My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-13-92 Council Workshop Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
05-13-92 Council Workshop Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 3:20:25 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:54:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />MAY 13, 1992 <br />Wehrle reported that there had been discussion on <br />limiting the number of terms an individual could serve; <br />however, it was felt from a practical standpoint that <br />would not be feasible. <br />Blesener indicated that he did not support a limitation <br />on terms. <br />Steve Morelan reported that the LCRA discussed the <br />proposed ordinance at a meeting last week, and there <br />were qenerally very few comments. A couple of <br />questions were raised regarding terms and compensation. <br />Morelan reported that there was discussion that since <br />the seven members of the Commission volunteered to <br />serve on a park commission, and since duties are being <br />expanded to a park and recreation commission, there may <br />be individuals with no interest or experience to deal <br />with recreational programming issues. It was suggested <br />that if the Commission is expanded to Park and <br />Recreation Commission, the present group be disbanded <br />and reappointments made. <br />Wehrle stated that he personally did not see the <br />expanded role of the Commission changing a bunch of <br />things, but agreed that it was a valid point that some <br />members may not have experience with recreational <br />programming. Wehrle felt it depended on.whether the <br />City saw the Commission getting involved in the <br />nitty-gritty decisions on programming or just being an <br />arena where the public could approach the City on <br />recreation issues. Wehrle did not feel it was <br />necessary to disband the present Commission. Wehrle <br />felt the Commission would become another level that the <br />public could approach, and pointed out that the <br />Commission would remain a recommending body to the <br />Council. <br />Blesener stated that he did not want the present <br />Commission disbanded. Blesener felt that if an <br />individual did not want to serve under a new structure, <br />that individual could resign. <br />Wehrle pointed out that while some individuals may be <br />more interested in park issues than recreational <br />issues, this is really no different than most council <br />members who have a particular area of interest. <br />Page 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.