My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/28/1998
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1998
>
7/28/1998
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:10:58 PM
Creation date
6/17/2015 11:10:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/28/1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
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
Commissioner Eggert stated that the Board has not been approving subcommittee <br />members for other committees. <br />As a matter of information; Vice Chairman Macht stated that the ordinance was <br />formulated by a large and dedicated group of people involved in children's matters. They <br />were very careful, perhaps too careful, in putting it together to cover every aspect of the <br />problem. He thought it became somewhat tortuous. He has reviewed it, others have <br />reviewed it; and they are going to come back with a revised guide and some suggestions for <br />the ordinance revisions. The ordinance does not require a "professional" assessment or asset <br />mapping, and he felt it should be remain that way because a change would involve an <br />unnecessary expenditure of money. He thought there was plenty of information in the <br />county to guide the needs and priorities. He believed every dollar should be spent in direct <br />services to the children, because that is what the mission is. <br />Vice Chairman Macht discussed the dichotomy of attitude toward the CSNetwork <br />guide versus the LAAC guide. It made him feel that something else was involved and he <br />asked Commissioner Ginn if there was something in some of the organizations (CSNetwork) <br />that conflicted with her religious views. <br />Commissioner Ginn asserted that the question was highly irregular and she found it <br />insulting. She specified she was bringing out facts; her interest was to protect the taxpayers. <br />She was concerned about possible duplication of funding by various providers and she <br />reviewed a list of service providers and their projected spending to illustrate her point. She <br />also pointed out that not all parents expect government help in raising their children. She <br />stressed that the Board needs to know where the problem is and address that. <br />Commissioner Adams backed up to the earlier concern, she guessed the confusion <br />was, as County Attorney Vitunac stated, that the ordinance says one thing and the guide is <br />silent concerning subcommittees. <br />County Attorney Vitunac added that in a normal committee, other than the <br />CSNetwork, subcommittees are composed of members of the full committee and, therefore, <br />do not require the approval of the Board of County Commissioners, since the Board has <br />already approved the membership. The CSNetwork, because of its wider ranging <br />jurisdiction, has an ordinance and guideline which allows subcommittee membership to be <br />drawn from individuals with expertise other than members of the committee, so the <br />subcommittee members need to be approved by the Board. They give advice to the full <br />committee and the Board should know who is giving the advice. <br />July 28, 1998 <br />59 <br />mOK 106 PAGF, .3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.