01/26/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

",' Mr. Keller rrvved seconded by Mr. Haws that staff prepare copies of all applications submitted for the four commissions for distribution to Council members as soon as possible, after which each Council member will submi t two names for each commission for full Council review and discussion of which to interview. . Councilman Williams was not averse to having each member submit two names, but he preferred seeing all of the applications before any definite decision was . made on procedure. Mrs. Shirey was concerned about the number. She thought there might be several top-notch applicants, and submitting two names could perhaps limit the number of those to be considered. Mayor Anderson and .Councilman Keller pointed out that there was nothing "magic" about two; three names could be submitted from each Council member if they desired. . Councilman HalvS said he would go along wi th the rrvtion, but it looked to him as though the Council was going back to the former procedure of selecting only those names with which they were personally familiar. There appeared to be very minor data available on the forms submitted, he said. He suggested changing the form to something like that used in selecting members appointed ,to the housing commission. Mrs. Beal commented that the people being selected were not to fill vacancies but for setting up new commissions, and areas of expertise, knowledge, and experience should be known. She thought picking : two names at random would not give the variety of interests and balance necessary for effective work. Mayor Anderson pointed out that five names could be submitted if wanted. Also that the purpose of Council discussion after the nominations were received would achieve the desired balance. COllnc_ilman Murray expressed frustration at getting bogged down in procedural . discussion and suggested the best W1Y to proceed was to review all of the applications after which a decision could be made on the next step. Mr. ',Williams agreed. e ,,- Mr. Williams rrvved seconded by Nr. Hamel to substitute a motion that staff distribute to individual Council m?mbers copies of all applications; thereafter the Council president would call a session of the Council to be held in one of the Council offices to which the press would be invi ted and free to cover, but to which the public would not be invited, at which time the Council would make the selections. Conun 1/21/76 Approve Councilman Keller wondered if a decision was needed on som? process to follow in that meeting. Mr. Murray answered that in the past the president usually suggested how the meeting would proceed. Vote was taken on the substitute motion as stated. Motion carried, Council members Keller, Williams, Murray, Hamel, and Shirey voting aye and Council members Haws, Beal and Bradley voting no. It was understood discussion on method for handling reappointments would be carried to a future Committee meeting. Mr. Bradley moved second by Mr. Murray to delete from committee motion the words ".. .to which the public would not be invited...." Ceuncilman Williams, who made the motion in committee, said he would accept that ~ amendment, and the Chair so ordered. However, after further discussion, Councilman ~ Keller suggested taking a vote on the amendment. He noted that appointments in the past had been made without the public in attendance. He felt public attendance would inhibit free discussion between Council members. 1/26/76 - 20 4b