01/26/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. - all citizen interest forms submitted, each to submit two names deemed appropriate for consideration by the full Council. If it was determined not enough names were provided, it could be changed rrore easily than if the procedure were contained in the ordinance. Mr. Murray supported that thinking but didn't believe a procedure had to be written up anywhere. He thought the procedure already in the bylaws could be followed - Council review of all applications for selection of those to be interviewed. '.- Upon being told that the amendment, if the rrotion passed, would be adopted at the next Council meeting, Mrs. Beal pointed out that the manner of selection by open interview was one of the most sensitive points in the discussion on creation of the four corrmissions. She expressed surprise that Councilman Murray had forgotten the issue was deadlocked until the League of Women Voters suggested the method finally adopted, and she felt another "lot of turrroil" would be started at this time. She thought the amendment would be satisfactory for appointments in the future but to do that in selecting the original membership at this time she felt was dishonest. Mr. Murray concurred that full Council interview was an important point in initial discussions, and he said the Council should be aware there would be people disappointed if there is a change in the procedure. However, his only intent was to say it may have been a mistake to choose that method, that it is very time consuming and an inefficient way of proceeding. Mayor Anderson thought the Council's handling 'input on an informal basis would satisfactorily meet all obligations to keep good faith if it was understood that there would be interviews before a final decision. e Mrs. Bea.I said she would go along with the change on all but the women's comrndssion because there was a very clear and firm understanding. She said son~ of the groups ..ere thinking of asking for changes in commission structure, and she suggested when those amendment requests came in, this amendment could occur. _ Mrs . Beal 1lX)ved to amend the rrotion so that it would apply to all commissions except the women's commission. Motion died for lack of a second. In response to Councilwoman Shirey, Mayor Anderson explained that Mr. Williams' 1lX)tion was very general and provided only that selection and appointment would be made by the City Council. How the Council makes the selection and appointment is up to it. This amendment would re1l'Ove from the ordinance the restrictions on the process. He added that it could be adopted with the understanding that appointments to the women's commission possibly could be made following interviews. Mrs. Shirey said she would be in favor of the 1lX)tion only on that condition. Councilman Williams said the intent of his motion should not be construed that appli cants for the women's comrndssion definitely would be interviewed. If the Council made that decision when looking at the applications, it has the right' to do that, he said; but his motion does not look to any specific procedure. Mrs. Beal expressed very strong opposition to the motion and noted there would probably be other strong opposition because she thought in a way it was a betrayal of what was promised the women's groups. e Vote was taken on the motion to amend the human rights ordinance to provide simply for selection and appointment by the Council. Motion carried, Council members Keller, Haws, Williams, Murray, Bradley and Hamel voting aye and Council members Beal and Shirey voting no. '-' .45 1/26/76 - 19