3/1/2004 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Recreation Commission Meeting March 1, 2004 was the definition of family. Mr. Kelley said that the unions will not open up the contracts for one item. The difference between page one and two is that everyone here is eligible for the "We Care" Program - and your family. This is not the purpose for being on the Recreation Commission. As a Rec Commission trying to get onto a budget, you can't be giving out these discounts at the desk. There's no accountability. That's why the Commission wanted to put a halt to it. Mr. Miller said that the Rec Commission does not have to codify every move it makes. It is given some discretion to set up rules, regulations and operating procedures, and if defining "family" is not changing the previous definition of family but clearly defining it, then that's certainly within its authority. It may help to codify it. On the other hand, it may hurt. If we set up rules and regulations of the Rec Center and how it interprets "family"; does it even need to codify it? This is how the Recreation Commission operates. As far as the Unions, how far do you go; do you poll each individual member; you can't do that; you must operate efficiently. By the time the codes are changed, it will be two years and $20,000 later. Mr. Miller did not know that defining something puts one in conflict when it was previously undefined. Mr. Jesse asked Ms. Drenski to get by with another month's confusion; continue to work as she had, take copious notes, and come back next month to the Commission. Mr. Baxter asked if Mr. DiSalvo's amendment could be considered the administrative practices that the Recreation Department is following to define family? Can it be as simple as that without going to Council? That's what Mr. Miller suggested be verified by the Law Department that the Rec Department has the right to establish its own rules and regulations. Mr. Lasko said that you can't change eligibility and that's what paragraph one is. That would have to be done through an amendment to the Ordinance. You can do it on everything else on page two. Everything that's on here can be viewed as an administrative interpretation of the Ordinance as it exists right here. Councilman Miller is right. In most instances there's legislation and as part of the legislation the appropriate authority is allowed to draw administrative guidelines in order to implement the legislation, which clearly this would be, other than paragraph one pertaining to the change in who is eligible to participate. Everything else seems to be clearly just an administrative interpretation other than the direct modification to the language of paragraph one regarding who is eligible to be involved. You cannot, in administrative committee, overrule a legislative action. You cannot. Mr. Jesse moved that the Commission endorse the amendment by the Recreation Commission for changes in the "We Care" Program Policy subject to the Law Department review and the adoption of Council, seconded by Mr. Miller. Mr. Kelley called for discussion. Mr. Limpert asked if it would make sense if on page two members of the "We Care" Program shall include current full time city employees and their families as defined and then it's not in conflict? It was suggested that the Law Department handle the matter. Roll was called, and the Motion passed unanimously. Page 9