pages: RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf, 9
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
RecreationandParkCommission | 2017-12-14 | 9 | discussion with the Commissioner, the Director was referred to as the Commission's "Chief Executive Officer". It was stated that the Director owed a duty of loyalty to the Commission and that it would be (or should be) a conflict of interest for the Director to recommend to the City Council anything but what the Commission recommended. This confusion seems to stem from the Bylaws in Chapter 2, Section 1 which states: The Director of Recreation and Parks shall be the chief executive officer of the Recreation Department and shall be charged with the general organization, administration, and supervision of the program of public recreation in and for the City of Alameda. This is a fine description of a chief executive officer for a nonprofit or for-profit corporation. However, the Director is actually a member of City staff. She takes her direction from the City Manager as set forth in the City Charter. While it is true that the Director and her staff have a role in providing administrative support for the Commission and for the smooth running of the Recreation and Parks Department, that authority and responsibility does not arise by virtue of the bylaws. Thus it is not a conflict of interest for the Director to make a recommendation to the City Council which is different from, but in addition to, the recommendation of the Commission. Given the fact that the Commission has an advisory role and the Director has the responsibility for the operational management of the Recreation and Parks Department, there will likely be occasions where the two disagree. Neither the recommendation of the Director or that of the Commission is superior to the other. Both must be fairly presented to the City Council and it is the City Council that makes the decision. In addition to the two issues listed above, I noticed a couple of other small clarifications that should be made to the Bylaws. The Commission as a body may wish to review and revise its Bylaws. Please feel free to distribute this memo to the Commission as a public record as you deem appropriate. Respectfully Submitted. 4 | RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf |