Cory Lakes CDD

At the last board meeting, Richard stated that committee role and rules were already stipulated in the CDD rules and regulations. They were going to be published on this Sunshine Board for the Supervisors to review and discuss.

If you have access to the rules that Richard stated that he had available, please post them here for the Supervisors.

I haven't seen any specific committee roles to date. I would like to request that we make this a priority and create individual committee roles for each committee that is actively working under the CDD. Whether it be an old role that we simply have each committee review and submit to us. Or we create new role identifiers, but we should have something in place explaining what each committee's goal is. I also think that this should be the committee using their own wording that we are able to approve once it's been submitted to us.

On a related note, at the LAF committee this month they did discuss a document that was provided to them on behalf of the CDD board labeled "Committee Roles". This was shown to all board members at the last board meeting and was approved for use. After attending the LAF committee meeting some barriers to this document were brought to my attention that I'd like to ask the board to look at solutions for. The LAF committee actually has an approved budget in which they are given access to work under as long as they stay within their allocated dollars. The way this Committee Role is worded is that they are no longer allowed to communicate with district staff. "No committee member or chairperson will give directives to the district staff." This limits their being able to work within their budget as they're no longer able to communicate directly what needs to be done within their budget. The way it is worded now means that they have to come up with a proposal to submit to the board and then have to wait for approval before even little simple things can be done.

What the LAF committee is requesting is that there be away that they are able to continue to work within their budget without having to submit every little directive item in front of the board.

Personally, I agree with this request because I personally know how long our meetings already are and I don't want to hear at every meeting about how there is money in the budget and we need 3 plants replaced here and 2 plants here and this sidewalk cleaned, etc. I think that we are way micro managing if we do this and don't have the time to do so or the need to do so. We have people that care about these things and want to take the time to do these things so they should be able to do so. We also shouldn't be spending time to re discuss what they have already deemed necessary within the money they were approved to do so within. At the same time, I understand the argument that they aren't to be giving staff directions. So I'm looking for an in between alternative to allow them to work within their budget limits without giving staff direct orders but so that we as a board don't have to rework what they have already done. Maybe a solution could be to create a separate "committee role" for those committees with budgets and a separate one for those without budgets. I'm up for all other ideas as well, but truly believe that we need to allow the LAF committee to work within their budget that we have approved for them to work within.

Joyce Hepscher wrote:
> I haven't seen any specific committee roles to date. I would like to
> request that we make this a priority and create individual committee roles
> for each committee that is actively working under the CDD. Whether it be
> an old role that we simply have each committee review and submit to us. Or
> we create new role identifiers, but we should have something in place
> explaining what each committee's goal is. I also think that this should be
> the committee using their own wording that we are able to approve once it's
> been submitted to us.
>
> On a related note, at the LAF committee this month they did discuss a
> document that was provided to them on behalf of the CDD board labeled
> "Committee Roles". This was shown to all board members at the
> last board meeting and was approved for use. After attending the LAF
> committee meeting some barriers to this document were brought to my
> attention that I'd like to ask the board to look at solutions for. The LAF
> committee actually has an approved budget in which they are given access to
> work under as long as they stay within their allocated dollars. The way
> this Committee Role is worded is that they are no longer allowed to
> communicate with district staff. "No committee member or chairperson
> will give directives to the district staff." This limits their being
> able to work within their budget as they're no longer able to communicate
> directly what needs to be done within their budget. The way it is worded
> now means that they have to come up with a proposal to submit to the board
> and then have to wait for approval before even little simple things can be
> done.
>
> What the LAF committee is requesting is that there be away that they are
> able to continue to work within their budget without having to submit every
> little directive item in front of the board.
>
> Personally, I agree with this request because I personally know how long
> our meetings already are and I don't want to hear at every meeting about
> how there is money in the budget and we need 3 plants replaced here and 2
> plants here and this sidewalk cleaned, etc. I think that we are way micro
> managing if we do this and don't have the time to do so or the need to do
> so. We have people that care about these things and want to take the time
> to do these things so they should be able to do so. We also shouldn't be
> spending time to re discuss what they have already deemed necessary within
> the money they were approved to do so within. At the same time, I
> understand the argument that they aren't to be giving staff directions. So
> I'm looking for an in between alternative to allow them to work within
> their budget limits without giving staff direct orders but so that we as a
> board don't have to rework what they have already done. Maybe a solution
> could be to create a separate "committee role" for those
> committees with budgets and a separate one for those without budgets. I'm
> up for all other ideas as well, but truly believe that we need to allow the
> LAF committee to work within their budget that we have approved for them to
> work within.

My thought process is we only give budget access within the current limits to the Facilities Manager. if we open it up to committee it could get out of control very quickly and accountability suffers.

Committees have never had a budget. Permission to allocate expenses for the budget has always been with staff, not committees.

the Committee Role document was approved at the last board meeting. After the approval, Rich said he had a historical document that he was going to provide.

The statement that committees can not give directives to the staff, means that they can't "direct" the staff. They can always communicate with the staff. That statement came from the concern expressed by staff because they some committee members were addressing them as if the committee member was their manager. This was problematic because the staff is managed by the DM and ultimately the board; not the committee.

I totally understand why it was put in but I thin we need to add this as an agenda item because there is a breakdown in the system that needs to be resolved some how.