5.3. SR 06-28-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . Within a couple years, and following some disagreement between the Recreation Board and the Superintendent/School Board over compensation and who determines compensation, it was determined that the Recreation Board would determine compensation. Shortly thereafter the name "728 Area Recreation" was changed by the Recreation Board to "Community Recreation". The Recreation Board seemed intent on establishing its own identity, independent of Community Education and of the School District. Recreation Board member communities understandably wanted their constituencies to know that the Recreation program was funded by municipal and/ or township dollars, and the manner chosen to deliver the message was to make the identity distinct from Community Education. With these changes, I feel that the public became confused about who provided what. Rather than having a unified, integrated office where the two entities could thrive and help each other, what seemed most important was to point out the distinctions, the differences between Community Education and Community Recreation. The names themselves were so similar that people became confused by that as well. Separate clerical/receptionist functions were created, and the promotion of Community Recreation as a separate entity became very important as some member communities continually measured the program's success by how many local residents participated in municipally sponsored activities. A key component of Community Education is to not duplicate services. I feel that the current arrangement at a minimum duplicates a receptionist function, and that from a programming standpoint there has been considerable angst among staff over who does what. To be truly cost effective, duplication of services and effort should be reduced if not eliminated. At this crossroads for Community Recreation, I would hope that all options are open for consideration, so I suggest that possible outcomes for any reconstitution of the program include the following: -retain all current cooperative members and be open to expanding the cooperative partners to include other municipal entities or private non-profits -effective process for member communities to have their unique needs met through programming or administrative staff and to feel ownership -eliminate/reduce customer confusion over who offers what, and increase customer service with "one-stop" shopping -eliminate/reduce redundancy and duplication of services and functions and save dollars -maximize publicly supported indoor and outdoor facilities of all partners -use this opportunity to provide better return on tax dollars while improving the sometimes rocky political ground between public bodies -clarify programming responsibilities and parameters so that turf issues are minimal but programming efforts can still be aggressive -provide a staff climate of unified direction and shared resources from technology, access to facilities, shared employee pool and true collaboration in providing programs to a common audience There is incredible similarity of function between Community Education and Community Recreation. Both programs serve a regional audience, and all member communities in the current Community Recreation program are all a part of District 728. Both departments plan programs for youth and adults; both employ programming staff; both have secretary/receptionist functions; both have had directors or administrators; both programs use the same registration software; both advertise, promote and conduct registrations for programs; both evaluate programs; both engage in planning future programs; both are funded with public dollars. I'd like all member communities to not rush to any conclusions at this time, but to agree to give thoughtful discussion to the three options as well as any others that may surface. If our focus can be on what each community wants and needs, and the extent to which those needs can better be met, we'll all be better served. When I come on the 28th I'll be prepared to discuss with you the specifics of any of the options, but I'll provide more specifics on the third option. The proposal would provide a single jointly sponsored public agency which provides coordinated educational, recreational, social and cultural programming for residents of all ages while avoiding duplication of effort. I feel that if the School District's Community Education program were to be merged in some fashion with the municipal recreation programs that much of the costly and obvious redundancies currently existing could be eliminated. The total municipal dollars committed to recreation programming could be reduced while programming efforts could be expanded. Residents would receive quality programming and know that programs were sponsored by local governments. All local facilities would be fully used by partners with no strings attached, and the partners to the current agreement would be more likely to stay in the agreement. I look forward to our dialogue on the 28th.