Introduction
The development of the recreation zones is generally regarded as the one of the most important factors of city development. The fact is that, it is not only the issue of aesthetic satisfaction of the dwellers. This is the issue of environmental protection and public health care. Consequently, if the city council can not allocate sufficient sources for the park development, and Parks and Recreation Department has an opportunity to attract additional resources, no place for offence from the side of the council should exist.
Solution
The fact is that, the situation is absolutely unambiguous: the Parks and Recreation Department requires additional sources for the implementation of a project, which is directly associated with the direct obligations of the department. The finances for the departmental activity are essentially restricted, and the responsible executives of the department do not wish to stay unemployed, or just wish to perform their working assignments at the high level. Originally, if the city council refuses to allocate the additional finances because of any reasons, any opportunity to get money for the implementation of the required project will be regarded as an opportunity to improve the appearance of the city.
It has been already emphasized that there is no place for offence should exist from the side of the city council. Originally, it is considered to be normal to find the financial reserves from the outer sources, if the municipal powers are unable to provide the required sums for the projects, which are intended for the common good.
In the light of this perspective, it should be emphasized that the actions by the Parks and Recreation Department may be regarded as absolutely legal, if only the source of the financial assistance is legal. Otherwise, the city council may have serious reason to experience essential concern on the matters of the actions by the subsidiary department. Originally, concern on the matters of legality should be the only reaction of the city council. Moreover, offence, as the response for the official actions or official appeal is not permissible within the municipal department. The city council should reply either with the permission of the further actions by Parks and Recreation Department, or prohibition statement, with clear explanation of the reasons, why the Parks and Recreation Department should not resort to the outer financial assistance.
In accordance with Denhardt and Denhardt (2008), there is strong necessity to emphasize that the city councils are obliged to encourage the initiative of the subsidiary departments, is the actions by these departments are aimed at making the common good. The only reason why city council has the right not to permit any department to resort to outer financial sources is associated with the illegality of these finances, or difficult financial obligations, which may follow. Consequently, both, city council and Parks and Recreation Department, which are regarded in this case, should study the origin of the financial reserve, if possible as thoroughly as they can.
Conclusion
Finally, it should be emphasized that the city council is not permitted to express any offence in accordance with the formal and legal practice of the relations between the municipalities and the departments, which should obey to these departments. The reasons are various, nevertheless, any reply should be reasonably confirmed.
References
Denhardt, R. Denhardt, J. (2008) “Public Administration: An Action Orientation”. Wadsworth Publishing.