HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-03-21-2020-min (Implementation Committee)
2020 Vision Implementation Committee
March 21, 2003Meeting Minutes
–
7:45 a.m. Selectmen’s Meeting Room
Members Present:
Fernando Quezada, Peter Enrich, Jerome Smith, Ellie Epp, John
Bartenstein, Helen Cohen, Alan Lazarus, Sherry Gordon, Nancy Wilson
Others:
Rick White, Candy McLaughlin, Wendy Rundle
Administrative Matters
. The minutes from the February 14 meeting were approved.
John Bartenstein was welcomed as a new member of the committee and he introduced
himself briefly.
Progress Report Follow-up.
In response to sub-items on the agenda, the following
decisions were made:
The Committee will report to the public on responses received to the
questionnaire insert in the progress report. The questionnaire was not intended to
be a statistically significant survey, nor is the level of response a measure of the
report’s validity. The information is useful feedback, and reporting back is part of
re-engaging the community.
The snowed-out public meeting will be rescheduled for early May. Discussion
considered timing in relation to the override (will it be noise, or a source of
energy for considering long-range goals?), bringing closure to the progress report,
and maintaining momentum of the ongoing process.
People who provided their names and addresses on their questionnaire response
will receive an invitation to the rescheduled public meeting.
The Committee will make a short report to Town Meeting summarizing what has
been done and previewing the next phase of the process. Suggested presenters are
Chuck and Jerome.
Implementation Next Steps.
Candy distributed a draft page-per-goal version of the
progress report for discussion. The “messiness” of some of the goals was mentioned,
both ones addressed (Pay as You Throw and mansionization, for example) and ones not
addressed for whatever reason. The work of reviewing measures, and developing
additional ones, was referred to the Operations Subcommittee. Johnmentioned that out
in the community he has heard mixed reviews of 2020 Vision. Peter commented that
initially the process had support of the three elected boards but not the staff, while now
there is general staff buy-in but not from the boards, and this needs to be addressed.
Plans were renewed concerning the need to re-engage members of the elected boards
individually by a couple of Committee members taking them to breakfast or coffee.
Planning for May Public Meeting.
The focus of the public meeting should be the long-
term process and the vision, and how to keep these in mind in the midst of multiple short-
term crises. We don’t need a lot more input on the progress report, but want to begin the
critical value discussion of what’s most important for the future. There was consensus
that the next iteration should focus on how to create a more effective set of planning tools
that will help the community realize the vision. One important discussion point was
whether we can use the work of three years ago as the starting point. There seemed to be
consensus that the opportunity needs to exist for people to say new things, but that we
don’t need to start from the beginning. We want to hear from the community what basic
goals are most important, and begin refining and prioritizing.
Next Iteration in Fall.
The Lexington 2020 Vision has been an evolutionary, home-
grown process from the beginning. Over the next six months the Committee will need to
develop the process for the next iteration. Candy outlined a tentative future meeting
schedule.