Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/03/1980City Council Minutes March 3, 1980 - 12:10 p.m. Page 2 ship to 15 members for one year to accommodate the assimilation of CAC members, which together with normal vacancies would provide for an easy transition. He then reviewed his recommendations on the Citizens' Advisory Committee. He stated that that this was one of the most difficult groups to evaluate among the various boards and commissions of the city. The CAC consisted of exceptionally talented and civic minded citizens who for several years had spent several hours each month sincerely seeking to assist their community. Nevertheless, it was fair to say that since its inception the commission had not been able to establish itself as a forceful voice for the community or as an effective advisor to the City Council. He continued that the CAC was another example of a committee established to deal with a single issue but then held over without sanction by ordinance, resolution or charter outlining their responsibilities. Without definite instruction, the CAC had continued to function over the years in whatever manner and form seemed appropriate to the changing membership. Over the years, various Council's had made sporadic attempts to enhance the role and status of the board as "advisor" to the Council. However, by and large, these efforts had not been successful and the commission continued to lack a viable role in the present scheme of citizen boards. The reasons why the CAC was not more effective were not clear. He concluded by saying that he felt the problem was basically caused by the many different perceptions by of the CAC's purpose. Past and present City Councils tend to think of the CAC as a sounding board to study indepth of those issues and problems assigned to them by the Council. On the other hand, the Committee tended to see itself as a watchdog committee or a municipal grand jury with license to touch on any subject even if it falls within the jurisdiction of other commissions and to offer advice on such subjects whether it's asked for or not. Indeed, one former member described the board as a commission in search of a cause. He continued that the absence of a specific charge of statement of responsi- bility that this conflict was not at all surprising. Without such direction the Committee cannot be blamed for dwelving into subject areas which are already occupied by other citizen committees or of which the Council may have no immediate interest. The result was that the CAC was also left frustrated after having spent considerable time reviewing a specific subject only to find that the Council, staff and.responsible citizen boards do not share their concern. He stated he felt there were three possible alternatives for the Council to follow: 1) retain the commission in its present form and then adopt an ordinance detailing duties and responsibilities which would avoid misunderstandings and conflicts that had arisen over the past few years; 2) reorganize the CAC from an on -going standing committee into a "talent bank" consisting of 25 to 30 citizens who had agreed to be available as needed to study specific issues in considerable depth. As these studies would be assignee by Council the committee chairman would be responsible for assembling task force of from three to seven members to study and analyze specific problems. Upon completion of that assignment each task force would then automatically disband and its members would rotate back into the CAC talent bank for subsequent reassi ment. On of the major advantages of the talent bank concept was that many citizens who are unable to commit four years of their time to a standing committee might well be willing to devote one to.six weeks on a specific assignment on a subject in which they were particularly interested; 3) this option, which he preferred, would simply merge the CAC with the HRC. He felt that the greatest majority of issues studied by the CAC already was within the scope of HRC responsibility. Further,.the HRC would be assignment of permanent staff which would be in a better position to address such diversity of subje' areas. Lee Walton stated that since presenting his original report which he had just presented to the City Council, he had reviewed the CAC operation with the members of the CAC and they were not particularly enthusiastic about merging the committee with the HRC or dispanding the committee completely and possibly the answer might lie in having the CAC recreated as a community forum which would involve a standing steering.c.ommi.ttee of perhaps three people. These steering committee would develop a talent bank of 100 or so citizens who would City Council Minutes March 3, 1980 - 12:10 p.m. Page 3 Liz Fisher, Chairperson of the CAC, felt that the CAC was a committee of gener- alists and not specialists and agreed with the concept of a talent bank to solve special problems under the control of the CAC. She continued that the CAC took a vote among themselves and the vote was unanimous to continue as they had in the past. She felt the Council should accept this fact that the CAC did their studies without any feelings as to how the Council will react but gives the Council the best of their thinking. be willing to donate their time and special expertise to study specific issues. The steering committee's responsibility would be prepare a specific written charge and to select a task force from within the talent bank to deal with that particular subject. When the work of the task force was completed, they ' would submit their report and automatically self destruct with their names returned to the talent bank for future assignment. The advantage of this format, it would allow many more citizens to participate in city government. It would also allow citizens with unique skills to contribute their expertise to the city without becoming emeshed in a long term commitment of a standing ' committee. It would also enable the city to draw upon the specific talent necessary to properly address the more complex problems that arise from time to time. By changing the CAC to a Community Form organization, would permit the group to become an effective and more highly respected organization within the city. However, if in the final analysis, this format was unacceptable to the Council and the Council wished to retain the CAC in its present form, then the Administrative Officer offered that direction be given to develop a charter providing guidelines and specific responsibilities for the committee. Hopefully such guidelines would serve to give the Commission direction and to help avoid the present conflict with the other boards and commission and the city staff. Liz Fisher, Chairperson of the CAC, felt that the CAC was a committee of gener- alists and not specialists and agreed with the concept of a talent bank to solve special problems under the control of the CAC. She continued that the CAC took a vote among themselves and the vote was unanimous to continue as they had in the past. She felt the Council should accept this fact that the CAC did their studies without any feelings as to how the Council will react but gives the Council the best of their thinking. Councilman Bond stated he felt that the proposed concept of a talent pole was a good one but he did not feel it should be under the CAC but should be under the City Administration to be assigned as necessary. ' Councilman Jorgensen questioned the need for elimination of the CAC. He felt that the CAC should be retained as presently constituted but with written goals of duties and functions for adoption by the Council. He felt that the CAC was doing a good job. Councilwoman Billig felt the Council should evaluate all the advisory boards and commissions as to responsibilities, duties, etc. She felt the CAC did a good job in getting important issues before the Council. She felt that the lack of direction by these advisory boards was the fault of the Council, not the committees because if the Council was dissatisfied with the committee's work, then the Council should adopt rules and procedures for the guidance of advisory groups. She also did not feel that one or two more committees doing Connie Henricks, CAC member, reviewed the past years' activities of the CAC. She stated that the CAC accepted the following subjects as follows: 1) refer- ence by the Council; 2) assignment by the CAC itself; and 3) inquiries from the public. She continued they were now studying such items as: A) traffic; ' B) safety; C) parking; D) housing; and E) energy. Jay Schetzer, CAC member, stated he looked to the committee as an advisory type of committee to the City Council with no special legal responsibility to the Council. He felt the function was good as it allowed a group of diversified persons to look at problems within the city and make recommenda- tions after being reviewed by this group of citizens. He felt that much of the work of the CAC had been work in the area of the Planning Commission, due to the fact that the Planning Commission was overworked with minute detail in the city's planning process. He concluded his comments by reviewing the 1978 study prepared by the CAC on the overall reorganization of advisory boards, committees and commissions that was submitted in detail by the Council. He felt that the CAC proposal was good, that new concepts and innovation should be considered. As an example, he went through the CAC's recommendation on the planning function in the city in a very detailed way. He felt this would have solved many of the negative planning problems facing the city. He felt that the CAC should continue as it is so that the existing initiative would not be blunted. He felt the CAC should be allowed to operate independently from the City of San Luis Obispo and the Council and then give their best advice as they see fit. Councilman Bond stated he felt that the proposed concept of a talent pole was a good one but he did not feel it should be under the CAC but should be under the City Administration to be assigned as necessary. ' Councilman Jorgensen questioned the need for elimination of the CAC. He felt that the CAC should be retained as presently constituted but with written goals of duties and functions for adoption by the Council. He felt that the CAC was doing a good job. Councilwoman Billig felt the Council should evaluate all the advisory boards and commissions as to responsibilities, duties, etc. She felt the CAC did a good job in getting important issues before the Council. She felt that the lack of direction by these advisory boards was the fault of the Council, not the committees because if the Council was dissatisfied with the committee's work, then the Council should adopt rules and procedures for the guidance of advisory groups. She also did not feel that one or two more committees doing City Council Minutes March 3, 1980 - 12:10 p.m. Page 4 the same subjects was that bad as it might give the Council a little better approach. She continued that the idea of a talent bank was fine but she felt it was up to the CAC, Council or staff to come up with a proposal for such use of a talent bank. She concluded she felt the Council was going the right direction in meeting with the advisory boards and commissions to look at the duties and responsibilities to the Council and to the city. She also said she would support the adoption of rules and regulations for each advisory board and commission outlining how far they could go in their studies. She also f that each committee should be established by ordinance which would explain t relationship with the other groups, city staff and council. Councilman Dunin stated he thought the purpose of these meetings was to decide if the various boards, commissions and committees should be kept as presently constituted, consolidated with other groups or dispand the group. He felt the City Council should develop a charge for the duties and respon- sibilities of each advisory group and he felt it was the City Council's responsibility to define the duties, charges and responsibilities of all advisory boards and not have the advisory board decide what they would like to do and have it adopted by the City Council. He felt this was one of the major problems with the various boards and commissions and he gave examples of different directions that were given by individual councilmen when he was a member of the Promotional Coordinating Committee. Mayor Cooper stated he felt it was the purpose of this meeting to discuss the duties and responsibilities of each advisory board and their relationship to the City, Council, citizens and staff. Councilman Jorgensen agreed that the City Council should be the one that established the rules and regulations for each advisory board and commission which would include terms of office, number of members, quorum, meeting dates, etc. He also felt the Council should adopt the charges and ask the CAC and HRC to submit suggestions, rules and regulations. He felt that he would support all existing advisory boards and committees except for planning. He' agreed that some delineation of duties to have a committee on current planni and advance planning should be considered. Councilwoman Billig hoped that from these meetings, the council would come up with such information as the number of members, the tenure, length of appointment, quorum, limit of terms, etc., of each advisory group. She also felt the committees should come up with recommendations and then have the CAO work on them for review by the City Council within 60 days. The City Council asked the members of the CAC and the HRC to prepare a paper stating the purpose, procedures, goals, membership, recommended length of term of their individual committees and submit them to the CAC for preparation of a formal resolutions for adoption by the City Council within 60 days (May 5, 1980) There being no further business to come before the Council, Mayor Cooper adjourned the meeting at 1:40 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Tuesday, March 4, 1980. COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES ON: 4/15/80 T7. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk 1