My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2017 10 16
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2017 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2017 10 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:20 PM
Creation date
10/30/2017 9:50:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2017 10 16
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
91
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />September 18, 2017 <br />Page7of8 <br />What technical/professional qualifications, skill sets and relevant experiences do you have for <br />this position (such as educational degrees, specialized training, service on governing or <br />decision-making boards, etc.)? <br />One of the roles of the Historic Preservation Commission is public outreach. If appointed to <br />the Historic Preservation Commission, how will you use your strengths to engage the <br />community? <br />Describe a situation where you were involved with a group and had to work through a <br />disagreement or conflict among the members. What techniques or specific actions did you <br />find to be most effective in mitigating or resolving the disagreement/conflict? <br />Are you willing to commit to understanding due process and how quasi-judicial boards <br />function? <br />Cyndi Thomas stated that the second question suggested the Commission could encourage <br />people to landmark buildings, but that the Commission was not allowed to do this. <br />Trice replied that the question was meant to address outreach. <br />Cyndi Thomas suggested asking the applicant about their understanding of due process. <br />Chuck Thomas agreed. <br />Koertje stated that he did not like the fifth question, because it invites fluff answers. <br />Ulm and Fahey concurred. <br />Haley suggested cutting out the "situation" part of the question and keeping the second half of <br />the question. <br />Cyndi Thomas suggested asking a question about how to stand your ground when on a <br />commission and how to avoid a group -think mentality. <br />Chuck Thomas concurred. <br />Fahey added that civility was important for commissioners. <br />Ulm requested a more direct framing of the fifth question rather than asking applicants to make <br />up a scenario framework. Ulm added that his favorite was the third question. <br />Cyndi Thomas stated that her favorite question was the first question. <br />Haley stated that the public outreach questions were good for measuring creativity and that <br />public outreach was important to the Commission <br />Fahey concurred that public outreach was an important part of the Commission's job. <br />Koertje stated that his favorite was the third question. <br />Chuck Thomas stated that the second question was the essence of what the Historic <br />Preservation Commission does. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.