01/26/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e In response to Councilwoman Beal, Councilman williams said that one of the exceptions covered single-family dwellings in her ward. He explained that there were three projects on which people appeared without giving notice they wished to be heard - one had been resolved at staff level, the other two could not be resolved by staff and would have to be heard at the next panel hearing. '- Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanilTPusly. G.Appointment Procedure, Boards and COmnUssions - Manager reported 167 applications for membership on various boards and commissions had been received in response to 'the Council's new citizen interest program. The question now before the Council is the method of selecting the initial members of the four h~n rights commissions (women, minorities, aging, handicapped) as well as reappointments to existing boards and cOmnUssions. Councilwoman Beal thought full Council interview would be required since the ordinance so stipulated. However, t:he said she had talked with members of the groups for which lTPst applications were received - women and aging - and she felt they would understand the time pressures involved and would not object to Council subcommittee screening applications and recommending those persons to be presented to the full Council for interview. e Councilman Haws thought it might be possible for all Council members to review all of the applications for the human rights groups, then select those for full Council interview. Mayor Anderson said ultimately the Council will make the appointments. The women's and aging groups would like to have some input at this time, so the question now is what outside input is desired and in what way before th~re is a final decision. '- Mr. Haws said he was suggesting getting input from various groups much as the neighborhood groups were consulted when the Council last selected Planning Commission members. Mrs. Beal felt the applicatons lacked specifics on expertise in the various fields covered and, because there were so many applicants interested in many different comnattees, she felt a Council subcomnattee could talk to groups interested to determine which appointments would be most appropriate for which boards and comndssions. Councilman Murray thought an informal procedure best, each Council member having the prerogative to seek out information about applicants they might be interested in. To get in an official posture of seeking advice of one group or another, he said, often results in devisive kinds of concerns. Mayor Anderson agreed, saying perhaps the word could go out inviting any recommendations and supporting data. e In response t~ Councilwoman Shirey, Mrs. BlJal said her suggestion was for a Council subcomnUttee to review all the application forms, narrowing the choice down to those to be interviewed by the full council. She vol unteered for work on that suboonmtittee, saying she had personal knowledge of and acquaintanceship with the groups having the most applications - women and aging. Councilman Haws was not in favor of that procedure. He felt the entire Council should look at all of the applications. Councilman Hamel agreed. He said everyone who t:urned in an applicat:ion should be interviewed by the Council. But Mr. Haws said that was not his intent - to interview all the applicants. He meant the Council was obligated to review all the applications submitted, then select those to be interviewed by the full Council. '43 1/26/76 - 17