacKinnon themselves, but <br />against the method of reappointment. He said he had never had an opportunity to <br />interview anyone for membership on the Planning Commission, and that although he <br />had voted for the reappointments in committee because he wanted to expedite the <br />appointments, he now felt that was wrong. After reviewing several of the citizen <br />interest forms on file, he now felt the appointments should be made through the <br />open process. <br /> <br />-' <br /> <br />Mayor Anderson <br />in committee. <br />pointing these <br /> <br />noted that the Council would be discussing reappointment procedure <br />Mr. Haws understood, that, he said, and would not be opposed to ap- <br />people another four to six months, but he still wanted to vote "no." <br /> <br />B. Zon~ng Appeal, Jess Hayden, S. W. Corner Lot of 11th and Polk (2 75-6) <br />Appellant has requested that hearing on the above appeal, originally <br />scheduled for January 26, be postponed to February 9. <br /> <br />Nr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to postpone hearing on <br />the above appeal to February 9. Hotion carried unanimously. <br /> <br />Comm <br />1/14/76 <br />Approve <br /> <br />C. Results of Summary on COrrmllttees and Commissions Appointments - Results were <br />d.istributed on a survey taken of Council members on preference for methods <br />of selection of members to bourds and cOrrmllssions. The selection options <br />w'or.e: Z} by Council .interview; Council to review all appropriate application <br />tonrr., narro;</ down the number, and intervi~w all finalists. 2) Citizen <br />forms,. Council would review the Ci tizen Interest Forms, making the appointments <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />----' <br /> <br />,~9 <br /> <br />1/26/76 - 13 <br />