Loading...
BCC Minutes 05/20/1980 W Naples, Florida. May 20, 1980 LET IT BE REME'~ERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Governing Board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and hav- ing conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:30 P.M. in Workshop Session in [luilding "F" of the Courthouse Complex with the following mem- bers present: VICE-CHAIRMAN: Thomas Archer CR. "Russ" Wimer John A. Pistor David C. Brown CHAIRMAN: Clifford Wenzel - Absent ALSO PRESENT: William Norman, County ~'anager~ Tony Pires. Assist- ant County Attorney; Terry Virta, Community Development Administrator; Lee Layne, Planner; Mary Morgan, Administrative Aide to the Board; Louis Capek, CAPC; William Walters, CAPC; William McGrath, CAPC, Steve Martin, EAC and Jean Swindle. Deputy Clerk. AGENDA 1. Advisory Board Policy re Alternates DISCUSSIO~l RE ADVISORY BOARD POLICY - CHANGE IN PROCEDURE FOR FILLING VACANCI TO BE INCORPORATED IN CURRENT ADVISORY BOARD POLICY - APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNAT TO ALL ADVISORY BOARDS TO BE REINSTATFO Vice-Chairman Archer stated that Chairman Wenzel would be absent from the Workshop session due to an unavoidable conflict 1n appoi~tments. Mr. Archer reviewed the item on the agenda, saying that the removal of alternates from the membership of the Advisory Board~ (said policy adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on April 17, 1979) had been implemented because there was question as to whether or not there was an equal distri- bution between the five districts and the appointments to the various committ Since that time, though, there has developed a problem in having the proper quorum present for the individual board meetings particularily during such times as vacations, illnesses, etc. and the questions to be discussed during this session will be as follows: 1. Should the positions bf "Alt~rnates. be reinstated for the various Advisory Boards? BO~K 053 PACE ~14f May 20, 1980 2. Are the resumes of those interested in serving on the various boards to be distributed to the chairmen of these boards and staff with their combined recom- n1pntation tn IJ1tirniltely be submitted to the BCC for approval? Mr. William Walters, Chairman of the CAPe. before stating the membership's stand on the agenda item, asked that the legal que~tion of 110W many members torm a quorum be answered as there is a difference of opinion expressed in the relevant State's Special Act and the local Or- dinance. (State's Special Act qualifies a quorum as being "5" members while the local Ordinance states .:I quorum consists of "4" members) After research, Asslstant County Attorney Tony Pires said that the word- in9 of the Special Act applies only to the proper number of members on the board, not to the number that constitutes a quorum, and the least number of members to be a full board is five (5). Continuing, Mr. Walters said that t.he CAf'C had o[lerated quite successfully when the procedure was to have the seven (7) member board with two alternates, saying that previous mBnbers have been appointed according to their capabilities, avail- ~bil;ty and lastly, the district in which they reside. He asked that the "alternates" be reinstated as part of the Advisory Boards Policy then requested that the BCC consider the ~rocedure of having the senior alternate move up into any future vacancy with the concurring appointment to be for the second alternate. In this way, Mr. Walters explained. there would be incentive for the two alternate members to remain in their posltion of alternates until such time when the opportunity to "move !.i''' wo~ld present itsel f. Mr. Lou Capek, member of the CAPC. concurred with Mr. Walters' statements and explained that it had taken him some six (6) months to be- come acouainted with the duties and requirements of the board before he felt comfortable, ind;cating the: members that hold the alternate posi.. tion could use this time in the same manner. He stated that the majority of advisory board members think of themselves as "volunteer technicans" not "political appointees" and with this basic attitude, futJJre members should be appointed according to their dedication, capabilities, talent May 20, 1980 and lastly, the location of their residence according to districts. Mr. Capek stated that in the past, a~plication~ of interested parties have LJeen relayed to the appropriate advisory group for a review and a personal interview with the most feasible applicant following which a recommenda- tion was made to the BCC requesting their approval. It was Mr. Capek's opinion that this was the best method of procurement as it would be in the best"interest of both the advisory board and the BCC. Mr. McGrath, member of CAPC, emphasized the need of having the cha i rman of the ,1 ppropri ate advi sory board screen the appl ica t ions and hold a personal interview with the most qualifying applicant, acknowledg- ing that the forthcoming recommendation would have to be approved by the llCC. He also suggesteci that the two following areas be considered in the screening process: 1. Whether the applicant being consider~d can make a con- trihution 2. The extent of the demands that such an appointment will make on the prospective member. Following this discussion, Vice-Chairman Archer voiced the con- sensus of the fJllard as bei ng: The amending of the present Advi sory Board Policy to indicate that resumes of interested persons will be sub~itted I to the Staff: then the Chairman of the respective advisory board together 1 with the Staff "ill review and interview said applicants following which a tecommendatlon will he made to the BCC for their approval. t Mrs. Joyce Hancotte, resident of Golden Gate Estates, asked if the decision concernlng the applications and made by the above-referenced per- i sons would be binding to which Vice-Chairman Archer replied they weuld t; be recommendations only. He also asked that I.lrs. Hancotte forward her written resume to the Staff in order that her application for a vacancy on the CAPe could be reviewed. Additionally, Commissioner Archer stated that Chai rmiln \~enzel had left a statement with him which approved of the proposal of "Alternate advancdllent" placing his emphasis on the process work i ng for the good 0 f the County ra ther than on the 1 oca t i 011 of the pro- spective member's district. BOOK 053 PAGE'342 lOOK 053 PACE 343 May 20, 1980 COlTlTlissioncr Brown stated he had no personal policy regarding this item but did mention that he, himself, has no alternate to sit on the [lCC I'lhen he i ~ absent and if the advi 50ry boards can operate without such, lie would just as soon not have them. Connlissioner Wimer was in accord as was COlTTllissioner Pistor. Mr. Steve Martin, member of EAC, spoke in favor of the reinstatement of the alternates. Discussion followed which ccvered the amount of absenteeism that would warrant the compulsory resignation of a member; the proposal that al ternates "move up" to fill any vacancy leaving the resulting appoint- "~nt to be for an alternate; the cost of approximately $2,000 annually to serve on the CAPC that a future memtrer should be made cognizant of; Conrnissioner Pistor'~ and ~lr. ~lartin's cOlTTllents that the time spent being an alternate is well spent on the learning process; Commissioner Wimer's statement that each COlTTllissioner will have the opportunity to "recommend" dn alt~rnate instead of a r~gular member; and the concurrence by the BCC of the rt:instaternent of the "alternates" for the Advisory Boards. Vice-Chairman Archer stated it was the consensus of the Board that the procedure of "alternates" be reinstated and incorporated in the present A']vi5or~' [Joanl Policy; that the "advancement" theory be employed for all alternates end that resumes from any interested persons wanting to serve on any of the Advisory Boards be accepted. There heing no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjuurned by order of the Chair: Time: 2:30 P.M.