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