The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2000-03-17-2020-min (Steering Committee) Meeting Notes Steering Committee – March 17, 2000 Members Present: Heather Sweeney, Peter Enrich, Alan Lazarus, Paul Mammola, Marjorie Platt, Fernando Quezada, Todd Burger Consultants Present: Wendy Rundle Staff Present: Rick White, Candy McLaughlin Handouts: February 11 Minutes Information/Topics for Steering Committee Liaisons to Discuss with Work Groups First Draft of CPG Vision Core Participants Group Membership memo Proposed Process for CPG Review of Environmental Scans Lists of CPG and Work Group Members Call to order Approval of Meeting Minutes from February 11, 2000 Status of Habama Web Site Fernando inquired about follow-up to the discussion at the last meeting about web-site accessibility problems. Candy said there are problems with access to the site from Macs and from computers using older versions of Netscape Navigator. We are trying to get resolution of these issues. Liaison Reports Peter Enrich reported that the Sense of Community group is pretty much on schedule. There is variable attendance but a large enough core at each meeting to get work done. They are beginning their vision statement, and also planning public outreach through sharing their first vision draft with relevant organizations. Alan reported that the Productive Connections group is moving ahead, though not with great speed or depth. It’s a small group (regularly 4-5 people) and sometimes they get side-tracked because the topic is not very broad. They have a short vision statement. They are somewhat confused about the public outreach assignment and would appreciate guidance. Todd reported that the Transportation group is functioning very well, partly because the chair is extremely capable and has a good feel for the group. They have good attendance, felt good about the Environmental Scan process, and are moving forward. At their last meeting they struggled with the distinction between goals and objectives. Their public outreach activity will be a joint meeting with the Bikeway group, which Todd thinks is fine because the group is doing some of the hard work of listening to specific interests but not letting it unbalance their approach to the overall vision. They are struggling with how to publicize the event. The group is a little frustrated that the CPG is a bit behind in their coordination with Work Group activities, but are not letting that hold them up. Alan also reported on the Growth group, since Heather was unable to attend the last meeting. This group has lots of energy, is well organized and well-attended. Hopefully they will continue on track even though the chair has just resigned. They really need guidance on public outreach, both what is required and what resources they can count on to support their activities. Public Outreach We need to emphasize to the Work Groups that the purpose of public outreach at this point in the process is small- scale testing, touching base with relevant constituencies so all the right voices are heard. It needs to be clear to the community that this is not final and there will be later opportunities to respond to the vision. Steering Committee members suggested several ideas for Work Groups to consider, including limited telephone surveying, visiting constituent groups with a draft for discussion, and asking other Work Groups to make comments. Candy raised the timing and coordination issue. The Work Groups are scheduled to complete their public outreach activity by April 24 (right after school vacation). The CPG is supposed to provide guidance and support on public outreach, but the earliest they can meet about this is April 6. Wendy suggested that the April 24 deadline should be flexible: groups that are ready to move ahead may not need much CPG input, while those that need it may not complete their public outreach until late April or even early May. Peter Enrich said it might be iterative for some groups -- get feedback on their draft vision early in April, get more ideas on April 6, and then test out their goals and objectives later in April. General guidance about the objectives and some ideas will be communicated in a letter to the Work Group chairs. If groups need additional help, the Steering Committee or consultants can provide technical assistance, and the staff can give guidance about logistical support (copying, advertising, etc.) Candy will send email to the Growth Group immediately making it clear that we don’t expect a comprehensive town-wide survey. Each Work Group will be asked to make a five-minute presentation about public outreach at the April 6 CPG meeting. Other Work Group Issues The Steering Committee acknowledged completion of the Work Plans by all groups; there have been no specific comments or suggestions. The following membership changes were approved: adding Harriet Cohen to Fiscal Stability, removing David Connaughton and Peter Steffens from Fiscal Stability, removing Faith Pelikan from Productive Connections, and removing Muriel Taylor from Sense of Community. Candy distributed lists of Work Group members and staff; these will also be distributed to everyone involved in the 2020 Vision project. Candy relayed a request from the Fiscal Stability Group that all other groups consider in their planning some ideas about how the town could pay for any new programs; there was varied response to this (some groups are very concerned about any new funding, and some are visioning without fiscal constraints at this point). CPG Issues Candy distributed the list of all (roughly 90) potential CPG members, noting that we have a firm commitment to participate from roughly half of the list. These people have responded in some way to the recruitment invitation, they have all received an orientation packet, either at the orientation meeting or through the mail, and many of them have attended one or more CPG events. Other than one person who attended the Futures Panel, no one on the “non- committed” section of the list has responded in any way to our communications to date. Rick asked what standard of performance we should have – when can people come into the group? Wendy suggested that the process always needs to be open. Fernando agreed that the process, and any given meeting, must be open but there is a distinction between “card-carrying” CPG members and those who may have more sporadic involvement. It was agreed that people can still sign on, but should have some orientation to the process. Agreement was reached that the people who have responded affirmatively are considered official CPG members. Candy distributed a report from Monicka analyzing the by age, family type, years of residence, and career of the people on this list. Christopher Nelson, an interested high school student, was approved as a new member. The Environmental Scans will be mailed out with a cover letter to all CPG members. We will keep soliciting the others to sign on, by re-activating the Steering Committee calling lists and by sending a postcard. Rick and Peter are willing to sit down with any new members for a brief orientation time. The cover letter going out to the CPG with the Environmental Scans was reviewed and edited. There was insufficient time to discuss the process for Environmental Scan Review, which was distributed. Steering Committee members may send comments to Candy. This meeting will be held at the Methodist Church, 2600 Massachusetts Avenue, on Thursday, March 30 from 7:00 to 9:30 p.m. th The next CPG meeting was set for Thursday, April 6. This is only a week after the previous meeting, but the 13 is just before income taxes and due and the following week is school vacation. One of the topics will be public outreach. Wendy and Suzanne will propose an agenda, which will include interaction with the Work Groups. Ajourn