This editorial is the opinion of Bill Coburn, publisher of Sierra Madre News Net and 15 year Sierra Madre resident. It is not intended to reflect the views of any other person or entity with whom I am associated.
While I really had no idea what to expect, the meeting far exceeded any expectations I might have had. The water rate forums, as outraged as people were, drew very few people. I went to one water forum, and only 6 non-staff people were there. Sunday's meeting drew somewhere in the range of 250-300, or more than the City has said attended ALL the water forums.
The best thing for me was having one of the Commissioners tell me afterwards that one of the big things he got out of the meeting was that there were a lot of things mentioned to him that he would never have thought of. Things he wouldn't have known, unless someone else, affected by the item, had brought it up to him. That was one of my hopes for the meeting, that the Commissioners were aware as they move forward of how much they weren't aware of, and how their actions might negatively impact people if they did not fully consider the effects of those actions.
There was definitely a business contingent there, I saw at least a dozen owners that I know, some Chamber, some not. And I'm sure there were business owners there that I am not familiar with, as well. One of the Commissioners told me that she felt that there was a good representation of business owners.
Other positives: There were a lot of people I've never seen before, in other words, new participants in the process. Also, many of the people putting this thing on, myself included, with whatever small role I played, are polar opposites in many aspects politically, yet every one worked well together, and treated each other with respect. That's something that's been lacking in the Sierra Madre political scene, to a degree.
Melissa Thew did a great job with food. Carol Canterbury did a great job rounding up door prizes. Event co-Chairs Teryl Willis and Leslee Hinton did a great job organizing the event. One resident with whom I spoke told me he was very impressed, and that in particular he liked that everything was very straight forward.
Friends of the Arts was there to work with children while their parents did the busy work, and though there weren't many children there for them to work with, they did at least get to talk with many of the folks to increase awareness of their concern that the Arts are properly considered and included in the General Plan. But there was a youth influence, the YAC kids painted all the banners that hung on the tables that represented the seven elements of a General Plan. Who knows, as 2030 approaches and the Plan is updated again, maybe some of those youth will sit on the committee and recall when they helped with the update "back in 2010".
Staff and City Council were there, listening to what the people had to say. Unfortunately, only one Planning Commissioner was there, Kevin Paschall. Hopefully more will be able to attend future meetings. Three members of the GPUSC were unable to attend, Debbie Sheridan, who was out of town, Colin Braudrick, who is just out of the hospital, and Chairperson Denise Delmar, who was with her daughter who had just had a baby. The other commissioners were there at each of the tables, answering questions, but more importantly, listening to community input.
A survey prepared by the committee was distributed, and the original 150 copies were supplemented by an additional 2 publishings of 50 copies each. A PowerPoint presentation of 25 slides detailing what a general plan is was shown on a projection screen, an endless loop using a laptop and a projector with speakers (voiceover by Chairperson Denise Delmar), though the crowd was large enough that the audio was frequently overpowered.
All in all, I think it went exceedingly well. Congratulations to the GPUSC (and staff) for a great event, and to the Communications team which got the word out and drew the large crowd.
To view pictures from the event, go to http://www.sierramadrenews.net/editorial/GPUForum11_14_10.htm
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Attn: City Council - She's Not Always Wrong Just Because She's MaryAnn
This editorial is the opinion of Bill Coburn, publisher of Sierra Madre News Net and 15 year Sierra Madre resident. It is not intended to reflect the views of any other person or entity with whom I am associated.
Last Tuesday night at City Council, four members of the Council again rebuffed Council Member MaryAnn MacGillivray, and in doing so, they cost the City money, and overlooked what I consider to be a very good idea.
At issue was an increase in the water rate that was being proposed that would have raised the water rate 7.5% for each of the first two years, followed by smaller increases for the next two years. The increase as proposed (over the four years) exceeded slightly the amount that would have been raised in the first four years by the increase that was suspended by the Council in July when more than 1,700 letters of protest were received from Sierra Madre rate payers as part of a Prop. 218 response to the proposed rate increase. Because the amount of the increase exceeded the previously proposed increase, it would have triggered the need to notify rate payers that they again had the right to protest the increase through Prop. 218. The Council was proposing that this new rate increase be modified slightly to reduce the amount so that it was below the cap at which Prop. 218 would be triggered, allowing the increase to move forward without further input from the ratepayers.
Council Member MacGillivray had proposed that the City ease into the 7.5% water rate increase that was being proposed, suggesting that beginning Jan. 1, a 3.5% increase be instituted, with the amount raising to the 7.5% level in July when the new budget begins. She further proposed that the level not be tweaked at all, allowing it to exceed the Prop 218 imposed cap, and that the Council should give rate payers the option of protesting the increase, as she felt that the reduced level (from 15.5% to 7.5% the first year) of the increase would be sufficient to ensure that protestors did not generate enough protests to stop it from being approved. Council Member MacGillivray noted that from what she has observed, people were willing to pay more, but were upset about the process by which the Council and the City administration had attempted to raise the rates the first time.
So here we have a proposal that would have generated a 3.5% increase six months earlier, and that would not have been tweaked to fit within the cap needed to fall within the limits imposed by the first Prop. 218 process. That means more money for the City. The Council shot down MacGillivray's proposal.
Further, the Council had an opportunity to quiet some of the critics (and there are many) that claim the Council/City staff had misled the ratepayers by "hiding" the water bond debt that most of the rate increase is intended to cover. Now I have to kind of disagree with that, because these bonds have been around since 1998 and 2003, and they are addressed in the annual budget. They also were not passed by previous councils without the public being informed. Nothing was hidden. But that's a subject for another editorial. The issue of this editorial is that Council Member MacGillivray proposed an increase that would have raised more money for the City's beleaguered water department, and increased the level of trust that ratepayers of the City have in their current City Council, and that was never given any serious consideration by the other members of the Council.
Now I recognize that there is a possibility that the protesters might have been able to generate enough letters of protest that the increase as proposed by MacGillivray might have failed. However, since a large number of the protesters have tremendous faith in MacGillivray and consider her to be a Council member they can trust when they lack that trust with other members, the fact that it was her proposing it and trying to get it passed would have eliminated many of those protests. Additionally, since the 1700 letters of protest were gathered, the City has embarked on an education outreach program to inform people why it is so critical to the City that the rates be increased. Does the Council lack faith in the outreach program's impact? Between that program, the countless hours of discussion at City Council meetings about the current state of the system and the increases, and Council member MacGillivray's backing, I have no doubt in my mind that the proposed increase would have passed without sufficient protests being received to put it on hold.
I think the problem is that this Council has a tendency to oppose ideas brought forth by Council Member MacGilllivray.
In my April 18th post-election editorial, I wrote the following: "On election night, I heard one of the folks who will be sitting on the Council for the next four years telling someone that the Council’s job now is to bring Mayor MacGillivray back into the fold. In essence, this person said that rather than ostracize or criticize her, the Council needs to be inclusive, because if they can get her working WITH them, the council can only get even more accomplished. Of course, the other side of the coin on that is that if Ms. MacGillivray chooses not to work collaboratively with the other members of the Council when they have attempted to work with her, it will reflect poorly on her."
I think what we have here is a combination of both. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that Council member MacGillivray had never discussed her proposal with the other Council members prior to that evening. Had she suggested this idea to the other members of the Council with enough time for them to consider it for a few days, and discuss it with their supporters, they might have seen the benefits of raising the additional money, as well as had time to consider the fact that there was less likelihood of a Prop. 218 rejection with MacGillivray joining them in backing the proposal. I don't think this is the first time that Council member MacGillivray has come to Council meetings and surprised her fellow Council members with a proposal, rather than trying to work with them to get a consensus for a united front at the meeting. Her suggestion regarding the General Plan Update Committee a couple months back being a case in point.
Here's what I wrote at the time: "Council Member Maryann MacGillivray, in my opinion, came on a little too strong at the beginning by asking her colleagues to repeal what had been approved as a compromise at a previous meeting, the authority to appoint technical advisory committees to assist the General Plan Steering Committee. I think she asked for too much, too soon. But she ultimately offered up an obvious solution, one that would have been an excellent compromise. Her second motion, which died for lack of a second, was to accept the Steering Committee's work plan, ask for a time line, accept the Outreach Program, and leave the Technical Committee appointments on the table. In doing so, the Council could have allowed the Steering Committee to begin its outreach program and show the council just how inclusive it would be, and if the Council felt it was being inclusive enough, they could repeal them at a later date. If they didn't feel it was being inclusive enough, they could just appoint the Technical Committees."
And I think that's partly a political tactic on MacGillivray's part. If she brings up ideas that are shot down by the others, she's seen by her supporters as a hero fighting for the people against overwhelming opposition. Her attempt to repeal the General Plan compromise was doomed to fail, but her fall back position, had she discussed it in advance with her colleagues, might very well have been accepted. By the time she brought it up though, they had their hackles up from her first proposal, and didn't give her second idea the time and consideration it needed. I think she might accomplish more for the people if she stopped the tactics and tried more to work behind the scenes instead of bringing these ideas forward without giving her colleagues some time to consider them. That being said, there are enough differences in ideology that there will be issues that we just won't see agreement on between all five members of the Council. But don't stop trying before you even start.
But I think we also see a lack of willingness on the part of the other Council members to bring MacGillivray "back into the fold". They are not being inclusive, as the Council member I heard back in April said was needed. I suggest that not only should they be trying harder to get her to work with them, they should put a little more effort into trying to work with her..
Last Tuesday night at City Council, four members of the Council again rebuffed Council Member MaryAnn MacGillivray, and in doing so, they cost the City money, and overlooked what I consider to be a very good idea.
At issue was an increase in the water rate that was being proposed that would have raised the water rate 7.5% for each of the first two years, followed by smaller increases for the next two years. The increase as proposed (over the four years) exceeded slightly the amount that would have been raised in the first four years by the increase that was suspended by the Council in July when more than 1,700 letters of protest were received from Sierra Madre rate payers as part of a Prop. 218 response to the proposed rate increase. Because the amount of the increase exceeded the previously proposed increase, it would have triggered the need to notify rate payers that they again had the right to protest the increase through Prop. 218. The Council was proposing that this new rate increase be modified slightly to reduce the amount so that it was below the cap at which Prop. 218 would be triggered, allowing the increase to move forward without further input from the ratepayers.
Council Member MacGillivray had proposed that the City ease into the 7.5% water rate increase that was being proposed, suggesting that beginning Jan. 1, a 3.5% increase be instituted, with the amount raising to the 7.5% level in July when the new budget begins. She further proposed that the level not be tweaked at all, allowing it to exceed the Prop 218 imposed cap, and that the Council should give rate payers the option of protesting the increase, as she felt that the reduced level (from 15.5% to 7.5% the first year) of the increase would be sufficient to ensure that protestors did not generate enough protests to stop it from being approved. Council Member MacGillivray noted that from what she has observed, people were willing to pay more, but were upset about the process by which the Council and the City administration had attempted to raise the rates the first time.
So here we have a proposal that would have generated a 3.5% increase six months earlier, and that would not have been tweaked to fit within the cap needed to fall within the limits imposed by the first Prop. 218 process. That means more money for the City. The Council shot down MacGillivray's proposal.
Further, the Council had an opportunity to quiet some of the critics (and there are many) that claim the Council/City staff had misled the ratepayers by "hiding" the water bond debt that most of the rate increase is intended to cover. Now I have to kind of disagree with that, because these bonds have been around since 1998 and 2003, and they are addressed in the annual budget. They also were not passed by previous councils without the public being informed. Nothing was hidden. But that's a subject for another editorial. The issue of this editorial is that Council Member MacGillivray proposed an increase that would have raised more money for the City's beleaguered water department, and increased the level of trust that ratepayers of the City have in their current City Council, and that was never given any serious consideration by the other members of the Council.
Now I recognize that there is a possibility that the protesters might have been able to generate enough letters of protest that the increase as proposed by MacGillivray might have failed. However, since a large number of the protesters have tremendous faith in MacGillivray and consider her to be a Council member they can trust when they lack that trust with other members, the fact that it was her proposing it and trying to get it passed would have eliminated many of those protests. Additionally, since the 1700 letters of protest were gathered, the City has embarked on an education outreach program to inform people why it is so critical to the City that the rates be increased. Does the Council lack faith in the outreach program's impact? Between that program, the countless hours of discussion at City Council meetings about the current state of the system and the increases, and Council member MacGillivray's backing, I have no doubt in my mind that the proposed increase would have passed without sufficient protests being received to put it on hold.
I think the problem is that this Council has a tendency to oppose ideas brought forth by Council Member MacGilllivray.
In my April 18th post-election editorial, I wrote the following: "On election night, I heard one of the folks who will be sitting on the Council for the next four years telling someone that the Council’s job now is to bring Mayor MacGillivray back into the fold. In essence, this person said that rather than ostracize or criticize her, the Council needs to be inclusive, because if they can get her working WITH them, the council can only get even more accomplished. Of course, the other side of the coin on that is that if Ms. MacGillivray chooses not to work collaboratively with the other members of the Council when they have attempted to work with her, it will reflect poorly on her."
I think what we have here is a combination of both. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that Council member MacGillivray had never discussed her proposal with the other Council members prior to that evening. Had she suggested this idea to the other members of the Council with enough time for them to consider it for a few days, and discuss it with their supporters, they might have seen the benefits of raising the additional money, as well as had time to consider the fact that there was less likelihood of a Prop. 218 rejection with MacGillivray joining them in backing the proposal. I don't think this is the first time that Council member MacGillivray has come to Council meetings and surprised her fellow Council members with a proposal, rather than trying to work with them to get a consensus for a united front at the meeting. Her suggestion regarding the General Plan Update Committee a couple months back being a case in point.
Here's what I wrote at the time: "Council Member Maryann MacGillivray, in my opinion, came on a little too strong at the beginning by asking her colleagues to repeal what had been approved as a compromise at a previous meeting, the authority to appoint technical advisory committees to assist the General Plan Steering Committee. I think she asked for too much, too soon. But she ultimately offered up an obvious solution, one that would have been an excellent compromise. Her second motion, which died for lack of a second, was to accept the Steering Committee's work plan, ask for a time line, accept the Outreach Program, and leave the Technical Committee appointments on the table. In doing so, the Council could have allowed the Steering Committee to begin its outreach program and show the council just how inclusive it would be, and if the Council felt it was being inclusive enough, they could repeal them at a later date. If they didn't feel it was being inclusive enough, they could just appoint the Technical Committees."
And I think that's partly a political tactic on MacGillivray's part. If she brings up ideas that are shot down by the others, she's seen by her supporters as a hero fighting for the people against overwhelming opposition. Her attempt to repeal the General Plan compromise was doomed to fail, but her fall back position, had she discussed it in advance with her colleagues, might very well have been accepted. By the time she brought it up though, they had their hackles up from her first proposal, and didn't give her second idea the time and consideration it needed. I think she might accomplish more for the people if she stopped the tactics and tried more to work behind the scenes instead of bringing these ideas forward without giving her colleagues some time to consider them. That being said, there are enough differences in ideology that there will be issues that we just won't see agreement on between all five members of the Council. But don't stop trying before you even start.
But I think we also see a lack of willingness on the part of the other Council members to bring MacGillivray "back into the fold". They are not being inclusive, as the Council member I heard back in April said was needed. I suggest that not only should they be trying harder to get her to work with them, they should put a little more effort into trying to work with her..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
