Councilmembers revisited a long‑standing governance question for the Parks Committee: whether the committee’s chair should continue to be appointed by the City Council under a 1997 resolution or whether the committee should elect its own chair as other city committees do.

Background and rationale: councilmembers noted that the Parks Committee resolution is atypical compared with other advisory groups, which generally choose their own chairs and manage internal attendance. Supporters of change argued that aligning parks committee rules with other committees would reduce repeated council action on the same procedural point; others urged caution because the parks committee has a geographic representation structure (quadrants) tied to park oversight.

Action taken: there was no final change to governing documents during the meeting. Council debated asking the city attorney to prepare a resolution to eliminate the existing parks resolution, and there were competing views about scope and process. Ultimately the council opted for no action at the time and asked the city attorney to prepare any required ordinance/resolution language for a future agenda if council decides to pursue formal amendment.

Why it matters: the question affects how committee leadership is chosen, the committee’s quorum and how absences are handled. Several councilmembers said consistent treatment of committees is desirable; others stressed the parks committee’s unique structure tied to park geography and local accountability.

Next steps: city attorney will be asked (by motion during later discussion) to prepare draft language if council elects to pursue eliminating or amending the 1997 parks committee resolution. No governance change occurred tonight.