►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
Next
up
we'll
move
on
to
the
approval
of
the
agenda.
Do
we
have
a
motion
motion
by
commissioner
luke
support
by
commissioner
jackson?
All
those
in
favor
say
aye
aye
opposed
judge
approved
next
up,
we'll
move
on
to
public
comment.
Is
there
anyone
from
the
public
who
would
like
to
address
the
legislative
affairs
and
government
operations
committee
this
evening
seeing
none?
I
will
close
public
comment
next
up,
we'll
move
on
to
our
regular
agenda.
We've
got
one
item
board
of
commissioners,
revision
parks
and
recreation
commission
executive
office
appointment
process.
B
Do
I
have
a
motion
motion
by
commissioner
luke
support
by
commissioner
gershenson
already?
I
know
we
previously
talked
about
a
little
bit,
but
let's
go
over
this
again,
so
essentially
the
miscellaneous
resolution
97144
retitled
the
position
of
the
executive
officer
for
delegating
the
oakland
county
board
of
commissioners
authority
to
the
oakland
county
parks
and
recreation
commission.
So
essentially,
the
resolution
today
would
revert
the
appointment
process
for
the
executive
officer
of
parks
and
recreation
back
to
the
commission
for
confirmation,
as
allowed
under
the
state
law.
B
A
B
Absolutely
so
from
my
understanding
back
in,
like
1997
1996,
a
rule
was
changed
to
essentially
the
board
gave
over
their
authority
of
waiving
the
appointment
process
for
the
parks
and
rec
commission
board,
and
I
think
chairman
said
it
the
best
in
regards
to
the
parks
and
rec
commission,
the
parks,
parks
and
recreation
here
in
oakland
county
they're,
a
liaison
commissioner.
A
Pam,
can
you
help
us?
I
think
we
had
to
confirm,
but.
A
B
We
do
have
not
only
obviously
commissioners
on
the
parks
and
rec
board,
but
essentially
this
resolution
gives
the
board
of
commissioners
back
the
authority
for
the
appointment
process
to
be
approved
and
I
think
we're
going
to
need
the
liaison.
The
liaison
committee,
obviously
is
the
lago
committee.
Does
that
answer
your.
C
B
Thank
you
excellent.
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Lubes
did
you
have
a
question
comment?
Oh
okay,
any
other
discussion.
Questions
in
regards
to
item
number
one
see
none,
commissioner
luke's
makes
a
motion.
Do
we
have
support?
We
have
we
already
have
them?
Oh,
we
already
have
a
motion.
Roll
pop,
please,
okay,.
A
B
And
I
do
just
wanna
say
that-
and
I
should
have
said
this
prior
to
our
vote,
but
if
there
isn't
any
discrepancies,
we
can
do
a
vote
again,
but
this
would
go
into
effect
immediately
once
the
board
adapts
once
the
board
adopts
it,
it
would
go
into
effect
immediately.
Does
that
change,
anybody's
thoughts,
decisions,
votes.
D
C
Well,
first
of
all,
it
just
makes
it
consistent
with
all
the
appointments,
but
in
particular
this
appointee
has
got
a
little
bit
of
baggage
that
I
want
to
be
sure,
I'm
comfortable
voting
on
I
mean
normally,
I
don't
second
guess
a
recommendation
of
a
committee.
I
trust
the
committee
process,
so
I'm
hoping
that
we
can
do
that
too.
D
C
D
D
We
don't.
We
don't
know
what
to
baggage
our
charges,
accusations.
So,
as
commissioner
gil
mcgilvery
mentioned,
they'll
be
going
through
a
background
check
anyway.
D
Only
because
of
the
conversations
that
I
have
been
hearing-
and
I
know
you
know-
judgment
comes
into
these
types
of
decisions
as
well,
but
also
at
the
same
time.
How
many
I
mean
this
is
the
director
I
mean
the
last
time
the
director
was
chosen,
this
procedure
of
us
not
being
the
deciding.
D
D
What
about
I
just
want
to
ask,
and
this
just
for
clarification,
because
I'm
not
sure
I've
only
been
on
logo
months
in
the
appointment
process.
The
role
commission,
for
instance,.
C
D
C
D
Okay,
so
this
is
not
a
member
of
the
parks
and
rec
board.
This
is
the
director
right,
and
so
I
just
I'm
just
concerned
because
it
just
feels
to
me
a
little
bit
like
and
I'll
use
the
word
target
again,
but
maybe
it's
not
so
I
it's
just
to
it's
just
for
consistency.
B
When
our,
when
dan
stensel
announced
that
he
was
going
to
be
retiring,
we
did
start
this
resolution
back
in
february,
so
I
completely
understand
how
it
looks,
but
also
understand
that
this
is
not
a
targeted
act.
It
literally
coincides
with
prior
to
having
this
individual
take
on
the
role
as
the
parks
and
rec
director.
B
This
is
something
already
when
our
previous
parks
and
rec
director
dan
stensel
left
out.
This
was
something
that
retired.
This
was
something
that
we
already
knew
we
wanted
to
go
back
to.
We
also
knew
that
it
had
to
take
place
prior
to
the
appointment
of
the
parks
and
direct
parks
and
rec
director
actually
being
confirmed
with
the
parks
and
rec
commission.
Does
that
make.
D
D
Good
to
put
that
on
the
record,
thank
you
and
I
appreciate.
B
You
sharing
that
because
there
is
a
very
significant
difference
in
what
things
appear
in
the
situation
versus
really.
Essentially,
this
resolution
was
started
in
february
with
the
intent
it
needed
to
be
brought
forth
to
the
board
prior
to
the
appointment
being
approved.
Okay,
so.