Government Center Proposal - What Now?

Tonight, Tuesday, September 5, 2006, the Borough Council is expected to announce its direction regarding the Government Center Proposal.

It would seem that either someone will make a motion to vote on continuing to pursue one of the two proposals made by the Committee or the one presented by Citizens Committee. If these courses are not taken, then it would seem that Council President Dan Chiavaroli will assign a committee to sort out the proposals and report back to Council.

I wish instead of having a new Committee meet, the entire Council would take up this challenge by meeting in an extended and special workshop session to discuss the situation in a public meeting. Let them conduct the work with nothing hidden to anyone. Let all Council members be a part of the process, not a select few. These special workshop sessions could take place an hour before and up to a half hour after each regular workshop session. In that way, while more time is committed, it is done on a night where they are already having to be at Council Chambers.

Why not put it in the hands of a regular committee? As a result of what has recently transpired, the environment does not exist that would allow the committee a fair chance of being successful. At this point nearly every Council member has a reasonably well known position, so the assignment of anyone other than those on the existing Committee would almost (there was a 5-4 vote to proceed last time) be a charge against the work the committee has done. Appointing the same committee will result in the people feeling their alternative plan, comments, and opinion won't be addressed as it hasn't over the past several months (while the size was reduced, it was not reduced to meet the budget and the location has remained fixed on the Park).

The Committee structure has demonstrated to me that it is not the best means for getting work done. Committee's create fiefdom's, wherein members draw the power to create, hold, stall, or promote plans and ideas. With most being comprised of three people, two individuals can determine whether or not items leave committee or remain stuck there.

The partitioning of work is done to more evenly distribute the workload, but at the same time it splits up information, compartmentalizes it, and keeps from getting to all Council members.

This isn't a result of the members, instead it is the nature of the system itself.

The case of the Committee that made the proposal for the New Government Center is an example of how this system can cause serious problems, that extend beyond the issue being examined and undermine the working of Council itself.

As best I can piece things together:

• In January Council voted to allocate $600,000 to renovate Chamber Building and $ 400,000 to renovate 30 Belvidere (this was noted at the most recent workshop on Thursday, August 31, 2006).
• Two Committees were formed, one to evaluate the Chamber situation and one for 30 Belvidere. Each committee had two members (this was noted by Councilman Davis on July 10, 2006 during the workshop session).
• The two Committees decided they were doing the same work and became one committee with four members (this was also noted by Davis on July 10, 2006 during the workshop session).
• On May 25, 2006 a public meeting was held to first present the Committee's proposal - a new government center that would be added onto the existing Council Chambers at a cost of roughly $3,000,000 or triple what was approved.
• A revised plan was offered on August 7. This plan had less square footage and thereby a reduced cost. It was offered on the same night that the Citizens Committee proposal was offered to Council for consideration.
• Since May 25th's presentation, it has been clear that non-committee members were unaware of the scope of the plan, were surprised by it and its location, and that tension between those "in-favor" and those "opposed" to the plan, on Council and in the audience, has increased, at times significantly.
  
• Now there are two Committee plans, and one offered from the Citizens Committee - not one of which meets the original mandate of renovating each facility given the amount of money allocated.

I wasn't at the January meeting and don't know what discussion occurred that led Council to allocate money in the manner that it did. I do know that eight months have passed, plans have been drawn up at citizen and tax payer's expense, and the Committee spent many, many hours (as Councilman Davis also noted on August 7 during the presentation) working toward a solution. I understand that they don't feel that their effort has been recognized. I also appreciate the frustration they must be feeling.

At this point, it would seem to appoint another committee of three or four will put them in a no-win situation. Given this, I'd like to see the entire Council, mayor, and those with needs that must be addressed, to meet along with the engineer in public (with no public comment unless solicited by the Council President) in advance of each workshop session. Groups could be assigned specific tasks to come back with answers for the next meeting, but the work would be done in a workshop setting.

Maybe this would work, maybe it wouldn't. My concern right now is that a new Committee won't be able to work.

What do you think? Can a new committee be assigned this task and come back with a viable plan? Should the Council, as a whole, take responsibility and put its thinking process on public display (making these meetings open to the public)? What are your thoughts on the current situation? We'll learn more tonight, but I'd be interested in everyone's thoughts before a decision is made.