Stop, Drop and Roll

17 July 2007 | Alameda City Council, Alameda Community, Measure A | John Knox White

The first two hours of last Friday’s ad hoc committee meeting contained a lot of discussion about what was “agreed to” at the previous meeting. As I mentioned in yesterday’s post, we actually watched (and through the miracles of google video you can too) Barbara Kerr agree that the group had made a decision to use consensus to pick speakers and then refuse to do so and THEN say that the planning board members had no integrity and could not be trusted.

Beyond that, there was confusion about whether or not there had been consensus about the actual format of the meeting (my recollection is that there was not, that the member agreed to aspects of the meeting (some presenters, some public input) but had actually left open a format (small groups, panel, speeches) for another discussion).

The planning board members felt that they had never agreed to a format because they had never been asked to.

The appellants AND (and this is important) the facilitator felt that there was an agreement. So here’s what’s most odd about this situation. At the beginning of the meeting, the facilitator and the director of planning presented a typed up list of what had been agreed to in the previous meeting. And guess what wasn’t on it. That’s right a format for the meetings.

Personally, I think that it’s a matter of semantics, there was agreement that there would be speakers and that there would be public input. Some interpreted that to mean that “the format was first we’ll have speakers, then we’ll have public input.” Others interpreted it to mean that “no matter what format we have, it will have speakers and public input.”

So how to figure this out? How about look at the discussion about small groups in the first meeting? Every time the issue came up they tabled it in order to discuss names.

It is incumbent on city staff or the facilitator to check the tapes of the first meeting and find where that agreement was made, because right now, his memory is possibly slandering the planning board members who were completely thrown off by the idea that they had agreed to anything.

Look mistakes happen, people remember things differently. For some reason, city staff chose not to record the first meeting and so they’ll need to dig through the crummy video available out there. Heck, I’m sure Team Appellant can team up with the crack researchers at Action Alameda and dig up that specific agreement in no time. Heck, since I am willing the admit that my memory can be faulty as well, I’ll offer $20 for conclusive evidence that this agreement happened AND I’ll post a big huge apology on Stop, Drop and Roll, because honestly, I have no desire to unfairly portray the events of these meetings (sarcastically perhaps, but not unfairly).

The second bit of confusion at the second meeting was the Planning Director and Facilitators insistence that the council had specifically direct the ad hoc committee to create a one-day-only event. This decision was reached through a Bill Clinton/George Bush-esque parcing of the work “a.” As in “plan A forum.” City staff insists that the council’s direction was for one day, and one day only.

Unfortunately, the council’s direction was “deny the appellants appeal, allow three appellants onto the ad hoc committee, and hold a public meeting” That’s it. In denying the appeal, the upheld the Planning Board’s decision to hold a forum, they gave no direction on what that forum should be. I understand that city staff doesn’t want to spend a lot of time/money on this issue and therefore wants to hold a one-day meeting. It’s a reasonable concern, their back up though is flawed. I’ll be surprised if the council comes back and says that’s what the agreement was.