Feb. 18 Park Board Meeting Highlights
Here are the highlights of the most recent (Feb. 18) commissioners meeting as recorded by Jason Stone who was in the audience.
Attendance was light at the Park Board meeting this evening, although for about five minutes the excited Skipperliner entourage helped fill the space up.
There was a lot of BAU (Business As Usual), but there were several items of note. True to form, the juicy stuff happened at the end of the meeting.
My biased reflections below, rooted in as much fact as my poor memory can muster
Jason Stone
Charter Commission
It has recently come to the attention of the Board that the City is working on revising its Charter, with significant potential ramifications to the independence of the MPRB. Ostensibly, the Charter revisions were intended to simply and update the language of the existing Charter. Counsel Brian Rice advises that the current draft (Draft 4) of the revised Charter carries verbiage that significantly reduces the power of the MPRB, reducing its role to that of a city department (at least in the eyes of the City).
Needless to say, there was considerable consternation regarding this new development. Most concerning however, is that this new development is actually an old development. Apparently someone from the City sent a letter to President Fine and all MPRB Commissioners about a year ago regarding the initiative to update the Charter. The letter, I believe, requested the involvement of the Park Board in the revision process. President Fine denies that he ever received this letter and nobody admits to having heard of this issue before.
Commissioner Fine was President Fine when this issue began. Quotes from Commissioner Fine with respect to the revisions-in-progress of the Charter include “What happened to this process? ” and “How did it get so far?”
The MPRB getting blindsided by this is quite odd given that Commissioner Diedzic's daughter is on the Charter Commission.
There was conjecture about the effectiveness of a City effort to reduce the powers of an organization legislated into existence by the State, and with power that extends beyond city limits.
Commissioner Mason requested of President Olson that she be appointed to the Charter Review Commission (after having received a new request from the Commission for an MPRB Commissioner or staff member to participate). President Olson indicated that he himself would fill the role. Commissioners Berry Graves and Young, along with Legal Counsel, all indicated their support for Commissioner Mason filling this appointment, or at the very least joining President Olson. President Olson dismissed all requests that he be accompanied by Commissioner Mason.
Obviously, this is a very important issue that could use several sets of eyes. It appears to me that President Olson's need to either consolidate power or punish Mason for transgressions (going public?) supercedes the desire to ensure the ongoing independence of the Park Board.
Cable Broadcast of Meetings
A presentation was made to the Board on several options for broadcasting MPRB meetings on local cable access. The cost would be about $20k/year amortized over seven years to procure equipment, cabling, circuits, etc to host the broadcasting in MPRB HQ.
The cost associated with broadcasting using the existing infrastructure of the City Council chambers was presented as around $20k, $5,700 of which was for parking. The major distinction is that the infrastructure at City Hall would be studio quality while broadcast facilities at MPRB HQ would be minimalist.
I wonder if the City could sweeten the deal for the MPRB to broadcast from the City Council chambers. It seems rather silly for one portion of the city to make an expensive, redundant capital investment when very expense equipment will be sitting idle.
The majority response was positive on the idea of broadcasting meetings, with a few Commissioners questioning how many people would watch. I wonder if they are intentionally missing the point.
Excursion Boat
The board authorized staff to negotiate and execute a 10 year contract with Skipperliner with a 5 year option. Someone (Berry-Graves perhaps?) briefly questioned the wisdom of such a long contract, but the motion passed anyway.