My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9/15/1992
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1992
>
9/15/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:33 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 11:15:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/15/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
49
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
r SEP 9.51992 <br />Boa 87 Face 5 � <br />4. BACKGROUND: <br />The most recent meeting of ELN@ III spent one day of discussion on Regional Plant <br />Councils. There was no consensus,.. reached, but a substantial number of Ems memb <br />felt that Regional Planning Councils had failed to meet the need for a regio <br />planning entity. <br />They divided between those �felt that regions should be abolished and replaced <br />by regionally -located stafteo-oncitaff-and those that felt that 'properly reconstitute <br />Regional Planning Councils could fill a regional need. <br />The emphasis of the second group was on the belief that local elected officials we <br />the reason for the failure of Regional Planning Councils. The feeling was express <br />that local officials were unable to transcend provincial concerns and take a 'region, <br />view.' It was suggested that Regional Planning Councils might function well if: <br />A. .No local elected off icials.vase allowed on the Council, or: <br />B. The 2/3's local elected officials, 1/3 gubernatorial appointees were changed to <br />1/3 local elected officials and 2/3 gubernatorial appointees, or: <br />C. The governor appointed all members of Regional Planning Councils, including <br />choosing which local elected officials would serve. <br />This was. not the expressed opinion of the majority, but it is important to note that <br />there was no 7ieioundinq defense of • local elected officials# except, oddly enough, bi <br />the'Department of Community Affairs. <br />'If .County officials' beTiev that .iti is~impostaat to batro local elected officials (city <br />andCountyron Regional Planning Councils, they, need to be heard from. <br />9. RECON! <br />1Scal elec <br />10. <br />The Board discuss <br />to serve on RPC's a <br />10PH.r thaw Vaal M*nr if -1= i� S==»= f== <br />let RUN III know their position. <br />RECOED 11PPROip1Li <br />CONCURRENCES COUNTY COUNTY <br />PS BiZ GRD PW ENG UT BURG PDR ADMINISTRATOR ATTORNEY <br />Commissioner Bird didn't particularly like any of the <br />alternatives and certainly didn't understand why there seems to be <br />a feeling that the elected officials are not doing their job. He <br />preferred the present mix on the Council, and Commissioner Scurlock <br />suggested that we support the current composition. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner <br />by Commissioner Bird, that the <br />current composition of the <br />Council. <br />44 <br />Scurlock, SECONDED <br />Board support the <br />Regional Planning <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.