2011-08-18_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

659 of potential tasks for the group over the next few years. Mr. Petersen and Member Westerberg suggested 660 that the document, once reviewed and modified with additional GLWMO Board member comments, be 661 used as a recruitment tool for potential advisory committee members. 662 663 Member Westerberg clarified in the first section of the description of the GLWMO's advisory committee 664 was the committee include citizens having an interest in the tasks outlined by the GLWMO Board, but 665 that they not necessarily be expected to have technical expertise. The committee will be accepting any 666 expertise they may bring to the group. Member Westerberg opined that the advisory committee should be 667 able to find sufficient governmental agencies and consulting engineering firms to accommodate the 668 committee. 669 670 Mr. Petersen suggested that the introductory statement of "What is the GLWMO — ACT' be revised to 671 state: "A special purpose committee of citizens from within the Grass Lakes Watershed District and 672 technical experts from within the advisory committee or from agencies serving the GLWMO." 673 674 Mr. Petersen suggested that the Board keep the statement in about "What the AC is not!" to provide 675 sufficient clarity and avoid misconceptions that the advisory committee was a decision - making board or a 676 board of managers. Mr. Petersen noted the difficulties experiences in the early formation of the Capitol 677 Region Watershed District in not clearly defining the advisory committee's role; and advised that he had 678 modeled the DRAFT language directly from the Capitol Region Watershed District's website. 679 680 Mr. Petersen advised the Board that he wanted to do further research, in the context of a watershed 681 district, based on Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103A, whether a citizens advisory committee is a statutory 682 obligation; as to -date, he had only seen a reference to an advisory committee in the Metro Watershed 683 Management Act; and wanted to clarify the specific tasks that would be assigned and those that would not 684 be part of their tasks (e.g. review and comment on the annual budget). Mr. Petersen advised that he 685 remained unclear as to the context referenced in the case of the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA); and 686 opined that it was important that this be included in the final documents. 687 688 Mr. Petersen asked that individual GLWMO Board members provide their comments no later than one (1) 689 week from tonight's meeting in order to publish the next draft and allow for final comment from the 690 GLWMO Board. Mr. Petersen suggested that another option would be to invest authority to the Chair to 691 sign off on that draft to initiate recruitment; or to formally adopt it at the next meeting, noting that this 692 would further delay its use as a recruitment tool. 693 694 Member Miller expressed his willingness to invest that power to the Chair, after he had an opportunity to 695 review the document and provide comments to Mr. Petersen by next week. 696 697 Chair Eckman clarified that the intent was for the advisory committee to serve a core or standing 698 committee; with additional committee members recruited from time to time depending on the tasks at 699 hand. 700 701 Mr. Petersen clarified that DRAFT document as prepared is based on the context of past discussions of 702 the GLWMO Board; and that the advisory committee combined theoretical functions, and was intended to 703 be a standing, ongoing group, most likely ebbing and flowing with various issues. 704 705 Chair Eckman opined that having technical experts on the advisory committee was not specifically her 706 understanding of this group; and her intent was to have representative GLWMO citizens as previously 707 identified for the core standing committee; and to pull in other appropriate people as assignments evolved. 708 Chair Eckman suggested that the standing committee only meet every two (2) months or as specific 709 projects were assigned. 14