SHADYSIDE The fate of the Shadyside Recreation Board is still up in the air.
Village council heard the second reading of legislation aimed at abolishing the board and returning administrative duties of the village pool and its employees to be under council's governance.
No one made a move for the legislation to advance to the third reading. The final vote is scheduled for July 23.
While no action was taken, the reading of the ordinance was preceded by a few citizens speaking on behalf of keeping the current recreation board in tact.
Shadyside resident as well as recreation and school board member Dominic DeFelice couldn't understand why council is contemplating dissolving the board when the current system in place seems to be working.
DeFelice explained the board was originally intended to hire playground supervisors during its inception, the board's purpose has evolved to now handling the swimming pool.
He felt, like others, that the recreation board members are in a better position to evaluate pool employees since many are school board members or teachers and have more interaction with the applicants than the council members.
Plus he explained, the board is comprised of volunteers. Its members and work are of no cost to the village.
Melanie Haswell, the pool manager and educator in the district, also reiterated her points from the previous meeting about how well the recreation board functions and her desire to see it remain intact.
Councilman Tim Merryman was the lone councilman to offer an opinion either for or against the board during the meeting.
A staunch supporter of the board and reopening the pool, Merryman explained the board's current members are in a better position to evaluate potential hires for the pool.
"I know a few of the kids from the football team but the majority of these kids I'm not able to speak on their character," Merryman said. "These people know these kids. They work with them."
At the previous council meeting, Merryman was the lone dissenting vote on an accompanying motion to the board removal ordinance that would reclassify pool employees as village employees instead of recreation board employees.
In other pool business, Haswell successfully lobbied to have the rental fee for fund-raisers reduced from $300 to $130 for one lifeguard and $20 for each additional lifeguard.
Haswell explained that was the rate being charged for private parties but she couldn't understand why, officially, the rate for fund-raisers was significantly higher.
Council minutes from a 2011 meeting stipulate that the fund-raiser rental fee was raised in conjunction with the bump in pay for lifeguards at the pool.
Councilman Bob Bell said that at the time that, pool and fund-raiser attendance coupled with the pay bump necessitated the move.
Haswell explained that, since she was somewhat aware of the increase but was never officially made aware of it, she had been charging the previous, lower rate.
Shesaid that while last summer, a couple of the fund-raisers brought in between $800-900, more recent events have been closer to the $300 range.
"These are community groups trying to raise money - the Football Moms, the cheerleaders," Haswell said. "And for some of them, if we had charged the $300, they'd be losing money on their fund-raisers."
After a brief discussion back and forth, council voted to drop the rental fee back to $130.
Hughes may be reached at email@example.com.