May 11, 2009 Harbor Commission Meeting

Friday, May 15. 2009

The May HC meeting was a re-airing of one of the fundamental complaints that comes up again and again within the commission. As requested, Director Parker provided us with agenda items related to Pier and Harbor business the City Council has recently processed.

The key word in the previous sentence and the root of the pervasive discontent among the commissioners is "processed" as in past tense. Failure to include the commission in decisions that concern the Pier and harbor has been a source of tension between the Harbor Commission and the city for most of the 3+ years I've served on the commision. In fact, last year one commissioner suggested he was ready to quit and that the only way to send a message to the city would be for the rest of us to quit along with him.

Unfortunately, most of us want to serve on the commission as a way to participate in city government and give something back to our community. The city's big mistake with the Harbor Commission was appointing a bunch of smart, competent people. If the intention was to give us little or nothing to do, I would think the best people to be satisfied doing little or nothing would be individuals who lack those two qualities.

So being a guy, I ask the question, how do we fix it? Well, we tried about a year and a half ago. We sent a letter to the city council asking them to direct the City Manager to run all Pier/Harbor items that will appear on the council's agenda through the Harbor Commission first.

That symbolic gesture wasn't intended as any serious attempt to alter city policy. It was just a plea from a group of eager volunteers asking for a chance to be included in the process, to help. I never saw an official response to that letter, but reports indicated the council agreed with the concept.

Yet there we were more than a year later looking at an agenda that included in excess of a dozen items relating to the Pier/Harbor that had all received action from the City Council. That's right, "received" as in past tense. The Harbor Commission never saw them.

I'd be happy to point the finger where I believe it needs to be pointed, but I'll leave it to the reader to look at the players in this game and figure out who's disrupting the team's harmony.

I've felt like a lot of different things in my life, a recipient of good fortune, a victim and a cog in the machinery to name a few. This is the first time I've ever felt under-utilized. It's kind of hard to get used to, but I guess I'll be going to the next commission meeting so what does that tell you?

Posted by Harry Munns in Habor Commission at 08:50 | Comments (2) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Hmmm...after reading this post, the word "disrespect"comes to mind.

#1 Trisha on 2009-05-15 10:14 (Reply)

We DID write a letter and the Council DID agree with our concerns, and in fact, directed Staff to "run these items through the Harbor Commission" with the caveat of "when at all possible". There is a possibility that the Council believes their direction was heard and IS being acted upon, and when they receive an Consent Calendar item pertaining to the harbor they assume it HAS been run through our commission. The problem is/was the caveat(s).

Lately, it seems that when any government entity offers up a directive (or law) the wordsmiths get involved and in the end, more words are found in the special provisions than in the actual law or directive. These provisions often become the legal "out" used (by scoundrels) to bypass a directive or exclude a person or group from the intended law.

Our city staff appears to be expert at this slight-of-hand and guiding the City Council to approve directives in such a way that protects City Management from actually being required to abide by those directives.

A good question to ask ones self: When was the last time an item got all the way through the system without the specific support of City Management ? . . . it doesn't happen !

The City Council should NOT be in the business of "convincing" city management in an effort to "bring them on board", the Council should simply be "directing" city management and holding the responsible parties accountable when action is not taken as directed.

Until legislatures (in this case, our Council) stop with all of the "out clauses" and "caveats" (which are usually suggested by staff) and start holding individuals accountable, the Harbor Commission being bypassed will be the very least of our problems.

#2 Alex B on 2009-05-15 11:07 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry