Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-01-27-2020-min (Steering Committee) Meeting Notes Steering Committee – January 28, 2000 Members Present: Peggy Perry, Peter Enrich, Peter Lee, Alan Lazarus, Paul Mammola, Chuck Benson, Marjorie Platt, Fernando Quezada Consultants Present: Suzanne Orenstein Staff Present: Rick White, Candy McLaughlin, Monicka Tutschka Handouts: Meeting Minutes from 1/14/00 and 12/17/99 Meetings List of potential CPG members that SC members are responsible to call Call to order Approval of Meeting Minutes from January 14, 2000 and December 17, 2000 Meeting Steering Committee liaison reports on the status of their Working Groups Alan Lazarus, SC liaison for the Better Communications between Citizens and Town Government Working Group, emphasized a) the need for a high school student to join the working group, b)the need for a meeting place in town where the citizens and town staff could discuss issues c)the need to provide him with a list of Lexington organizations; d)the importance of establishing a connection between his working group and other working groups, particularly the Sense of Community WG and ; e)the importance of town staff attendance at his working group meetings. Alan’s working group is focusing its attention on fostering better channels of communication. They are exploring the use of the Internet, among others things, as a way to improve communication between the town and its citizens. Alan assured the Steering Committee that his Working Group has a sense of where it is going and, at present, he anticipates that they will meet the work plan deadlines. Peggy Perry, SC liaison for the Ensuring Educational Excellence: Lifelong Opportunities and Quality WG, emphasized a)the need for a teacher or a member of the school staff to join the working group; b)the need for a high school student to join the working group; c)that since her WG needs access to pertinent data and materials (ex. School Curriculum plan), she needs to know who to contact to get this data; d)the need to better communicate the role of the CPG. At present, her WG believes that the CPG will either squelch the plans created by the WGs or simply duplicate their efforts. Peggy’s working group is presently on track and it is delving into the issues. However, she fears that they might be unable to meet all the work plan deadlines. Rick White, speaking on behalf of a town staff liaison who is part of the Transportation Working Group, emphasized a)the need to represent perspectives that are broader in scope than those of the bicyclists. The view-point of the business people in Lexington is desperately needed. Chuck Benson, SC liaison for the Fiscal Stability Working Group, stated that because he cannot always attend the meetings, there was a) a need for another SC member, possibly Peter Lee, to work with him as a liaison; b)a need to better represent the perspectives of those individuals who are not fiscally conservative. Chuck’s working group is presently chaired by Henry Lui, the secretary is Judi Ozuranksy. Peter Enrich, SC liaison for the Sense of Community Working Group, emphasized the need for a high school student to becoming an active member of the working group. He also has some concerns about the lack of ethnic and political diversity in the group. Peter reported that his working group is off to a good start. The work plan has been completed but he believes that it lacks some important structural elements. Nonetheless, they have begun to discuss major issues, interests and values that relate to the working group topic and they are presently seeking information to complete the Environmental Scan. Report from the town staff WG liaisons: It was decided that there will be a monthly discussion between those staff members who are participating in the Lexington 2020 Vision process and the SMT. The discussion will begin on Tuesdays at 10:30 A.M. in the SMR; it will be the first item on the agenda of the Senior Management Team regularly scheduled weekly meeting. To date, the staff has met twice around this issue. During one of these meetings, Rick White outlined the responsibilities of the staff working group liaison. He shared this outline with the Steering Committee. They are as follows: at least one member of the staff should attend each WG meeting unless the staff believes that they are a hindrance or unnecessary. With regard to town resources, data, and other such material, the staff should provide or at least be able to disclose the location of any data or other such material that is already in existence. If a Working Group requests material or data that has not to date been gathered, the staff is not required to collect this information for the Working Group. The staff, Rick said, was concerned about the relative lack of diversity in the working groups and they discussed different kinds of diversity (age, ethnicity, political, fiscal perspective, etc.). They indicated that citizens on the working group related to fiscal issues were almost all conservatives and the staff feared that the opposing perspective was being overlooked. The goals and objectives of a radically conservative working group might create serious problems when we weave together the work plans of all the working groups in June. Discussion Regarding Adequate Representation in the Working Groups and CPG Fernando agreed that bicyclists and fiscal conservatives might fail to address other important issues and concerns and he agreed that the Steering Committee must ensure that working group process moves forward. However, he stressed that the Steering Committee must not inject its values and biases into the working groups. The Steering Committee should not attempt to stifle even the most radical and the most creative of perspectives. Peter Enrich raised the point that the Core Participants Group is the sounding board that is charged with the task of ear-marking certain biases. The Core Participants Group will remind the bicyclists and the conservatives that they need to address the needs of the community as a whole. Responses to SC liaisons reports and needs: Candy McLaughlin reported that the 2020 Vision staff in collaboration with the school is presently recruiting students to join the WGs. In the coming week, an invitation will be sent to approximately 20 students who have been hand picked by Lexington High School Principal, Phil Lanoue. After some discussion, it was decided that students will also be welcome to join the CPG. Some members of the Steering Committee were concerned about how the working groups would adjust to the late arrival of the students. Candy reminded the Steering Committee members that the working groups have thus far only completed their work plan. The students will have plenty of opportunity to get involved in the rigorous aspect of the visioning process. The Operations Subcommittee is asked to tackle the issues circling around appropriate and adequate representation. . Rick White suggested that Judy Uhrig, a member of the Lexington Center Committee who was previously a member of a planning board, should join the Transportation Working Group to provide a different perspective. If she is unable or unwilling to join the working group then there may be need for friendly intervention by the staff. A discussion with Mr. VanHook, for example, might help to ensure that the view-points of the business world are not completely overshadowed by the bicyclists. Fernando agreed to call David Williams, a member of the Lexington Center Committee who wants this committee to remain informed about or involved in the activities of the WGs, and ask him whether Ms. Uhrig would like to become a member of the Transportation Working Group. Paul Mammola provided a list of business people that might be interested in joining a working group. The list includes: Chris and Cathy Vinier Dick Michelson Dianne McGiver Joel Werrich It was agreed that Candy would give these names to Todd Burger and see whether he would be able to contact them. Since a goal of the Lexington 2020 Vision process was to introduce new faces into town government, Rick White suggested that although Dick Michelson, being an already active and busy member of many Lexington committees and organizations, should be considered, Chris and Cathy Veneer, Dianne McGiven and Joel Weyrich should be preferred. The Relationship Between the CPG and the Working Groups \\It was decided that the Steering Committee needs to better communicate the role of the CPG to the working groups so that a friendly relationship between the working groups and the CPG is cemented. Rick White sated that the CPG is creating a planning umbrella for the topical groups to work under, and this umbrella, will be reshaped as the wrok groups bring more information. These two groups need to appreciate each other. There are working from different perspectives but have parallel processes which will ultimately be brought together. Good communication is essential to both groups. It was suggested that at least one liaison from every working group should be invited to attend the CPG meetings. When it comes time to review the working groups’ environmental scans, then all members of that working group should be invited. It was agreed that the Operations Subcommittee will follow up on this issue. Approval of New Working Group Participants It was agreed that the individuals listed below would become official members of the respective working groups. To solidify their membership, these new members will receive a letter. 1.Sense of Community Charles Price Molly Rath Sim 2.Managing Growth Mike Hanauer 3.Educational Excellence Don Brezinski 4.Productive Connections Between Citizens and Town Dan Deutsch 5.Managing Transportation Don Graham 6.Fiscal Responsibility Fred Martin Zack Edmonds CPG Orientation Debriefing Fernando congratulated the efforts of the consultants, town staff and steering committee. Those CPG members who attended the meeting were outspoken and full of energy. However, the Steering Committee needs to make sure that the CPG members don’t get disenchanted. They were nervous, Fernando said, because they do not have a clear idea of their role. CPG members do not want to be mere “window dressing”. Suzanne Orenstein stated that the Steering Committee needs to reinforce their expectations and their role. The Steering Committee needs to tighten its description of the CPG and create a clear image of their responsibilities. The CPG is the response mechanism; they represent the community at large. CPG Membership It was agreed that the Steering Committee needs to attempt to increase the number of CPG members. About 40 individuals have agreed to become members and either came to the orientation meeting or received the information by mail. About 40 individuals remain that need to be called by the Steering Committee. They should be invited to become members and to attend the February 17th Futures Panel . February 17 th Futures Panel Suzanne Orenstein questioned whether the WGs should participate in this event. It was agreed that the town staff will email the chair of each working group as soon as possible inviting them and the other members of their working group to attend the Futures Panel. The location is yet to be disclosed. Speakers will be: Nariman Behravesh Chris Meyer Phil Herr Moderator will most likely be: Paul Marshall (Rick White will confirm this) Other possibilities include: Jay Kaufman nd March 2 Visioning Exercise This meeting will force the CPG to look at and compose a document that outlines the “big picture”. They will gather information from the data collected from the surveys, the June Workshops and the Fall Forum to create this big picture. The document, a working draft, will be shared with the work groups. Peggy Perry asked whether the visioning process was simply a duplication of the working group effort and whether this was even necessary seeing that the surveys, June Workshops and Fall Forum already gave us the big picture. The working groups, she said, feel like all these efforts are redundant. Peter Enrich recognized Peggy’s point but said that the CPG needs to synthesize the material gathered from these various sources and they also need to take ownership of this material. He stated that Steering Committee needs to emphasize that the role of the CPG is new. The Steering Committee needs to down play the role of the previously created Long Range Plan so that we don’t give the impression that Lexington 2020 Vision is merely spinning its wheels. Rick White concurred and added that the CPG is the umbrella under which the WGs operate. Alan Lazarus feared that this is too top-down; he does not want to undercut the work of the working groups. Rick reassured Alan that this was not top-down because the CPG, like the WGs, is composed of citizens and therefore it is a grass-roots process. Peter Enrich stated that the WGs and the CPG are involved in a parallel process. One group, he emphasized, is not controlling the other; they are working to protect and help each other. The Steering Committee agreed with Peter’s assessment. Whether or not working groups should attend and actively participate in this meeting was raised as a point of discussion. It was agreed that they will be invited to the meeting but they will participate as observers only. Questions that were raised but remain outstanding Whether the SC wants to construct formal and standard channels of communication or whether loose, case by case relations between Lexington’s numerous other committees and organizations and the Working Groups was a question that was posed and remains outstanding. When will we no longer accept additions to the Working Groups? Adjourned