The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About19760205 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Me--ing 76-4 AA, MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Special Meeting Board of Directors M I N U T E S February 5, 1976 745 Distel Drive Los Altos, CA I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by President Hanko at 12 :00 noon. Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Barbara Green, Nonette Hanko, Edward Shelley and Daniel Wendin. Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Edward Jaynes, Jon Olson, Anne Crosley, Carroll Harrington, Robert Garcia, Jennie George, John Melton, Del Woods, Norma Kelly and Ellie Huggins. II. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY A. Workshop on Board/Staff Functioning and Relations At its January 28, 1976 meeting the Board unanimously approved the motion for a Special Meeting to discuss Board/Staff Functioning and Relations. Stating he was not a facilitator, H. Grench began the discussion by expressing his desire that all persons present should feel free to contribute ideas and feelings. He further expressed that people not participating maintain an eagerness to listen and hear the comments being made. As a simple format for the discussion, H. Grench sug- gested Organizational Structure, Policy Formulation and Implementation, Land Use Concerns, and Summary, keeping in mind that these points be addressed with abstract, depersonalized and constructive remarks. K. Duffy asked what a Board member should do when he/she wants to know how staff is interpreting policy, and if staff' s per- ception of policy is different from a Board members, what the correct procedure would be. H. Grench described the structure of the District as determined by the Board of Directors at its Goals Workshop of July 15 , 1973 and February 2 , 1974. Generally, a Board member may feel free to ask for information not requir- ing further research from any staff member. Assignment to staff should be from the Board as a whole and should go through the General- Manager, - and if there are questions- about interpre- tation of policies, these should also go through the General Manager or an employee ' s supervisor (for example, a question regarding ranger interpretation of policy could be directed to the Land Manager) . Page two In effect , all staff members work for the General Manager, and the General Manager works for the Board. The Legal Coun- sel and Controllor are also hired by the Board, but they may receive assignments from the General Manager. H. Grench presented an organizational chart, reproduced at the end of these minutes, which describes the lines of responsibility among Board and staff members. After discussion, H. Grench stated the consensus of the Board that this was still the appropriate organizational structure. D. Wendin said that further clarification of policies in process was one of the reasons for the Goals Workshop on February 28, 1976 and also the amount of staff delegation could be explored at that time. Board and staff discussed the problem of different interpre- tations of Board policy and reached the following consensus : (1) if a Board member feels District policy is not being interpreted correctly, he/she should approach the General Manager to discuss the matter; but if the matter is not resolved (2) the Board member can place the matter on the agenda for Board consideration. Board and staff members- also agreed that polling of the Board might be done informally prior to the "last resort" of placing an item on the agenda. H. Grench brought up the question of how good Board/staff communications have to be, noting that different Directors feel different needs in detailed communication. He gave as an example how much time should be spent on Board field trips, and how these should be handled. E. Shelley replied that he did not feel it a Board member responsibility to visit a site with regard to planning. B. Green said that visits to the sites were most helpful to her when making use and management decisions. J. Olson felt the Board should have the option to go on a site before the local neighborhood meeting. It was the consensus that the General Manager had to "play it by ear" . E. Jaynes stated that he felt there were a number of questions which should be addressed, such as (1) how does the Board want staff to implement an adopted policy; (2) how does the Board appropriately monitor the implementation of its policies; and (3) is it the function of the Board or the staff to decide which entity sets specific policies. A. Crosley added that Board policies may be interpreted differently by staff or Board members depending on how they each view the function of an open space agency. The following replies to the above questions were suggested: B. Green - by periodic review A. Crosley the permits issued for various sites can be a source of information. H. Grench internal and public feedback J. Melton clear statement of policy should be kept "right at the top" . Page three J. Olson - annual review of sites, and in addition when necessary, agenda item "Informational Reports" would be an appropriate time. It was generally agreed that a minimum amount of time should be spent, and that administrative practices in written form are too time consuming. D. Wendin suggested there be more workshops on Board/staff relations. It was the consensus that a workshop be held about three times a year for this purpose. Several Board members discussed the problem of "wardism" , noting that Directors representing areas close to the foot- hills represent constitutuents from areas farther removed from the foothills. J. Olson expressed his views of the District. From his personal perspective, he said the District is unique from the standpoint that the Board is involved and there is openness on issues. He felt the most appropriate use for District land generally would be organized groups rather than individuals for the next eight years. He added that his emphasis should be more on planning rather than operation. He observed that some policies had been developed prior to the District' s owning land and that now land has been acquired, perhaps a review of policies was needed. It was his opinion that the District would risk a drain on funds available for land acquisition if the Board inacted policies attracting the public to the sites. He felt there is a real danger of reaching a status quo on operation vs. acquisition if operational costs are too high as acquisition continues. He hoped the District would encourage innovative programs for land management, for example, passing the manage- ment burden for certain sites and types of uses to responsible agencies or groups. He said he felt the District' s docent program would likely provide for some controlled public use of District lands. He suggested that day camps, hostels, and other activities might be possible uses for District sites in the future. He felt major recreational use was perhaps 10 years away after the District acquires enough land to properly develop the recreational potential. N. Hanko gave a brief summary of the discussions from the notes she had taken during the meeting. Anne Cathcart Crosley District Clerk i II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of February 5 , 1976 N. Hanko suggested the following sentence be added to the fourth paragraph on page two of the minutes : "If an inter- pretation results in a new policy, the matter should be agendized. " The Board agreed that this change be made. N. Hanko suggested the following sentence be added to the fifth paragraph on page two: "The option to visit sites should be available to Board members. " The Board agreed that this change be made. '. x H. Grench suggested the last sentence in the fifth paragraph - ' "It was the consensus that the General Manager had to 'play it by ear. "' - be inserted instead after the second sentence in that paragraph. The Board agreed that this change be made. I N. Hanko asked that an annual review of sites and informational reports at meetings be added to the minutes as ways in which the District can keep informed. The Board agreed that this change be made. It was agreed that the third paragraph on page three of the minutes be replaced with the following sentence: "The sub- ject of wardism was raised , and it was agreed it should be { discussed by the Board at another time. " I It was the consensus of the Board that the minutes of Febru- ary 5, 1976 be approved as amended. 1 I