Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Government Review Task Force - 9/10/2001 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY GOVERNMENT REVIEW TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 • The twenty-sixth Government Review Task Force meeting was called to order by Chairman Paul Loomis at 4:34 p.m. • ATTENDANCE: • Chairman Paul Loomis • Vice Chairman Jim Kriegh • Marilyn Cook • Don Dvorak (excused) • Richard Feinberg • Larry Holden • Susan Baczkiewicz • Kathi Cuvelier (excused) • Dan Dudley (excused) • APPROVAL OF M[NUTES. Marilyn Cook motioned for approval of the August 27, 2001 meeting minutes. Seconded by Richie Feinberg. Motion carried 4-0. • APPOINTMENT TO BOARDSIGOMMISSIONS. Chairman Loomis opened the discussion with an introduction of Planning & Zoning Commission Vice-Chair Martha Briggs and Development Review Board Vice-Chair Nancy Mager. Ms. Briggs ("PZC") mentioned that having a history of the PZC is very helpful in making decisions. PZC also appreciated that the GRTF provided a template for the rules/procedures of the Commission. Ms. Mager ("DRB") stated that there should be an annual Study Session to address rules/ procedures, which would benefit any new member. In addition, DRB appreciated the GRTF's outline as a template for the Board's rules/ procedures. The Vice-Chairs addressed the following items of the outline: • § III(A)(1) — DRB stated that their current job description should be elaborated to include their power in deciding grading, signage, and landscape issues. • § 111(B) — PZC indicated that the Commission's goals are stated in an annual work plan that is approved by the Council. • § III(C)(1) — PZC was not convinced that the 1-year residency requirement was necessary. • § III(C)(2) — PZC agreed that the CPI course was essential to serve on the Commission. • § III(C)(3) — PZC felt it was impossible to quantify the amount of time that one could devote to the Commission. DRB feels it is necessary to provide a realistic time commitment to prospective volunteers. DRB estimated 5-6 hours per month. F:\Susan\Govt Task Force\Minutes 091001 • § III(D) — DRB felt it may be difficult to ask for specific qualifications in order to serve on the Board, although it may be helpful to include professionals on the Board so that there may be adequate representation from those who could specifically address landscaping, architecture, and other design disciplines. DRB agreed with Richie Feinberg's proposal that the Board may consist of 3 professionals and 4 residents, but should not mandate such membership qualifications. • § IV— PZC indicated that the Appointment/Re-Appointment process needs to be consistent. DRB agreed that such process should be clear, formal, and consistent. • § IV(C)(2) — PZC currently incorporates the Town Manager (or his designee), the Commission Chairman, and the Council Liaison in the interview process. DRB also incorporates the same persons in the interview process. In addition, DRB felt that the interview is a good means to become acquainted with the volunteer candidate in order to determine whether the candidate would work well with the existing Board. • § IV(E)(1) — PZC was not certain a "trial membership" was necessary. DRB also felt that a "trial membership" rendered a negative connotation. DRB stated that in correlation to the interview process, perhaps the volunteer candidate should provide a reference. • § IV(E)(3) — DRB stated that serving at the pleasure of the Council was a type of "safety valve" in the event a Board member was not a productive member. • § V(A) — PZC stated that 2 meetings missed (without a prior excuse) in a row or 3 meetings missed (without a prior excuse) in total is unacceptable. DRB felt a similar system of determining acceptable and unacceptable absences was necessary. • § V(C) — PZC felt that participation in meetings should include asking questions and providing points of view. In addition, it may be possible to have a Study Session prior to each meeting so that an engineering consultant can provide technical insight and address any of the preliminary questions of the Commission. • § VI — Chairman Loomis suggested that either the Council, Chairperson, or those of the Interview Committee (which may include a Staff member) should evaluate the volunteer. PZC felt that evaluation of Commission members happens at the time of re-appointment. If a member is not pulling their weight, the Chairman should address the member and remind that member of their responsibilities and duties as a Commission member. DRB felt that the Council Liaison who typically attends the Board meetings should report to the Council, since the members serve at the pleasure of the Council, whether such member is pulling their weight. Town Manager Chuck Sweet interjected that he felt it was unacceptable to place a Staff member in a position to evaluate a volunteer and thought that the Council Liaison, in consultation with the Chairperson, was the most appropriate person to lend insight to the performance of a volunteer. The Town F:\Susan\Govt Task Force\Minutes 091001 2 Manager felt that true evaluation of a volunteer occurred at the time of consideration for re-appointment. • NEXT MEETING. The next regularly scheduled meeting is set for :#0 ., and the agenda will address the following: • Approval of September 10, 2001 Minutes • Discussion of meeting with Planning & Zoning Commission Vice-Chair and Development Review Board Vice-Chair concerning Board/ Commission Appointment process • Continued review of the Board/Commission Appointment process • New Business • Discussion of Next Meeting/Agenda • ADJOURNMENT. Richie Feinberg moved to adjourn at 5:56 p.m. Seconded by Marilyn Cook. Motion carried 4-0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Ldri., Susan I. Baczkiewicz Civil Paralegal F:\Susan\Govt Task Force\Minutes 091001 3