The Oro Valley Town Council voted 5-1 with 1 abstention to approve a new member, Kelly Huber, to the town's volunteer Conceptual Design Review Board (CDRB). We have previously written about the situation and the manner in which a sitting board member, town resident and volunteer Gil Alexander, was not reappointed. We wanted to "close the loop" on this discussion because we think it is important for you hear the most recent words of both Council Member Zinkin and Council Member Waters on the matter.Essentially, Council Member Zinkin abstained from voting on the appointee in protest of the manner in which the non-approval of Mr. Alexancer was handled: "I have a problem with the whole process that created the vacancy [on CDRB]."
Member Waters presented his understanding of the facts of this situation. Contrary to what some may think, he noted, the new appointee was the only person to apply for CDRB. His support of the appointee is because of her excellent background in public art gained in New Mexico. According to Council Member Waters, another member of CDRB had volunteered to resign from the board so that she could be a member.
We've included a video of Council Member Zinkin and Waters comments at the meeting.
We suspect, this point, that the matter of the new member's appointment is closed. We wish her our very best.
However, the manner in which Mr. Alexander was not reappointed to CDRB remains a question.
---
6 comments:
Waters says that "Kelly Huber was the only person to apply for the CDRB." Not true. Gil Alexander reapplied for the position in a letter he sent to the Town Clerk dated 10/5/12.
Waters also says "Kelly Huber's consideration for the CDRB was inspired by an offer of resignation by one of the board members to make way for her."
Who is that board member?
Did they actually resign?
Or did they change their mind which then prompted Waters et al. to remove Mr. Alexander instead in order to open the slot for Ms. Huber?
Why was Water's so vague on the details?
Excellent questions, Victorian Cowgirl! I was wondering the exact same thing. What's the rest of this story? It sounds like another attempt to squelch questions on a potential violation of open meeting laws.
Also omitted was the fact that the Town rules for appointment to boards/committees states that all applications are kept on file for a period of two years.
Since the CDRB was formed 18 months ago, all of the original non-selected applicants should have been re-considered in a formal interview process.
Once again, the Mayor and Vice-Mayor failed to follow the defined processes of Town.
---
Greetings OV Details and welcome to Let Oro Valley Excel...
Thanks for you heads up.
We will check this out.
Richard
---
---
Greetings and Welcome OV Details.
The Town does keep applications on file for two years, BUT it is up to the applicant to inform the Town that they are interested in a position. It can be any position; not the one for which they previously applied.
Their name is not automatically forwarded.
Page 27 of the "Town of Oro Valley, Arizona Town Council Parliamentary Rules and Procedures and Code of Conduct" states:
New Volunteer Not Recommended for Appointment: The Volunteer not chosen for appointment is forwarded to the Council Communication naming those volunteers for appointment along with an explanation that their volunteer application will be kept on file for 2 years.
---
Richard. Thanks for the update on Volunteer Process
Page 27 of the "Town of Oro Valley, Arizona Town Council Parliamentary Rules and Procedures and Code of Conduct" states:
“New Volunteer Not Recommended for Appointment: The Volunteer not chosen for appointment is forwarded to the Council Communication naming those volunteers for appointment along with an explanation that their volunteer application will be kept on file for 2 years.”
Within the last year 2012, I filled out an application to serve on Town posted volunteer opening(s) on the Planning & Zoning Commission, Storm Water Utility, and Parks & Recreation Board. I was called by the Town and had an interview for each. I did receive a letter from Planning & Zoning and Storm Water Utility informing me there were more suitable candidates and my application would be kept on file for two years. I never received any letter from the Parks &Recreation Board. I assume either the Parks & Recreation Department or the Town Clerk were overloaded and didn’t have time to send a letter or it was mis-placed.
I watch the posted volunteer openings on the Town Web Site on a regular basis. I would assume someone like me would have to submit a brand new application for any new opening for the same boards previously applied for or a different board.
Some of the information may have changed on the original application. What is the purpose of archiving the original application?
Will the Town use it to contact all the past applicants?
John Musolf
Post a Comment