Christine Viken wrote:
What can be done to break this cycle and just what is the Park Board staff's
role in all this?
The SAB/Plank Road proposal is like many other controversial proposals
that have come before the MPRB in the past four years including the DQ
controversy, cutting the porta-potties, eliminating summer playground
programs and more. It is also like non-controversial items like cutting
rec vans - which had the effect of also cutting the summer free lunch
program - something the MPRB Commissioners didn't realize at the time.
(Comm. Dziedzic took the lead in getting the summer free lunch program
restored this year.)
Sometime in the past four years, quality staff support for the parttime
Commissioners has largely disappeared. I don't know if this was because
of the political division on the Board or if the Board was politicized
because of this. Below top management, the work of the staff seems
excellent - as represented in the high quality of background information
regularly presented at MPRB meetings. The Commissioners aren't getting
the same level of staff support.
Staff should be submitting standard business proposals to the
Commissioners. At minimum, these would include the 5W's: who, what,
when, why and where. These would include How - a description of how the
policy or program would work. And these should include a 1-5 year
budget, a projected income statement. Because the MPRB is a public
agency, staff proposals should include a need statement that details a)
who wants the action, b) an analysis of who will benefit and who will
not, and c) a description of community notice and feedback. Finally,
staff recommendations should include a brief analysis about how the
proposed action supports the MPRB mission.
The written proposal on the closing of the SAB/Plank Road only stated
the What and the Where. So, the Commissioners were pressed to make a
decision on short notice with inadequate information. This immediately
set up a conflict between the Board and staff (for I think both board
factions wants to support staff) and a conflict between the MPRB and
citizens - especially the residents closest to the SAB and Plank Road.
This faulty process has occurred many times over the past four years -
causing unnecessary conflict.
The Commissioners also need a written budget narrative - especially for
budget/service cuts and for new additions to the budget. The
Commissioners were given a dollar among for cutting vans - a budget
narrative would have included the impact on rec programs including the
elimination of the summer free lunch programs. (Since the Board
restored this item, I assume they would have voted against the cut had
they known the full impact.) The Commissioners were told that cutting
summer programs at the small parks without rec centers would save
$85,000. A budget narrative would have told the commissioners how many
children were affected and that most of the sites were in Northeast.
(After angry parents attended an MPRB meeting, this cut was taken off
the table.) And so on. A parttime park board overseeing a $50-$60
million budget deserves a budget narrative.
And so does the public. Making the budgeting process more open and
understandable would reduce citizen anger and frustration and open the
doors to building consensus around many issues.
Commissioners, this is up to you!
Shawne FitzGerald
Powderhorn
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If
you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
