Update on the Boards and Commissions Workgroup
Jan 28, 2009 14:08 - 3 Comments
As I >wrote, last Wednesday, January 21, 2009, the Boards and Commissions Workgroup met to identify recommendations to the Mayor and Council. Contessa Crisostomo covered the meeting for the Gazette and her article today provides a fine summary (and even includes a quote from me).
Cindy Cotte Griffiths, who serves on the Human Services Advisory Commission, said the process needs to be more systematic and, in turn, would attract more people to serve.
But a focus on recruitment and advertisement of vacancies is also important, she said.
“There are always vacancies and sometimes for long periods of time,” Griffiths said.
The Workgroup would like to receive as many comments as possible to make sure we get this right. In particular, John Hall and I have proposed a three-week period between the time the Mayor announces an applicant for appointment and the vote by the Mayor and Council. This period would provide time for interviews of the applicants to groups with legal decision-making responsibilities: the Planning Commission, the Board of Appeals, and the Historic District Commission. Our goal is the streamline the process as much as possible so that the three-week waiting period would apply to all appointments even if no interview was required. Our belief is that this would not unduly delay the process.
If you have thoughts and concerns on any aspect of the process, term limits, or reappointments, you can send them to the City Clerk or Councilmember Phyllis Marcuccio, who is chairing the Workgroup.
Follow on Twitter
Although you’ve encouraged readers to send their comments to the City, I’m placing mine here because I’d like to continue the conversation on this subject because it affects so many people.>
The City’s commissions and committees “program” does need an evaluation of its successes and weaknesses, but I’d go beyond the appointment process and terms. As a current Historic District Commissioner and participant in many different boards, I’ve witnessed the good, bad, and ugly both upclose and far away.
Far too frequently, I’m dismayed by people who volunteer for a committee but truly have no interest or experience in the work of the commission or even know how to run a meeting–they just want to help. As well-meaning as they are, at best they waste the committee’s time and energy. At worst, their ignorance causes them to make inconsistent, foolish, sometimes illegal, decisions. As any soldier will tell you, passion isn’t sufficient to win the war, you need to know how to use a gun. So what else can we do to make things better? Here are five suggestions:
1. Require continuing education so members can make well-informed decisions. This should certainly apply to those commissions that make legally-binding decisions, but it would help everyone. Their decisions and recommendations affect the community, so don’t we want people on our boards who are well informed? This doesn’t have to be demanding, just anything that would make one a better committee member, including reading books from a prepared bibliography or a workshop on running good meetings.
2. Evaluate every commission and committee annually. This can be a bit uncomfortable, so I suggest just a self-assessment to help everyone step back and consider how they felt the meetings were run, if they felt adequately prepared for the meetings, if there was sufficient citizen participation, if they believed they were making reasonable decisions, and if they were making a contribution to the City. If we build enough courage, we should allow staff and citizens to evaluate our performance as well.
3. Seriously integrate the Mayor and Council’s vision for the City into the work of the boards and commissions. The only way to make significant progress is for everyone to know how they contribute to the implementation of these goals. Let’s all pull in the same direction (and yes, it’s okay to disagree at times).
4. More actively pursue diversity in all its forms. I’m not proposing quotas, but I am suggesting that overall and within each board there should be some mechanism for evaluating candidates to ensure a diversity of perspectives by people. This diversity includes neighborhood, age, and occupation. On the Historic District Commission, we try to have a variety of skills represented (not just historians and architects, as much as we love them).
5. Be more aggressive about recruitment, perhaps even creating a Leadership Development Committee. Oh, my, did I just recommend adding another board to the existing two dozen? But every board I’ve sat on has a nominating committee. Throughout the year they actively identify and recruit members and match skills and interests with the organization’s needs and goals. Right now, we’re relying on people to volunteer when we may be more effective by seeking them out. Let’s become proactive rather than stay reactive.
Hope this advances the conversation and provokes some more thinking about this issue.
Mary,>
Thanks for this well-thought out addition to the discussion. I agree that commissions should continually stay informed and re-evaluate their effectiveness.
As a member of Human Services, I know we seek a balance of members and actually are required to have caregivers and consumers on the Commission. We seek diversity. In large part the quality of a board or commission rests on the current members.
As a member of the Workgroup I have advocated for a broader campaign to reach new people, plastering the volunteer information everywhere. Recruitment is key.
Sorry! I meant to say “Max”!