02/09/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 -I e N. Special Council Meeting January 28 - Council will be meeting in a special sessJ.on at 4 p.m. "today" in the McNutt Room to consider applications for appointments to boards and commissions. Mr. Keller felt the session wuld last several hours, that Council members should come prepared for the J.nterview process. Comm 1/28/76 File e' O. Reappointments by Council to Boards and COmaUssions - Discussion continUed from January 14 meeting. Regarding earlier comments by some that reappo:tntllJent should be considered for incumbents demonstrating satisfactory performance, . Mr. Haws did not agree that a person should be selected simply because m:, has "already served." Mr. Murray said any comments ~e woul~ ~e would be l~inited to appointments made by the Council only. Sta~d~ng pol~c~e~ ~o need to be established and he feels that, when a term exp~res, the pos~t~on then b~omes vacant and Council has an obligation to seek applicants from the.commun~ty. He would not favor a policy that would discriminate again~t the ~ncumbent, but current practices in effect discriminate against "~utsi~e~s". .There are a great many people, he added, as the expe~i~nt w~th c~t~~en ~nterest forms indicates , who are interested in all pos~t~ons. He real~zes some positions do require' skill and expertise, however. Mr. Keller feels some people may not realize the magnitude of homework involved in serving on certain commissicns. He referred to Mr. Porter's comment that it takes approximately two years in most cases for a Planning Commission member to feel an integral pa rt of the planning process. Mr. Keller is not convinced it would be fair to require a person to reapply after serving only one term on the Planning Commission. He wonders what should be given highest priority - good planning experience or diverse community participation. Perhaps, he concluded, additional applications could be received but an incumbent should not have to go through the entire review process again. Mr. Williams is deeply troubled over the rate of turnover of elected officials and members of boards and commissions. He is not satisfied a rapid burnover is of any benefit to anyone - a reasonable time period- of service seems more worthwhile. Another factor, he added, is whether an individual 1s qualified to serve, especially in the case of the Planning Commission. He thought comment had been made that an individual would be qualified for appointment to the Planning COmnUssion because of extensive training in planning. He would think extensive training essential to be a member of the planning staff, but advisory groupS should not be required to possess the same general attributes. Mr. Murray does not understand the philosophical premise of automatic reappointments. He realizes it does take time to understand and become familiar with processes but, if it is assumed that everyone should be reappointed because of that reason, some limitations on length of service should be developed, he said. It would seem obvious to him that, even with open applications, incumbents in most instances would be considered heavy favorites. Mr. Murray said he is not excited about citizen participation for its own sake but rather that Council has an obligation to assure that local government is characterized for its openness and accessibility. e Mr. Keller would find it difficult to grasp that one reappointment policy could apply to all groups. Frequency of meetings of various groups range from more than once a week to once a year, for instance, and he wondered how one policy could cover both extremes. Mr. Bradley noted lack of interest expressed to him in serving on a board or commission without automatic reappointment possibilities. 85 2/9/76 - 23