2015_1209_HRCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Regular City Council Meeting Monday, November 30, 2015 Page 26 sion was the charge within the function and duties of the HRC, including their programming aspect. Councilmember Willmus advised that he had spoken with the current Chair of the HRC, noting their real focus over the last few years had become presentations or gatherings versus the programming and advisory role, which is currently the role the HRC is charged with by the City Council. Coun- cilmember Willmus questioned if the same understanding was in place with what is actually occurring and what was actually on the ledger; seeking to call attention to that disconnect in their charge and expectations of the City Council on their ad- visory role. From a broader perspective, Councilmember Willmus �e�pressed his interest in looking at all advisory commissions and staffing thase commissions including questions such as: Do we have too many?; Are existing commissions being properly utilized?; Are tweaks needed to improve efficiencies of existing commis- sions?; Is it necessary for all commissions to meet monthly or would the city be better served by a quarterly or semi-annual meeting schedule for some commis- sions (e.g. Ethics and HRC)?. Specific to the HRC, Councilmember Willmus opined they had a distinct role, and suggested perhaps the City Council needed to do more to clarify that distinction and define the focus of the HRC and CEC in their respective roles. Councilmem- ber Willmus stated he continued to support the City Council's expectations as out- lined in the CEC's enabling ordinance. Regarding the HRC enabling ordinance, Councilmember Willmus suggested an immediate review before the next round of appointments, to reconsider its scope, duties and functions. Councilmember Willmus opined that he found some listed in the ordinance to be unclear or some overlapping with those of the CEC (e.g. assisting the State Human Rights Com- mission in implementing the Human Rights Act) questioning whether that was even a viable expectation of the City Council. As an initial starting point, Coun- cilineinber Willmus suggested charging the HRC to provide feedback to the City Council on their suggestions to improve language of that ordinance when they re- t�irn to full membership. As part of that, Councilmember Willmus stated he would be open to considering meeting frequency or simply establishing a base minimum number of ineetings through ordinance language or other City Council action. Councilmember Willmus stated that he was more concerned in dictating a specific number of ineetings as a City Council, especially in defining roles and re- sponsibilities; and suggested that language may be added to other advisory com- missions as well related to a minimum standard number of ineetings, allowing them to meet mare as they felt appropriate. Councilmember McGehee stated she liked the idea of minimum meetings and specific policies to determine that frequency. Councilmember McGehee used the Police Civil Service and Ethics Commissions as examples. Councilmember McGehee agreed with seeking input from the HRC. In terms of advisory versus performance, Councilmember McGehee noted there were differences depending