Winter weather inhibits cycling more tangibly than the proposed demise of the Albany Bike/Ped Advisory Commission will.
For the sake of efficiency, the Albany City Council this week plans to vote on combining four citizen commissions to make two. But is also plans to create a new one, on economic development.
Ordinances and resolutions to that effect are on the agenda for the regular council meeting at 6 p.m. Wednesday, Nov. 9.
The point is to reduce the number of monthly meetings that require the attendance of city employees as staff resources and minute-takers. It’s also to avoid the administrative time spent posting agendas, giving public notice, and then writing up minutes.
One of the groups to be axed is the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission. Even though it has monthly meetings, its impact on improving facilities for cyclists or walkers is slight. But having the group is one of the factors the League of American Bicyclists cited in giving Albany a “bronze” rating for being bicycle-friendly.
The bike-ped group is to be merged with the Traffic Safety Commission, and the combined group then will be the Albany Transportation Advisory Commission.
The transportation commission is intended to consider topics involving all aspects of surface transportation from walking to driving and taking the bus, and then give the council advice when it feels necessary.
In addition, the Albany Parks and Recreation Commission would absorb the city’s Tree Commission and become the Parks, Recreation and Tree Commission.
If the council passes the ordinances and resolutions, the reorganized commissions will start Jan. 1.
The changes have opposition on the council. Dick Olsen and Matilda Novak don’t like the idea of reducing — by 14 — the number of volunteer commission members having a role in city government.
The council also plans to create a new commission on economic development. The city staff wants this panel to have five members with specific backgrounds in fields such as education and manufacturing.
In discussions so far, no one on the council has asked this question: Considering that the development commission will likely want to talk about business recruitment and real estate for expansion, will its meetings be open and public or secret and closed? (hh)
The city council needs:
– Global Warming Board (advise how to force citizens to be more green)
– Revenue Enhancement Commission (advise how to extract more $ from wallets)
– CARA, part deux (advise how to avoid voter approval of the next URD)
– Blight Reduction Committee (volunteers patrolling for unsightly property)
– Disinformation Governance Board (recommend City Censor position)
Signed,
Benjamin (the cynical donkey)
Interesting effort by the City Council to restructure the Citizen Advisory Groups (CAG), and there should be no harm in keeping all CAG meetings (incl. the EDAC) open to the public. Cursory research shows that the sweet spot of running efficient meetings is to include about 7 participants +/- 1 or 2. Given that optimum numerator in the participant-per-CAG ratio, consolidating four CAGs into two might be a stretch IF hearing the vox populi is their objective, which concurs with Dick and Matilda’s dissent. On the other hand, if the objective is to straighten a smooth path to an early retirement is the implied intent, then why not eliminate all CAGs and redirect all issues to and through the City Council? Although all citizens would continue to ‘have a voice,’ potential CAG participants would lose their influential vote for meaningful improvement proposals that the Council would debate and modify to ultimately approve. That said, it would be most prudent for City Council to keep all CAG meetings open to the public and for it to maintain the existence of all CAGs that prove their worth as being relevant and productive assets for Albany’s star on the map to twinkle all the more.
Thanks Hasso for highlighting these unfortunate developments. When being discussed I asked if getting rid of the bicycle and tree committees would allow for a reduction in staff and the corresponding savings in payroll. The answer of course was no. My observation is that this Mayor, Council and Management want less public comment and less interference with their pet projects. I object.
As to the new Economic Development Committee, this secretive five member committee will be appointed by the seven members of the Mayor and Council. Guess who will probably left out of the appointment process. The function of this committee will be to sprinkle Holy Water on staff proposals so that Mayor and Council can feel comfort that the public has been adequately consulted and no secret meetings have been held. Again I object!
What is missing thru all of this is the WHY. All committees are advisory, some more than others but all of them get approved by Council in the end, whether it is a vote or the council simply not hearing an appeal. When you listen to many of the Committees they bring an item before the Council and say “we have decided this, or this is our recomendation” They do not give the Council the reasoning, The Reasoning is why we have them. Every single report coming to Council should be the reasoning WHY a decision was made, for context.
It all seems pretty silly and somewhat a waste of time to me. The council has usually already made up their minds about the issues and is looking for either agreement or a scapegoat. That’s basically all an “advisory” committee is used for.
“The council has usually already made up their minds about the issues and is looking for either agreement…”
Probably true – and that is as it should be. Since all the information I receive from which to make a decision comes to me, other councilors (and is also available to the public) 5-7 days prior to the council meetings, I have had ample time to contact staff, constituents, etc., to help form my decision. It’s never done in a vacuum. Since I only get a single vote, most likely “we” have individually made up our minds prior to the actual meeting. Very few times that I perceive minds have been changed at the meeting itself.
So why bother with the committees if the “court of jesters” has already decided?
“I have had ample time to contact staff, constituents, etc., to help form my decision.”
All the advisory-committee meetings are also open to the public. Their members can be contacted for/with questions in advance of the meeting where there will be a vote.
Why even have a “Citizens Advisory Group” if the council members have already decided on an issue? It REALLY makes the CAG sound like a useless “formality”.
Guess some folks missed the line about reason— remove impact of staff-support load.
The committees need not be pseudo-government entities to have credence.
Again, you missed the point. It’s all about doing less work with the same number of PERS contributors.
BK
Nope, got the point.
Can’t agree with your interpretation.
The move exercises management purview to apply resources for best value.
Folks who want to have staff support for quasi-governmental committees better pony up the dough.