Who We AreWhat We DoWhat You Can DoOther Resources & Links

NOTE LOCATION & TIME

MEETING NOTICE

Leslie Middle School
3850 Pringle Rd SE
Salem, OR

February 12, 2008
6:30 PM to 8:00 PM

AGENDA /
NOTES
<
Welcome & Introductions
Agenda Review / Revisions

5 min.
Nominations for the Position of Board Secretary / Election

5 min.
Recap of Feb. 5 OWEB/PCWC meeting
-All

10 min.
Report on Scheduling:
date for provisional training
- Marcia Kelley

5 min.


Review of PCWC Bylaws
-consideration of alternative provisions
(see current PCWC bylaws)
- A
60 min.



Items for March 2008 PCWC Meeting Agenda
5 min.





Notes from Past Meetings

.....................................................................

About Pringle Creek

Council Core Values:

  • Stewardship of the Pringle Creek watershed as a natural entity in an urban environment;
  • Sustaining Pringle and Clark Creeks as naturally occurring watercourses;
  • Preserving Pringle and Clark Creeks’ riparian corridors to support native plants and wildlife;
  • Improving water quality; and
  • Promoting public awareness and education on watershed issues.
Pringle Creek Watershed Council notes:
Pringle Creek Watershed Council Meeting
February 12th, 2008, Leslie Middle School
Attendees:
Victor Dodier


Michelle Delepine
Luca De Stefanis

Ed Emrick
Marcia Kelley

Susan Kephart
Mary Liepins


James Santana
John Savage

Steve Soltesz



Dodier called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm.

Agenda Review:
Dodier solicited revisions for the night’s agenda. Emrick commented that board elections needed to be held.

Nomination for the position of Board Secretary / Election: Victor Dodier
Emrick, in referencing the Pringle Creek Watershed Council Bylaws, Article III: Sec. 2, Subsection b., established that prior to electing a board secretary, some members needed to be assigned to watershed interest groups on the board and elected.

It was proposed that James Santana, Michelle Delepine, Luca De Stefanis, Steve Soltesz, Ed Emrick and Marcia Kelley be elected to the board. After they were voted in, an updated list of interest groups was agreed upon:

  • Business/Economic: James Santana
  • Environmental: John Savage & Michelle Delepine
  • Municipal/Governmental: Luca De Stefanis
  • Residential/Property Owner: Steve Soltesz & Victor Dodier
  • Scientific/Technical Advisory: Susan Kephart & Ed Emrick
  • Other/General Interest: Marcia Kelley
  • South Central Association of Neighbors (SCAN) representative: Mary Liepins


  • All present voted to accept these positions.

    The following interest group is vacant:
    Academic/Educational

    Savage indicated he was willing to be replaced as board secretary. Kephart then nominated Delepine for the now vacant position of board secretary. Delepine accepted. Savage moved to call an election for the secretary position, and Kephart seconded this motion. Dodier then called for a vote, which resulted in eight ‘aye’ votes and zero ‘nay’ votes.

    Delepine elected board secretary.

    De Stefanis asked if the Council could advertise for the vacant board position. Emrick suggested that a Vice President be elected prior to the annual meeting.

    Recap of Feb. 5th OWEB/PCWC meeting: Ed Emrick

    Emrick summarized the OWEB meeting, starting with the $33,500 that OWEB will offer if we complete a provisional training. Since Claggett Creek Watershed Council (CCWC) has dissolved, the original amount, $67,000, asked for in the joint grant proposal will not be awarded unless CCWC is revived. Emrick clarified that the original amount will not be awarded if Friends of Mill Creek alone is brought on board, as the proposal was with CCWC. After Savage inquired for more detail on the second to last bullet of OWEB’s first option, "make a commitment to OWEB funding this biennium and into future," the Council realized that supplemental explanation was needed.

    De Stefanis presented three objectives that need to be focused on to acquire OWEB funds. The first is to participate in the training and the second is to look at hiring a coordinator. Marilyn Walster has been recommended by OWEB as a part-time, interim coordinator. The third objective De Stefanis suggested is to bring CCWC back online. Emrick brought news that the City of Salem feels there is value to a reunification and to support this, they are pursuing funding to pair with OWEB funds. The City also wants to see Friends of Mill Creek in the reunification plan as well. However, as CCWC was on the joint OWEB application, it is imperative that they be brought into the picture in order to be awarded the second half of the $67,000.

    Report on scheduling date for provisional training: Marcia Kelley
    Because the contract with John Moriarty needs to be reestablished before the training, the first dates listed in March are not advisable. Kephart proposed that the earliest dates not be considered. On the other hand, Dodier warned of pushing the training too far in advance as it would come close to the April 15th deadline OWEB set. De Stefanis then proposed that the April 14th and 15th dates also not be considered. Dodier then delegated Delepine, as the Board Secretary, to send out an email to survey what dates work best for the entire group.

    A few training logistics were discussed, such as Moriarty’s recommendation to have a second training if need be. Kephart commented that she would prefer one three hour session over two shorter ones. Kelley suggested that food be brought to the training to allow for an earlier and longer meeting.

    Review of PCWC Bylaws: Consideration of alternative provisions
    The Pringle Creek Watershed Council – Bylaws – June, 2000  supplied by De Stefanis were distributed to each member to keep any references made in discussion consistent. Savage asked if OWEB has certain bylaw expectations. At this point, Kephart reminded the Council that OWEB representative Wendy Hudson mentioned that Johnson Creek Bylaws could serve as a good example and suggested that a side-by-side comparison act as a baseline. She asked the Council to identify problematic areas during a group read through. Liepins recommended that no finalizations be made yet. Dodier acknowledged this and stated that amendments are voted upon only at annual meetings, which Savage confirmed.

    There was some discussion as to the difference between either being designated a non-profit or a local volunteer watershed council, the latter describing the Council according to Article II: Sec. 1. Line 1-2. Dodier commented that goals match the non-profit ordinance.

    Kephart noted that Johnson Creek Bylaws generalize objectives. It was observed by the Council that Article II. lists very lengthy and specific goals. Kephart recommended that this be looked at during the provisional training.

    Savage and Dodier asked Emrick what typical board member size is. Emrick replied between three and forty and commented that Pudding River Watershed Council is tied up with consensus voting. He continued that although the Council does not impose term limits, terms tend to vary between one and two years. Dodier replied that SCAN has a six year term limit to minimize turn over and is personally opposed to limits; Kephart agreed.

    Savage suggested creating new watershed interest groups, such as agriculture, to increase board membership. De Stefanis interjected that should be made an agenda item for next month’s meeting. Kephart then commented that she would like to open a discussion regarding the date of the annual meeting, which De Stefanis suggested be made an April agenda item. Emrick added that by having the annual meeting after the end of the fiscal year, a complete treasurer’s report can be given. Savage then suggested that the annual meeting could tie in with a fundraising opportunity. De Stefanis commented that money could be raised by selling picnic concessions and suggested having a work party to increase publicity.

    The following lists areas of the PCWC bylaws that members had questions about:

    Article IV: Sec. 3., Article V: Sec. 6., Article VI: Sec. 4. (Savage commented quorums are not necessary.)
    Article V: Sec. 3. Line 4. (Savage suggested that older member of each stakeholder category leads first or on even years, followed by newer member for second year.)
    Article V: Sec. 6. Subsection b. (Some discussion on revising meeting notifications to solely electronic means. De Stefanis has website specialist lined up with a ready-made template for electronic announcements.)
    Article V: Sec. 7. (Dodier asked committee to please review this Section, particularly Subsections e. and f.  Emrick sees appointing an audit committee as high priority.)

    Discussion on appointing a small committee (Dodier recommended 3-4) to review the bylaws ensued after realizing the need to have a more critical analysis of Article V: Sec. 7. There is a need to evaluate and cross reference this Section, said De Stefanis. The members appointed to the committee include Savage, De Stefanis, Emrick, Kelley, and Liepins.

    Savage expressed need for Dodier to go through executive powers and address financial status and treasurer duties. Dodier agreed that the treasurer’s role in reporting needs to be defined.

    Kephart would like to see reports on scientific and restoration aspects as well. De Stefanis replied that each meeting can incorporate status reports. Kephart asked if this requires an amendment to the bylaws. Emrick concluded that there needs to be transparency in financial reports, referencing work orders.

    Action: Committee to review bylaws, paying particular attention to the areas flagged above.

    Dodier adjourned the meeting at 8:00 pm.

    Back to top