My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/07/1996
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
1996
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/07/1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:00:45 AM
Creation date
9/25/2003 3:46:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
05/07/1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
116
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
APPOINTMENT PROCESS FOR <br /> CITY OF RAMSEY COMMISSIONS <br />Linda Waite Smith, Administrative Services Manager <br />April 1996 <br /> <br />Assignment <br /> <br />On February ..13, 1996, the City Council directed me to study the process used to select <br />members of the City's commissions, including Planning, Economic Development, Park <br />& Recreation, and Charter. The assignment included examining and recommending a <br />process for ir,~terviewing applicants, the most important criteria for members of various <br />commissionsj the optimum number of seats for each commission, and whether someone <br />should be allc~wed to serve on two commissions simultaneously. <br /> <br />Process <br /> <br />I sought information about the commission appointment process from a variety of <br />sources. First, I reviewed City ordinances related to the commissions. Then, I conducted <br />structured, personal interviews with the Mayor and Councilmembers. Next, I surveyed <br />other TUG citrics and received 39 replies. Finally, I distributed a questionnaire to every <br />person currently serving on the Planning, Economic Development, Park & Recreation, <br />and Charter ;Commissions. Eighteen of a possible thirty commissioners returned the <br />questionnaire.. Summaries of the interview, survey, and questionnaire responses are <br />included at th& end of this report. <br /> <br />Findings <br /> <br />~[nterviewing Applicants for Commissions <br /> <br />In the 39 cities that responded to the survey, commission appointments are made as <br />follows: <br /> <br />56% (22of39) <br />18% (7of39) <br /> <br />10% (4 of 39) <br /> <br />8% (3 of 39) <br />3% (1 of 39) <br />3% (1 of 39) <br /> <br />Council interviews applicants and makes appointment <br />No interviews. Applications are reviewed and appointments made <br />(Blaine, Brooklyn Center, Fridley, New Brighton, N. St. Paul, St. Cloud, White <br />Bear Lake) <br />Commission interviews applicants, forwards recommendation to <br />Council for appointment (Anoka, Jordan, Maple Grove, Mounds View) <br />Panel interviews (Cottage Grove, Crystal, Shakopee) <br />Commission interviews, then Council interviews (Roseville) <br />Mayor interviews applicants (Hopkins) <br /> <br />The most common rationale for having the council conduct interviews is that the council <br />has final responsibility for making the appointments. In addition, the council has a vested <br />interest in the t~eople who become part of their advisory bodies. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.