Yesterday was the extended deadline to apply for the Core Area Advisory Committee (CAAC). The Vanguard filed a records request with the city and received all 37 applications that were received.
Each councilmember will get two selections from this list of 37.
Here are the 37 names:
- Mary Stephens-Dewall
- Chris Granger
- Brent Hawkins
- David Hosley
- Sue Barton
- Allen Lowry
- Darren McCaffrey
- Diane McGree
- Ashley Muir
- Chris Myers
- Alex Achimore
- Meg Arnold
- Rosaria Berliner
- Steven Blum
- Catherine Brinkley
- Joe Burns
- Michelle Byars
- Maria Cartwright
- Judith Corbett
- Josh Cunningham
- David de la Pena
- Sergio Saenz
- James Stephens
- Deema Tamimi
- Steve Tracy
- Cynthia True
- Georgina Valencia
- Randy Yackzan
- Chris Neufeld-Erdman
- Maria Onorato
- Gloria Partida
- Denise Peach
- Bill Pride
- Susan Rainier
- David Robert
- Eric Roe
- Lea Rosenberg
That is an impressive group of people. If I were the Council I would rethink the process as it is currently designed.
Picking only 10 of those 37 doesn’t send an “inclusive process” message to the community, but rather an “exclusive process” message. Simply upping the number per Council member from 2 to 3 still leaves more than half of the people excluded. Perhaps it would be useful to break the process down into focus areas and ask the 37 people to indicate which focus area they most want to participate in. The resultant focus groups will be blessed with a stronger knowledge base and (hopefully) a more robust recommendation that is brought to an aggregate discussion.
If there is a concern that the aggregate discussion of the various respective focus group recommendations would be unwieldy with 30+ participants, each focus group could choose two representatives from their group to participate in the “inclusive” aggregate discussion.
Check your e-mail in about 30 minutes…
Interesting thoughts there Matt
Perhaps next time one applies for a job, if there are too many good applicants, just create more job positions.
It’s not a job, it’s a community planning process.
“Danger, Danger Will Robinson!”
Commissioner Robertson expressed concern on the size… I echo it… if many more are added, suspect you will find paralysis…
Some of the names offered, are, in my opinion, outright toxic… yet would bet they’ll get a seat at the table… others I see as ‘token’… most of the names I do not recognize…
We’ll have to see…
All of their meetings, even focus groups, should be open to the public… opportunity for input… and scrutiny… increasing the size of the ‘formal’ group… have serious concerns about an effective process… have little concern of the outcome (if there is one)…
“Some of the names offered, are, in my opinion, outright toxic.”
I would probably argue this point, but that would require specifics and I don’t think that’s appropriate. So I’m not sure where to go with this.
There is no need to go anywhere… the CC will do what the CC will do…
Again you pick up on one line, and ignore the rest.
Do you agree the size of the group be expanded, or not? Do you agree that no matter who is chosen, the discussions/deliberations need to be open to the public, or not? Do you recognize how the groups deliberations/recommendations are perceived by special interests or the general public based on who directly participates? Is there a chance, based on the names, that more than one representative will be ‘at the table’ from one of the neighborhood groups (3) that get to pick their own? At least two “votes”?
I read the whole thing, I chose to comment on that line. I assume it will be an open public meeting just as the WAC and HESC were.
Fair enough…
The WAC used a focused subcommittee to conduct an efficient, effective assessment of a specific issue. The resultant subcommittee report was brought back to the WAC as a whole.
The Finance and Budget Commission has four currently active subcommittees, and each of those subcommittees reports their month’s activity at each FBC meeting, with suggestions, comments discussion (as well as the opportunity for public comment on each subcommittee report). Those subcommittees are:
— Long-Range Forecast of City Needs and Revenues (In-Depth Financial Review)
— Information Technology Transformation
— Optimization of City Revenues, Assets and Resources
— Efficiency, Cost Containment and Fund Balances
— Communications
The result is considerably more work accomplishments in any 30-day period.
Yeah, pray tell we should have a discussion about who is best to be on a public policy committee and actually mention names. That just wouldn’t be right.
Serving on this committee is a significant time commitment, and I thank those who are willing to serve. Just a point of clarification, is it still the case that the new CASP will be a set of guidelines that the City Council can choose to follow or ignore? My worry is that these hard-working folk will devote a lot of effort and time to the project and a new city council that has other ideas will just vote in accordance with their own wishes and values.
In my interpretation the CASP are going to be guidelines that the council can alter. I still think it is important especially with new state law.
Ditto…
Cindy, the 15-member Water Advisory Committee (WAC) understood from the very outset that it was only an “advisory committee” and that the Council could choose to use the advice as they saw fit. We were all clearly committed to giving the Council the best quality advice that we could. That was never a problem for any of us individually or collectively. There were some very heated discussions as a result, but the 15 of us kept our eyes on the mission, and gave our best advice, not once but twice.
Well, my view is that some individuals on WAC were more interested in ‘agendas’ than advice… that said, you and the majority were more focused on ‘the good of the order’ when developing the WAC ‘advice’ (altho’ as a professional, I disagreed with some advice) on the whole, the WAC did a damn good job… thank you for your service…
The city informed me that there are two additional applicants in before the deadline: Mary Jo Bryan and Helen Roland