The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1993-06-25-IP-min.pdf s i To Steering Wheel From Paul Hamburger Subject Minutes to 6/24 meeting Date 6/25/93 Attendees Dan Fenn Bill Dailey John Oberteuffer George Burnell Paul Hamburger Karen Dooks Nancy Cannalonga Betty Eddison (Chair, Human Services) Peter Enrich Jay Kaufman Neal Boyle Rick White New Papers 1 Implementation of Article 4 Resolution Draft 5 dated 6/23/93 Jay Kaufman 2 Recommendations for Public Hearings (first round) dated 6/23/93 Peter Enrich 3 Prototype/Publicity Plan draft for review dated 6/23/93 Betty Eddison Discussion highlights (sorry if I did not get all the key points ) 1 Neal raised issue of Community data gathering appearing only in strategic planning part of Jay's schedule Others suggested that info would filter back in a good way into the 95 process 2 The number of public meetings to be held was discussed at some length The range was 5-15 3 Facilitators were discussed It seemed that the issue of not having Selectmen as facilitators has been put to rest, now that the meetings are part of the S P process Rick suggested that BU might be tapped for facilitators 4 George asked at one point in further discussion if the Wheel was micromanaging There was general agreement that we were 5 Paul followed with the assertion that the Board must now act to appoint its executing bodies The Wheel has been agreed to be an advisory body 6 It was agreed that School Comm should be represented at all the data collection meetings, as well as possibly the financial boards Some discussion was had about expanding coverage through other methods besides meetings 7 Rick expressed clearly that he did not want the resonsibility for executing the Strategic Planning segment of the program and expressed his agreement about the way in which the two processes had been separated in the current proposal He also asked for a wording changes in Jay's paper which were agreed Budget Process 2nd line replace "agree on" with "gain an understanding of" TM & Schl Comm Budget Pres date is a target Statutory date for TM budget is 1/15 i 8 Bill said he would bring the current draft before the board on Monday next for review and (I think/I hope) action ACTIONS 1 ALL - Review Betty's draft 2 Bill - Make progress on implementation steps k SUGGESTION The assumptions from Paul (updated herewith) be reviewed and incorporated or at least distributed again for review Alternatively they might be attached as an appendix Respectfully submitted, Paul ASSUMPTIONS, SOME JUSTIFICATIONS (WHY), AND WHERE THE WHEEL STANDS ON THESE ASSUMPTIONS Paul Hamburger Revised 6/25/93 0 BROAD PARTICIPATION - AGREED IN FIRST MEETING PART OF RESOLUTION 1 STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITIES UNCHANGED - AGREED IN SECOND MEETING 2. TWO GENERAL GOALS FROM STATEMENT AND INTENT OF RESOLUTION 2A INPUT TO '95 BUDGET PROCESS - PART OF RESOLUTION AGREED IN SECOND MEETING 2B STRATEGIC PLAN AGREED AS A SEPARATE PROCESS BUT ONE WHICH COMMUNICATES CLOSELY WITH 2A. THIS POSITION REACHED WITH DISCUSSION ON 6/24 OF JAY'S DRAFT#5 SOME IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS ARE STILL TO BE WORKED OF COURSE. 3 STRATEGIC PLANNING DOES NOT DEGRADE '95 BUDGET PROCESS AGREED IN FOURTH MEETING. THIS HAS SOME COROLLARIES AS FOLLOWS 3A STRATEGIC PLAN BECOMES A MULTI-YEAR ACTIVITY REITERATED ON 6/24, THO CURRENT PLAN HAS AMBITIOUS ACTIVITY SCHEDULE FOR 93-94 BUT DOES NOT SAY IT IS DONE THEN WHY? MOST OF ACTIVITY WILL HAVE TO TAKE PLACE IN JUNE-DEC TIME FRAME, BECAUSE DEC-MAY IS TAKEN UP WITH CURRENT YEAR FISCAL AND OTHER TOWN MEETING ISSUES TOO INTEN- SIVELY TO PERMIT HEAVY STRATEGIC PLANNING ACTIVITY TO GO ON. IT CANNOT GET DONE SUCCESSFULLY IN ONE SIX MONTH PERIOD SUMMER HAS RESTRICTIONS IN DOING PUBLIC PROCESSES 3B FIRST YEAR INCLUDES DEFINITION OF PROCESS AND PILOT CONSISTENT WITH OBJECTIVE #3 JAY'S DRAFT AND PETER AND NANCY'S DRAFT ARE THE STEERING WHEEL'S RECOMMENDATION ON HOW TO IMPLEMENT THAT WHY? SO WE CAN REALLY GET SOMEWHERE IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS 3C DATA COLLECTION CAN PROVIDE FULL INPUT FOR 95 PLAN AND AS MUCH INPUT AS POSSIBLE CONSISTENT WITH ASSUMPTION #3 FOR THE STRATEGIC PLANNIG PROCESS ONE DATA COLLECTION PROCESS FOR BOTH IS ENVISIONED IN 1993 I THINK THIS ASSUMPTION IS ACCEPTED EVEN THO IT THE DATA COLLECTION HAS BEEN DEFINED AS PART OF THE STRATEGIC PLANNING ACTIVITY, NOT PART OF THE 95 BUDGET INPUT PROCESS THAT IS, THE S P COLLECTION PROCESS WILL FEED INTO THE 95 INPUT PROCESS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE WHY? NOT ENOUGH RESOURCES (EITHER QUESTION ASKERS OR QUESTION ANSWERERS) TO DO SEPARATELY ALSO, NEXT FISCAL YR PROCESS AND STRATEGIC PROCESS NEED TO BE BASED ON SAME SET OF INPUT TO ASSURE BEST POSSIBLE SYNERGY BETWEEN THE TWO WE NEED THAT 4 SELECTMEN ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING 2A WITH HELP FROM SUCH STAFF, TASK FORCES, ADVISORY COMMITTES AND OTHER RESOURCES AS THEY MAY SELECT/APPOINT/RECRUIT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY CLEARLY AGREED ON OR BEFORE JUNE 24 THIS #4 HAS THREE COMPANIONS WE HAVE NOT DISCUSSED BUT MUST THEY ARE 4A #2A & 2B MUST BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SAME BODY THIS WAS ACCEPTED ON OR BEFORE 6/24 WHY? THIS IS BECAUSE THERE ARE COMMON PROCESSES (INFO GATHERING IS THE BIGGEST, BUT THERE ARE OTHERS ) WE BELIEVE THERE IS NOT ENOUGH ENERGY IN THE SYSTEM TO DO TWO INDEPENDENT EFFORTS FURTHER, IF THEY ARE INDEPENDENT THEY WOULD HAVE HIGH POTENTIAL TO CAUSE DIVISIVENESS IN BOTH PRODUCT AND PROCESS 4B #4A AND #4 LEAD TO THE SELECTMEN MUST ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS WITH HELP FROM SUCH STAFF, TASK FORCES, ADVISORY COMMITTES AND OTHER RESOURCES AS THEY MAY SELECT/APPOINT/RECRUIT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ACCEPTED (I THINK) ON OR BEFORE 6/24 5 IDEAS DEVELOPED AND DISCUSSED IN STEERING WHEEL MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT STATED AND ACCEPTED BY BILL DAILEY ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD IN FACT HE INVITED THE WHEEL TO CONTINUE IN AN ADVISORY ROLE THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS 6 THE FORUMS SHOULD SOLICIT BROAD INPUT FIRST, THEN BREAK DOWN INTO INTEREST AREAS RATHER THAN START WITH INTEREST AREAS (SUCH AS SCHOOLS, INFRASTRUCTURE, ETC ) AGREED IN 4TH MEETING, I THINK 7 THE '95 PROCESS MUST MEET POINTS 1-5 IN THE RESOLUTION AGREED, BUT ON POINT#1 IT IS THE CURRENT POSITION (6/24) THAT IT CAN BE DONE IN THE S P CONTEXT AND THE RESULT FED INTO THE 95 INPUT PROCESS (AS WELL AS THOSE FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS) NEAL BOYLE EXPRESSED STRONG RESERVATIONS ABOUT THIS, BUT OTHER MEMBERS INDICATED A STRONG WILL TO MAKE THE PROCESSES WORK TO- GETHER SO THAT THIS OBJECTION WOULD BE MINIMIZED IN PRACTISE WHY? THE STATED EXPECTATION OF TOWN MEETING WHICH PASSED THE RESOLUTION IS THAT THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEET POINTS 1-5 OTHER INTERPRETATIONS, NECESSARY BECAUSE OF THE LIMITA- TIONS OF THE RESOLUTION DUE TO LEGAL CONSTRAINTS OF AMEND- MENTS TO ARTICLE 4 MAY GIVE RISE TO THE NEED FOR A STRATE- GIC PLANNING PROCESS THIS IS NOT THE STATED WILL OF TOWN MEETING (NEITHER IS IT THE STATED NON-WILL OF TOWN MEETING )