PRECA 08-03-1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Had not toured their own facilities or hadn't within six months of taking office. • -Did not know the basic structure of their govern- mental unit. • Had no previous government experience. + Were selected on the basis of a single recreation in- terest. • Had no backgr~nd in bonding, finance, or taxes. • Are not currently engaged in study to upgrade any of the knowledge or experience. Walker does not view Michigan as significantly different from other states with regard to educational op- portunities or programs offered to board and commission members.. She reaches the conclusion that xhe profes- sionals have literally dropped the ball: "There is, after all, no excuse for not taking new board/commission people to see the facilities, is there?" This writer is not yet willing to place total blame upon professionals. In most cases the department does not have a park and recreation professional. However, it is suggested that elected and appointed officials and profes- sionals consider the grave responsibilities placed upon -those individuals who are appointed or elected to park boards, with special concern given to those board mem- bers serving without. the benefit of a park and recreation professional. This is where the professionals much "pick up the ball" in developing a network of educational op- portunities geared to the expressed educational concerns of the board members. survey was conducted in Missouri. in 1981 to iden- A tify the educational concerns of current board mem- bers. Chairpersons of Missouri park boards were asked to identify from a .list of subject areas those topics that were of an educational concern to them. The results are in- cluded in Table L The results in Table 1 reflect the board members con- cern for increasing their knowledge of job respon- sibilities. The degree of this concern should not come as a surprise.. Whether elected or appointed, park board members have traditionally been people who care about their communities and sincerely want to perform well. However, as the survey results indicate, many members think they have not had the proper preparation to per- #orm their jobs as well as they would like. The 67.1 per- cent response for park development and the 54.3 percent response for program development clearly reflect a con- cern for two basic board functions. In addition,. board chairs wrote in the topics of board authority, forming a ,board branch, co-op programs, energy, and vandalism. It should be noted that there were significant differences in the educational concerns of board members when comparing board type (advisory or administrative) and whether there was afull-time professional As was assumed, more differences existed in areas of educational concerns when comparisons were made about the enployment of a full-time professional. Board members without afull-time professional were more likely to select the areas of board operations, consultant usage, grant writing, and use of volunteers. Board mem- bers with afull-time professional were more apt to choose evaluation, planning, and safety/security. Fewer differences existed when board type was con- trasted. Administrative board members were likely to select the areas of evaluation and legal/liability; advisory board members were more apt to choose the area of citizen participation. n times of fiscal constraints and declining resources, it I is incumbent upon public officials at all .levels to seek reasonable avenues for having input into. decisions so that the best possible allocation of resources can be made. Perhaps the most important element to the successful operation of a board-and the one most often neglected-is that of orientation and training. Good staffs and effective programs do not just happen, neither do quality boards. Board members new to their duties and responsibilities in parks and recreation and to their role as board members need planned programs of education and training if they, are to carry out their responsibilities effectively. Steps should be undertaken to develop ongoing educa- tional programs for board members. It is reasonable to foresee educational opportunities at three levels: local, state, and national. Programs at the local level might in- volve departmental staff and/or other board members with an orientation to the operations of the programs of their specific departments. At the state level, program emphasis might be given to an orientation to the field, identified interest areas, and Continued on page 68 Table 1 Educational Concerns of 141 Missouri Park Boards Educational Concern' ~ of Respondents (N 141) Park Development 67.1 .Program DeveloprpQnt 54,3 Grant Wriking(Sources . 43.5 I.;egal/Liability, 41='I Fund-Raising ~~~ Board Operations 39.6 Security~Sa#ety .' 37.2 Orientation to Park & Recreation Field 36.4 Community Interest Survey 36.4 Citizen Participation 35.7 Use of V~{unteers 33.6 Budgeting 32.9 Evaluation 25.7 Planning 24.5 ,Consultant Usalre 2~.~ Group Dynamics 13.6 PARKS & RECREATION/JULY 1983 55 • L~ •