PRECA 08-03-1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

by Anthony J. Zito • " HOIV1 SHOULD WE hire? With which consul- tant should we contract? Should- we lease or purchase? Are funds available? How much can we afford to pay? What fee can we charge? These ques- tions and many others are posed daily by thousands of park board members across our nation. These park boards are organized in many American cities to deliver park and recreation services to com- munityresidents. ("Park board" is used in a generic sense to include any board, commission, committee, or group responsible for planning or managing various aspects of municipal parks or recreation programs.) Historically American cities have chosen a board as the primary organizational structure for delivering park and recreation services. The boards are composed of lay citizens. In Missouri board sizes range from a high of 11 to a low of three. Boards can have advisory or adminis- trative powers. Some boards employ afull-time park and recreation professional, others do not. Most board mem= bers are appointed rather than elected. A board's respon- sibility may encompass large metropolitan cities with multimillion dollar budgets or communities of under 200 population with budgets of several hundred dollars. Despite differences in size, type of authority, type of .personnel, method of appointment, and community and budget size, the purpose of park and recreation boards re- mains the same: to ensure the proper establishment, operation, conduct, control, and maintenance of effective 54 PARKS & RECREATION/JULY 1983 programs, services, and facilities for all people. of the community. Board members have similar functions: to recommend or render decisions about budgets, personnel, planning, policies, and various other matters related to the provision of quality park and recreation services. It was the :paradoxical situation of heterogeneous board types attempting to achieve a common purpose that first attracted this writer's interest. This led to the discovery of the following information. In Missouri approximately b7 percent of the identified park boards have at least nine members, with about one- third of the members' terms: ending each year. The num- ber of vacancies is increased by members' resignations, movement out of the area, or deaths. From the number of known boards and their membership size, one can deduce that there are approximately 2,600 park board members, with about 780 new individuals. appointed: each year. When one adds to those figures the. number of elected and appointed officials and employees of munici- palities who must also decide on matters affecting park and recreation operations, the total number of in- dividuals involved becomes even greater. An extrapolation of the board member figures on a na- tional scale would be difficult due to the wide variety of organizational structures and range of memberships .available. However, a reasonable person might accept figures of 80,000 board members of which 25,000 might. be new each year. using the past three years, this writer has investig- D ated various aspects of Missouri park boards. sus- veys, personal interviews, and observations have revealed problems that are of concern. 1, Of the 290 municipalities identified as having a park board, -only 64 indicated having. at least one full time professional with park and recreation respon- sibilities, which means that in over 200 Missouri. cities,. park board members perform their duties without the .benefit of a professionally trained. employee. 2. Despite enabling legislation allowing boards either advisory or administrative powers, more often boards es- tablish or later create a blend of advisory and administra- tive characteristics, which creates a lack of understand- ing and confusion about their role as board members in their- relationships with public officials, employees, and the general public. 3. Park board members have few opportunitiesto ob- tain training to prepare them for the responsibilities of park board membership. Because. of this lack of training, new members and many incumbent .members lack an understanding of board function. A 1981 study of Michigan Recreation and Park Associ- ation board and commission members also revealed items of concern. The study was conducted by Marjorie M. Walker, a member of the Michigan Recreation and. Parks Association Board- of Directors. In general; the effort established that most Michigan board and commis- sion members: • Did not know the demographics of their consti- tuents.