Hello Council, I see that your Consent Calendar for the January 29 meeting includes an item (H2) related to the Commissions/Committees Policies and Procedures Roles. I respectfully ask that you consider pulling this item from the Consent Calendar so that you can have a meaningful discussion about needed changes to the MP commissions. Unfortunately, the public may have missed this item and so you might not get much input. As you know, I served as a Commissioner, I've attended other Commission/Committee meetings, and I've gotten to know other commissioners serving. When those serving speak privately, I have heard that commission service is not meaningful. Commissioners question their role or the purpose of the commission. Thus it's not surprising that some commissioners have reigned early or have not applied to renew their service. When I first joined the Library Commission, I applied because I kept seeing notices of cancelled meetings due to a lack of a quorum. In other words, not enough had come forward to serve! Other problems that I've heard about include the way that many commissions are very staff directed. The staff decides what they will discuss. While we all need to work together, it seems that the commissions are mostly set up to serve staff interests. Instead, they should serve the public good and the residents' interests. Aside from the Planning Commission, I also notice that most of the commission agenda topics fall into either the routine business category (i.e. approving minutes, scheduling future meeting) or the Informational category. The agendas alone show that there is little time devoted to deliberation on matters of substance at these advisory commission meetings. For another helpful start, you could set a policy expectation that 80% or more of a commission meeting's time be devoted to *meaningful* Regular Business topics. That's a best practice used by non-profit boards that want more effective meetings. The commission roles inadequately provide meaningful opportunities for those serving. They also inadequately serve the democratic ideas of transparency, accountability and oversight. An immediate helpful change would be to set a new expectation that all major staff reports must first be reviewed by *at least *one Commission *before* the report goes to Council. One of our neighboring cities includes a commission check box on a staff reports as a boilerplate expectation that *all *staff reports are reviewed, sometimes by multiple commissions, *before* they go to Council. In Menlo Park, I suspect that most staff reports go directly to Council without first being reviewed by at least one commission. While perhaps this would slow business down in MP, it would be better for you and the public to make this change. It would reduce the number of staff reports that contain some element of slant/bias (towards what staff wants done) and/or incomplete information. The result would include better decision-making information for you as you would then know that the public had a chance to weigh in prior to your receiving the staff report. If you agree, can you incorporate this idea into Council Policy CC-01-0004? I also suggest that all commissions discuss the below agenda topic (or some version of it): *Regular Business * Discuss ways to evolve Commission X's charter to provide more engaging roles for those serving, to incorporate best practices, and to increase the opportunity for meaningful public engagement towards a more democratic Menlo Park. Due to my own commission service and what I heard from others, I became very interested in the ways to improve public engagement. I've since learned that there is a whole body of knowledge on this topic. For example, the Public Agenda https://www.publicagenda.org/pages/strengthening-and-sustaining-public-engagement-guide > nonprofit has the Strengthening and Sustaining Public Engagement https://www.publicagenda.org/files/PublicAgenda_Handout_StrengtheningAndSustaining_2018.pdf > handout with its last page devoted to actionable suggestions. The last suggestion, No. 10, focuses on the role of advisory committees and I incorporated their language into my agenda suggestion above. Their longer related booklet https://www.publicagenda.org/files/PublicAgenda_StrengtheningAndSustainingPublicEngagement_2018.pdf >provides more details and other helpful links. Some cities, such as Santa Rosa, have an Office of Community Engagement https://www.srcity.org/250/Community-Engagement > and a job description for a Community Engagement Coordinator. https://agency.governmentjobs.com/srcity/default.cfm?action=specbulletin&ClassSpecID=816665&headerfooter=0 > Santa Rosa is working to embed public engagement throughout its city, so this important work is not just regulated to one person. At your Feb 2 goal-setting setting meeting, I plan to submit a goal related to public engagement. In case you want to learn more on this topic prior, I recommend Making Public Participation Legal https://www.nationalcivicleague.org/making-public-participation-legal/ >from the National Civic League, and the Harvard Report, Sustaining Public Engagement. https://www.everyday-democracy.org/sites/default/files/attachments/Sustaining-Public-Engagement.pdf > Meanwhile, I'm delighted at the changes to the upcoming Feb 2 goal setting meeting from the previously planned format. From the inviting tone of the invitation, to the Saturday date, to the collection of input beforehand via the form, to the longer time-frame and likely a revamped agenda too-- all conveys a solid step forward towards embedding meaningful public engagement in Menlo Park! Lynne Bramlett Received on Fri Jan 25 2019 - 16:26:16 PST
