HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-02-12-2020-min (Initiating Committee)
Initiating Committee
February 12, 1999
Minutes
Members Present: Helen Cohen, Clark Cowen, Robin DiGiammarino, Peter Lee, Fred Merrill, Peggy
Perry, and Fernando Quezada
Staff Present: Michael Baker
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
In the “Formation of Stakeholder’s Group” section, it was inaccurate to state that the formation of
the Stakeholder’s Group was to be placed solely in the hands of the consultant. Instead, the
minutes should be corrected to read that the Steering Committee would have the responsibility
for Stakeholder’s Group formation after the consultant has been hired.
Fred Merrill noted that his name should appear in the members present section, while Peggy
Perry indicated that her name should not.
DISCUSSION
UPDATE ON STATUS OF RFP PROCESS
A list of RFP recipients was circulated to all attendees, along with the news that the RFP was sent
out to the consultants earlier this week.
The committee discussed the issue of what action it will take if there is not an adequate proposal at
the end of the RFP deadline. Options included accepting the best proposal that the committee had
in hand, though it may only be mediocre, or reopening the RFP process and possibly rewriting the
RFP document. The consensus of the group seemed to be that the latter response is more
preferable.
An issue was raised during the week about whether or not the list of all RFP recipients could be
circulated to individual consultants. Though the committee could not answer this question on legal
grounds, it did discuss the ethical implications. One member cited the potential unfair advantages
for those consultants who did acquire the list. On the other hand, such information may provide
opportunities for collaboration. It was on this point that the group agreed that it would be appropriate
to send the list to all consultants, or at least call to ask if they would like it, barring any legal
impediments.
As a matter of clarification, the Steering Committee will be responsible for reviewing the proposals
that are submitted from consultants.
REPORT FROM THE RESIDENT RESPONSE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE
Clark Cowen presented a report from the Feb. 5 meeting of the Resident Response Review
Subcommittee. He stated that the sub-committee has been working to assemble possible
Stakeholder Groups by narrowing the current field of 217 respondents first to 100 members and then
to 50. At the heart of this effort is an attempt to create a diverse Stakeholders Group which is
adequately representative of the various segments of the Lexington community.
For those groups that were found not to be well represented, the Sub-committee decided that they
should be contacted directly by phone and invited to participate.
The Initiating Committee, disappointed with the location of the previous announcement about the
20/20 Vision in the local newspaper, suggested the submission of a press release. It would report
on the status of the process and provide another mechanism for inviting interested residents to
participate. Fernando Quezada agreed to write the press release, with the assistance of Peter Lee,
and have the support staff forward it to the newspaper as soon as possible.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
The committee discussed the issue of resident participation in the process, and whether it should be
limited only to those who filled out and submitted the form, or broader and more inclusive. Expecting
that the original participants would likely invite friends and neighbors to become involved, the
committee suggested that participation in the overall process should not be limited to the original
group.
Committee members expressed an obligation to try and involve all of those residents who submitted
the response form.
In order to hold the interest of those who submitted response forms until a consultant was hired and
their involvement more clearly structured, the Initiating Committee agreed to send regular status
reports updating interested residents about the process.
DISCUSSION ON STEERING COMMITTEE FORMATION
The Initiating Committee reviewed the sheet detailing the characteristics of the Steering
Committee and offered some minor revisions to the description. In particular, the IC noted that
public communication should be listed as a duty and responsibility of the Steering Committee,
the initial tasks and activities should include the interview and selection of a consultant, and the
structure should allow for the creation of internal sub-committees on an ad hoc basis. In
regards to the meeting times of the Steering Committee, there was consensus among Initiating
Committee members that meetings should continue to be held in the morning.
INITIATING COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULE
February 26, 1999 – meeting postponed to March 5, 1999