Laserfiche WebLink
8 <br /> <br />COUNCIL DISCUSSION: <br />MIXED WARD/AT LARGE <br />SYSTEM <br /> <br />BUDGET PROCESS OFTEN CITY COUNCIL IS NOT ABLE TO TAKE A CRITICAL <br /> <br />LOOK AT THE RELATION OF ONE PROGRAM COMPARED TO ANOTHER, MR, <br /> <br />CONOVER THEN MOTIONED THAT FUNDS FOR THE BOXING PROGRAM BE APPRO- <br />PRIATED AT THE SAME LEVEL AS LAST YEAR OR $5,700. <br /> <br /> MR. BUCK QUESTIONED WHETHER MR. CDNOVER INTENDED TO PRORATE <br /> <br />THE $5,700 FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE FISCAL YEAR. MR. CONOVER <br />REITERATED THAT THE BOXING PROGRAM SHOULD RECEIVE THE FULL APPRO- <br />PRIATION OF $5,700, <br /> <br /> MS. GLEASON SUGGESTED THAT THE REOOMMENDATIONS IN THE REPORT <br />PREPARED BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BE ADOPTED AS PART OF THE <br />REQUIREMENTS FQR THE BOXING PROGRAM RECEIVING FUNDS. <br /> <br /> DR. HALL SUPPORTED MS. GLEASON, AND SECONDED THE MOTION WITH <br /> <br />THE PROVISION INCLUDED FOR IMPROVED MANAGEMENT CONTROL OVER THE <br />BOXING PROGRAM. <br /> <br /> MR. HENDRIX STATED THAT IF PRORATED, FUNDING FOR THE BOXING <br /> PROGRAM FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE FISCAL YEAR WOULD BE $3,800. MR. <br /> CONOVER COMMENTED, REITERARING HIS ORIGINAL ARGUMENT, THAT THE <br /> BOXING PROGRAM SHOULD BE FUNDED AT THE FULL $5,700 APPROPRIATION. <br /> <br /> MR. HENDRIX INDICATED THAT I'F THE APPROPRIATION IS APPROVED, <br /> <br /> MR. BANKS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE THERE TO OPERATE THE PROGRAM. <br /> <br /> MR. BUCK COMMENDTED THAT MR. HENDRIX'S CONCERN WAS INCLUDED AS PART <br /> OF THE NOTION FOR THIS APPROPRIATION. <br /> <br /> PREVIOUS MOTION BY MR. CONOVER TD APPROPRIATE FUNDING OF <br /> <br /> BOXING PROGRAM, AT SAME LEVEL AS LAST YEAR, SECONDED BY DR. HALL, <br /> THE APPROPRIATION WAS CARRIED FORWARD TO THE NEXT MEETING FOR <br /> CONSIDERATION. <br /> <br /> SHERMAN WHITE OF 607 BEECHWOOD DRIVE, STATED THAT HE REPRESENTED <br /> THE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE OF THE N.A.A.C.P. HE EXPRESSED <br /> CONCERN THAT SIX OF EIGHT PRECINCTS IN THE CITY APPROVED THE MIXED <br /> WARD/AT LARGE SYSTEM OF ELECTING CITY COUNCIL, HE OUTLINED THE <br /> HISTORY AND REASONS WHY THE N.A,A.C,P, PROPOSED THE MIXED WARD/ <br /> <br /> AT LARGE SYSTEM, AND WHY COUNCIL MADE THE DECISION TO HOLD THE REFER- <br /> <br /> ENDUM. MR. WHITE QUESTIONED WHY THE REFERENDUM WAS NOT INCLUDED ON <br /> <br /> THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S SAMPLE BALLOT. MR. WHITE CONCLUDED HIS RE- <br /> <br /> MARKS BY STATING HE WAS OPPOSED TO A SECOND REFERENDUM. <br /> MS. RITA LOYOCONO OF 1226 HOLMES DRIVE, EXPRESSED THE ASSUMP- <br /> <br /> TION THAT GITIZENS WHO FELT STRONGLY ENOUGH ABOUT THE REFERENDUM <br /> WOULD HAVE VOTED. <br /> <br /> MR. ROBERT BLACK OF 617 PARK LANE, EXPRESSED THE NEED FOR <br /> COUNCIL TO CONSIDER A SYSTEM OF WEIGHTED VOTING FOR THE PROPOSED <br /> MIXED WARD/AT LARGE SYSTEM WHERE THE PROPOSED WARD COUNCIL OF FOUR <br /> VOTES WOULD COUNT LESS THAN COUNCILORS ELECTED AT-LARGE. <br /> <br /> MR. HERBERT WALDRIN OF 1016-A GRADY AVENUE, QUESTIONED THE <br /> <br /> NEED FOR ANOTHER REFERENDUM, SINCE THE NOVEMBER 3RD REFERENDUM WAS <br /> CONSIDERED NON-BINDING. <br /> MR. DAVID MCWHIRTER OF 16~8 MULBERRY AVENUE, REPRESENTING THE <br /> <br /> <br />