My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011-01-20_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Grass Lake WMO
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2011
>
2011-01-20_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2011 1:57:57 PM
Creation date
4/27/2011 1:53:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Grass Lake WMO
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
1/20/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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
322 would cover management activities for the first year and supplemental DNR sampling, with the <br />323 goal of eradication, not from a recreational impact but to provide a more balanced macrophyte <br />324 sustainable population for fisheries and wildlife. <br />325 <br />326 At this time, approximately 6:43 p.m., contractors were asked to leave the meeting, with <br />327 members reconvening in closed executive session for final consideration and discussion of their <br />328 choice of contractors. <br />329 <br />330 Member Eckman advised that she was officially recusing herself from voting, as she was still on <br />331 the Board of Directors of the RCD. <br />332 <br />333 Chair Ferrington opined that the final decision came down to which contractor could best <br />334 leverage grant funds, considering that indications were that city budgets would remain static, and <br />335 the only way to achieve the GLWMO' s goals was to seek additional grant funding. <br />336 <br />337 Member Manzara opined that moving from assistance by the RCD to an independent contract for <br />338 administrative services was consistent with and made a clear statement for how the GLWMO <br />339 Board functions were evolving. Member Manzara noted that the RCD had served as an umbrella <br />340 under which the GLWMO Board was sheltered; and that by moving in the direction with an <br />341 independent contractor would indicate that the GLWMO was standing on its own and ready to <br />342 fund its own processes. Member Manzara opined that this was a major priority in her decision <br />343 making. Member Manzara advised that, if the GLWMO Board decision was to go with services <br />344 of the RCD, she would want to see a clear delineation between contract services and grant search <br />345 services with the RCD. <br />346 <br />347 Chair Ferrington noted that if the decision making was done along those lines, there appeared to <br />348 be no reason that would preclude the RCD from finding opportunities where the GLWMO would <br />349 qualify, and the RCD could seek to partner with the GLWMO on applicable grants. <br />350 <br />351 Member Von De Linde concurred with Member Manzara's comments related to the GLWMO <br />352 achieving independence from the RCD umbrella organization, provided partnership opportunities <br />353 with them were not lost in the process of using an independent contractor. Member Von De <br />354 Linde spoke of the historical knowledge of the GLWMO by Mr. Petersen, as well as his past <br />355 experience on staff with the RCD. <br />356 <br />357 Member Manzara advised that Chair Ferrington had made a good point in the potential for RCD <br />358 continuing to seek partnership opportunities with the GLWMO. <br />359 <br />360 Chair Ferrington noted that another important point in considering an independent contractor was <br />361 the lack of affiliation with a government organization. <br />362 <br />363 Member Westerberg opined that he was impressed with the GLWMO Board's past history and <br />364 working relationship with Mr. Petersen. <br />365 <br />8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.