FINAL REPORT
Report respectfully submitted to the Cary Town Council for the framework and process by which Cary Citizen’s can meet and form Town sanctioned “Issue Advisory Groups”
April 2008
This HTML file contains text only from the report. The PDF contains graphics, which serve to further illustrate the text.
Contents
Task Force Created by Town Council
Overall Task Force Recommendations
Citizen Initiated Issue Group Process
Creating the Process – Background
Overall Comments & Feedback Received
Step-by-Step: How to form a Town Sanctioned Issue Group
Step 1: Citizen(s) with an idea/issue
Step 3: Review and Complete Necessary Documents
Issue Advisory Group Policy and Procedure (Appendix E)
Issue Advisory Group Application (Application in Appendix C)
Step 4: Submit Application to Staff / Staff Review
Step 5: Application Review by Citizen Issue Review Committee (CIRC)
Step 6: Application Recommendation
Step 7: Town Council Presentation
Step 9: Town Sanctioned Issue Advisory Group
Step 10: Return to Council: Recommendations/Call to Action
Town Staff Support for Application Management
Town Staff Support for Citizen Issue Review Committee (CIRC)
Town Staff Support for Sanctioned Groups
Additional Potential Resources Required
Appendix A – Task Force Members, Participants and Assistance
Appendix B – Mind Map (refer to the PDF file)
Appendix C –Issue Advisory Group Application (Blank)
Appendix D –Issue Advisory Group Application (Example)
Appendix E –Issue Advisory Group Policy
Appendix F – Flowchart of Process (refer to the PDF file)
On December 13, 2007, Town of Cary Mayor Weinbrecht (supported by Council Member Julie Robison) proposed consideration of the creation of a seven member task-force that “would be charged with creating a framework and process by which citizens can petition the Town to allow them to formally meet as a group on a particular topic.”
On January 10, 2008 Cary Town Council members each submitted one citizen name to be appointed to a “seven-member issue advisory task force that within 90 days after appointment will report to council with a recommended structure and process by which citizens may petition the Town to allow them to meet as a Town supported and sanctioned issue advisory group.” (Appendix A lists the task force members, liaisons, and town staff support.)
Over the past 90 days, the Issue Advisory Task Force has held eleven (11), 2-hour meetings (almost every week), involving not only the task force members, but working closely with Town Staff and inviting citizen stakeholders to two separate feedback sessions. A majority of the task force meetings were held on the 2nd floor of the Town Hall, in the Human Resources training room. The first meeting was held on January 22, 2008, and most of the meetings occurred every Tuesday, from 6:30pm-8:30pm. Town staff provided exceptional support for the meetings (minutes, agendas and posting to the Town of Cary website.) http://www.townofcary.org/agenda/specialcoms/taskforceonadvisorygroup/taskforce.htm
The initial meeting was attended by Mayor Weinbrecht and Council members Robison and Frantz. The schedule for the meetings, operating procedures, goals and objectives were discussed, as well as a plan for the creation of the final “work product” for delivery to council no less than 90 days from the initial meeting.
The agreed upon goals and objectives of the task force:
To create a citizen-initiated framework and process by which citizens can petition the Town to create Council sanctioned “issue groups” that would bring issues and recommendations to the council for review.
To expand, strengthen and improve citizen engagement and participation in local government, as well as provide a mechanism for greater visibility of citizen initiated issues to Town Council.
As the Task Force developed its recommendations, several guiding principles and considerations emerged. These themes were applied across the proposals and processes, and were used as points of reference as the recommendations were refined for presentation to the council.
· The process created must meet above goals and objectives
· Task Force must come to “consensus” as the model for the agreed upon recommendations
· Understand current Town “as-is” processes and procedures
· Completed work product will describe the policy and procedure, criteria, timeline and method for created process
· Recommendations must be inclusive, easy to understand and will not replace any other currently working and established town procedures
Based on the work by the Issue Advisory Task Force, our recommendation focuses on five (5) areas:
· Task Force proposed set of plans and documents for a policy, procedure and process for Citizen Initiated Issue Advisory Groups
· Creation of a new board/commission; named the Citizen Issue Review Committee (CIRC), along with a proposed makeup of the membership, and set of objectives
· Proposal of tools and/or capabilities to enable collaboration between citizens and “subject matter expert” (SME) citizen volunteers
· Set of suggested tools, resources and methods for communicating the process through the Town of Cary Website
· Next steps for implementing and evaluating the success of the program, over time.
Each of these recommendations is detailed later in the report.
The success of the implementation of this process will rely on various organizations and staff resources to be able to translate these recommendations into an operational program. Because this program has as its core, the ability to share information, issues and concerns of citizens to the Town, this Task Force recommends that the Information Services Advisory Board (ISAB) assist in the overall management and evaluation of this program over time.
Finally, the Task Force members would like to thank the Town Council, the Town of Cary Staff and Town Manager, as well as the Information Services Advisory Board (ISAB) members and the citizen volunteers that participated in the “feedback sessions” for their hard work and dedication to the Town of Cary. This proposal and set of recommendations would not have been possible without their help.
One of the most difficult questions that elected officials wrestle with on a regular basis is when to follow the people and when to lead the people. Getting that question wrong often leads to a single term in office. The Fall 2008 Town of Cary elections served as a reminder of what can happen when public sentiment moves in a new direction and elected leaders fail to respond to, or outright dismiss, a change in public attitude and expectations. One such change in public expectation is that they now demand earlier access to information – especially information that impacts their neighborhoods and their personal quality of life. Citizens want access to plans and designs so that they can evaluate them for themselves, sometimes using only amateur analysis, but often drawing on friends and neighbors with expertise, and make their own recommendations. Such citizen involvement should be encouraged, even when such participation is bound to slow down the decision making process.
Residents from various neighborhoods, brought together by a common concern, have a storied history in cities throughout America, and Cary is no exception. Though developments large and small have been challenged by citizen’s groups, Cary’s current methods of allowing for public input through either “Public Hearings” or “Public Speaks Out” have been perceived as limiting and frustrating for some. The biggest concern is that these public input opportunities sometimes come about too late in process, often leaving speakers feeling like they were not really heard. Occasionally, denizens of Cary are left feeling like the “deal was done” and that any input they may have provided was essentially meaningless.
The Issues Advisory Task Force (IATF) was formed to develop a process whereby citizens can organize to tackle an issue, gather information, and make a more formal presentation to council than is provided for under the current system.
One the first topics discussed by the IATF was the knowledge that many neighborhood issues can be dealt with using existing, well established and smoothly working formal processes. For instance, citizen requests involving sidewalks or traffic calming are already well handled via existing Town processes. There were also topics discussed by the IATF that are clearly outside the Town of Cary’s purview. For instance, bringing peace to war torn nations is certainly desirable, but it’s likely not something that the Town of Cary has any direct influence over. The IATF spent many hours discussing differing issues that may or may not be suitable to bring to Town Council for consideration.
In evaluating what approach to take on a new process, IATF members researched approaches taken by other communities around the nation. What was found is that most communities that have adopted a formal process for citizen advisory groups have done so in response to specific concerns, usually crime, gangs, or out of control development. There is a strong difference of opinion over exactly how big of a problem those issues are in Cary, but IATF was unanimous in supporting the goal of increased citizen participation in local government. It was felt that promoting such participation will help fend off those problems. One oft voiced concern by IATF members was the additional fiscal cost and staff burden of supporting an as yet unknown number of newly formed citizen’s advisory groups. Lengthy discussions over how best to leverage both professional Town staff and citizens with subject matter expertise led to the idea of drawing upon the Town of Cary’s School of Government graduates to work with and vet potential advocacy groups.
As outlined in Appendix F and discussed in depth in the “Step by Step” guide presented later in this document, the proposed process for forming an Issue Advisory Group is designed to help a group succeed in having their voice heard. Every step of the process significantly refines and better defines the issue so that the group has the best chance to be sanctioned by the Council.
The proposed process starts with the citizenry and continues to involve citizens of Cary in as many points in the process as possible. The IATF felt strongly that a high level of citizen involvement in the process before the issue is brought before the Town Council is critical in obtaining buy-in and that the process was open and as removed from political maneuvering as possible.
Citizens are provided with information and access to resources very early in the process to facilitate the formation of their advisory group. The application is designed to help ensure that the issue is clearly defined. An opportunity to interact with their council member(s) is always available, especially in this early stage, to make sure that all lines of communication are open.
In order to make sure that the new process is not a burden to Town staff and the Council, the IATF agreed that a new review board composed of School of Government graduates could best vet the applications. Applications that address an existing process or fall under the purview of an existing board or commission can be routed to the correct parties without delay. Groups whose applications need additional work could draw on the review board as a resource to quickly correct the deficiencies and resubmit their application. The goal in both cases is to minimize the amount of time a group has to wait in order to move their issue forward.
Applications that are found to be in order are then forwarded to the Council for their review. At selected Council meetings, the groups would then have the opportunity to present their proposal to the Council. If the Council does not approve the formation of the group, the group would have the opportunity to “go back to the drawing board” and resubmit their application in 6 months. If approved, the group would be officially sanctioned and would begin their work following the prescribed guidelines for Issue Advisory Groups.
When the Issue Advisory Group reports back to Council, the IATF believes that the Council should not take immediate action on the Issue Group’s recommendation. In order to ensure that all citizens have the opportunity to be aware and engaged, we recommend that a Public Hearing be called so that citizens with opposing viewpoints regarding the issue can be heard by the council. While this is expected to be a rare occurrence, we felt it a crucial component of the process to complete the communication loop.
In order to get feedback on the process before presenting to Town Council, the IATF looked at 2 groups for comments, feedback and suggestions with regards to the process and procedures. The first group was a set of citizens, personally invited by the IATF members, to one of 2 “mini-feedback” sessions held during regularly scheduled Task Force meetings.
Citizen Invited Mini-Feedback Sessions:
· Session 1: Tuesday, March 18, 2008: 3 citizens attended
· Session 2: Tuesday, March 25, 2008: 2 citizens attended
Meeting Flow
· The process and application were presented at both meetings, along with several example scenarios of potential Citizen Issue Advisory Groups.
· IATF members listed to feedback, asked questions and thoughts regarding the process, documents and potential conflicts and issues.
· At the end of the meeting, each citizen was asked their overall thoughts regarding the program, and any lingering concerns or issues.
Presentation to Information Services Advisory Board (ISAB)
· Meeting, Wednesday, April 2, 2008: 10 members of the ISAB
The second feedback group was the Information Services Advisory Board (ISAB) – a Town of Cary Board of 10 members charted with guiding the Town Council in ongoing open, effective multilateral communications with Cary citizens utilizing and leveraging all types of new technologies, innovation and media.
· The ISAB unanimously “approved the framework, concept and process of the Citizens Issue Advisory Groups, and recommend that the process move forward, and that in 6 months the program is evaluated with a report back to Council.”
Overall, the feedback from all groups was very encouraging and positive. Changes were made to the Application based on direct requests from the first group, and those changes were confirmed as appropriate by the second feedback group. The feedback was concentrated in 3 main areas:
Keep it Simple: The average citizen is not knowledgeable about the processes, departments and policies of the Town of Cary, so keep all of the information regarding the application process, finding help and information and resources, direct, to the point, and easy to understand. Make sure to have an “example” application, that is filled out, that will help citizens get an idea of how to complete the application.
Provide Help: Resources that will help link “like-minded” citizens would be helpful. A way to do “self-help” on the Town of Cary website, or some sort of way to have a forum or threaded discussions, would assist citizens – to find the information they seek. Consider ways to have “Citizen Volunteers” or “Citizen Subject Matter Experts” that would be able to assist other citizens in creating the groups, or finding the information they need. Having a searchable repository for previously submitted applications would be helpful, to not only the citizens, but staff, so that groups would not re-submit an idea that is currently in the process, or has already been denied.
Keep it Transparent: Almost every group commented positively on the formation of a citizen based committee that would review citizen requests and submissions. All groups, including staff that commented, felt that the use of Town of Cary School of Government Alumni was a great use of that valuable, and sometimes underused, resource.
An individual citizen and/or group of citizens would like to approach the Cary Town Council to request that they form a Town sanction “Issue Group” to look into a particular Town problem or opportunity, and to then approach the Town Council with a recommendation as an output of that effort. These citizens go to the Town of Cary Web page resource (referred to as the “Citizen Center”) to get additional information regarding the process they must follow, the procedures and guidelines, and to potentially find subject matter experts, research, or assistance to create their “issue group.”
The concept and vision behind the “Citizen Center” is a website and/or web portal that is a central repository and self-help gateway for citizen tools and resources. The goal of this portal is to leverage the Town’s technology resources to encourage citizen involvement, facilitate citizen-to-citizen engagement, increase citizen dialogue, and to assist the general public to find the information that will help them organize and cause action around a variety of issues. These tools will aid in collaboration, as well as tapping into the Town of Cary citizen “brain-trust” and citizen volunteers that so selflessly volunteer their knowledge and experience to enhance the Town of Cary.
The types of links, tools, and information suggested for this portal are:
· A explanation of the Town process for creating a Town sanctioned Issue Advisory Group
· A policy description and procedure for the program
· Resources available to the citizen to assist
§ contact names
§ available subject matter experts (SME)
§ Town of Cary School of Government Alumni Volunteers
· Forum or repository for threaded discussions with fellow citizens, Town Staff, and/or SME volunteers to aid in research needed to gather information for creating a group
· Potential list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) pertaining to the process
· Citizen Issue Advisory Group Application for download
· Example completed application
· Guidelines of types of groups that would “fit” the policy, and types of groups that would not
· Other venues for Issue engagement, such as:
§ Public Speaks Out
§ Addressing particular Boards and Commission meetings
§ Contacting your Town Council Member
Two documents were created to aid the citizen (and Town Staff) during this process. The Application to Form an Issue Advisory Group, and a suggested Policy Statement, that describes the process and procedure for a Citizen to create such a group.
In general, a policy is a document that describes a plan of action, or set of guidelines to achieve a particular outcome. The policy statement created for the “Issue Advisory Groups” details the purpose of the program, the applicability and scope (meaning who the policy affects and particular actions that may occur), as well as requirements and goals of the program. The “Policy Statement” is located in Appendix E of this document.
The intent and goal during the design of the application was to keep the application as short as possible, while still obtaining enough information on a standard form in order to determine if the group had met the minimum requirements to have their application reviewed by the Citizen Issue Review Committee (CIRC). During citizen feedback sessions, the task force received comments that some of the detailed information originally requested on the application (i.e. potential conflicts of interest, etc.) should be removed from the application. This was suggested due to the fact that many of these items would be covered at a later date by Town Staff, such as during Group Orientation, should the Issue Group be sanctioned by the Council. Also, the it was determined that an earlier version of the application which included some additional questions were best left off the application and addressed in person at the initial meeting with the CIRC. Since the applicant would be present at the CIRC meeting (see Step 5: Application Review by Citizen Issue Review Committee (CIRC), below), the CIRC would use the application, along with any additional questions asked by the applicant at the meeting, to then decide if the issue has merit to develop further and bring forward to Council. In this way, the CIRC is acting as a gateway for the process.
Once completed, the application will be electronically forwarded to a designated Town Staff member for review. Review of that application will be for completeness of the application; making sure that the application meets the guidelines (such as a minimum of 5 citizens identified for the Issue Group), etc.)
The Citizen Issue Review Committee or (CIRC) for short, is a seven-member board to be created from randomly selected volunteers who have graduated from the Town of Cary School of Government. The School of Government was formed in 2002 and consists of an eight week course designed to educate citizens on how municipal government functions, what services it provides and how citizens can participate and become more involved. Each year the Town chooses a small group of citizens for a mix that represents a cross-section of Cary residents by age, gender and area of town. Through discussion and hands-on activities, students obtain greater awareness of the breadth and depth of Town planning and operations.
The task force wanted to provide a committee, comprised of Cary citizens, to help guide groups who wished to bring forth an issue to the town and to assist in the creation of a formal and clear presentation. Additionally, we wanted to ensure that the committee was motivated, qualified, and that the committee is transparent and is comprised of randomly selected participants. Utilizing the Cary School of Government alumni, we also have a group that has a broad understanding of Town services and processes, and have experience and/or knowledge of Town departments. During our discussions, this group seems a natural fit; a way to utilize the many citizens who have graduated from the Cary School of Government, another opportunity to leverage their knowledge and passion for Cary, and also a venue for getting them involved in the town, as many have demonstrated an interest and willingness to participate in the Town of Cary.
Practically speaking, CIRC members will be comprised of a seven-member board to be randomly selected from a group of School of Government alumni volunteers. The group will meet once a month, providing there are applications submitted for review. The term for each member of the CIRC will be one year. A town of Cary staff member will be identified to act as liaison to the group ensuring that all local and state guidelines are followed while meeting and reviewing each application.
Overall the Task Force believes that the creation of this new committee ensures the transparency of the citizen process, and to be a simple and fair way to provide all citizens the ability to bring forward important issues while engaging citizen to citizen participation and involvement.
The CIRC will serve as the initial “gateway” for citizens who wish to form an official issue oriented group and be sanctioned as such by the Town of Cary. This committee will be tasked with reviewing viability of the issues brought forward and also determining whether there may already be existing town resources in place to address such issues. Additionally, the group may make recommendations and advise applicants regarding the application process itself, and how they may better prepare their final application submittal. Applications will be reviewed against the criteria as set out by the Task Force, and detailed by the CIRC in their initial meetings, and either denied, or forwarded to Council for further consideration or action. Any decisions made regarding the applications submitted to CIRC will be decided by a simple majority of the board. The committee may also table the discussion of an application, to allow an applicant to amend their application with recommendations from the committee.
The CIRC will not only forward (or deny) the application for forwarding to the council – but they will also provide a “recommendation” with respect to the application itself. That is, a vote, of the seven member board, that reflects their opinion regarding whether the group should be sanctioned by the town.
Once the CIRC has met and approved that the Group may move forward to present their proposal to the Town Council, the group will then need to prepare their presentation to council.
A town staff member will work with the group to insure that the materials they need for their presentation meet whatever guidelines (templates) and processes necessary to have the information available for presentation.
At the designated Town Council meeting, the group spokesperson, as well as a representative of the CIRC will be in attendance. The group spokesperson has a maximum of 15 min to present their proposal, and a representative of the CIRC will be in attendance, and will present their “recommendation” to the Council.
At this point, the Town Council will vote to Approve or Deny the opportunity to create a Town Sanctioned Issue Advisory Group.
If the Council votes to DENY the applicant’s proposal, the applicant will be provided feedback on the application by the Council, and the applicant may resubmit the application, but no more than twice, and not sooner than 6 months from the first submission.
If the Council votes to APPROVE the creation of a Town Sanctioned group, the Council will also provide a timeline to the group on when to return to Town Council with a set of recommendations and/or call to action from the group.
Once sanctioned by the Cary Town Council, the Issue Advisory Group must abide by the NC State Law on Open Meetings. As with other Boards and Commissions, this group will need to have an orientation, sign Ethics Guidelines required by the Town, and be briefed on the requirements of that law. (Minutes will need to be taken, meeting times/dates posted on the Town of Cary website, etc.)
Within a specified time frame, the Issue Advisory Group will return to council with a set of recommendations, information and potentially a call to action.
At this Town Council meeting, Council will just “hear” the information and presentation, and may ask questions of the Issue Group. However, Council will not act upon the recommendation at this meeting. A Public Hearing will then be called for a subsequent Council meeting, to allow citizens within the community to comment on, support or refute/disagree with the Issue Group’s recommendations. This would also allow time for Town Staff, should they be so directed by Council, to perform due diligence on the recommendations proposed by the Issue Group, and then Town Council could take action on those recommendations at a later date.
If implemented, many of the recommendations do involve additional staff time and Town resources to support this new program. Some of the resources may be absorbed by staff within the current board and commission management process, but other resources may be needed for the support of the proposed “new” committee, for the upcoming “Issue Groups” and for any additional resources to assist the running of those groups.
The extent of the fiscal impact will not be known until a number of applications from potential “issue advisory groups” are submitted.
Town staff will be required to be the target point for questions, information, application management, and review.
This Town support is similar to the support for other board and commission members.
In addition, staff support will be needed to create the CIRC:
· Town Staff will need to solicit Town of Cary School of Government Alumni to gauge interest in participating in the CIRC.
· Once interested alumni are identified, 7 citizens will be randomly selected from that pool, by staff, to be appointed to the CIRC by Town Council
Since these “Citizen Issue Advisory Groups” will be sanctioned by the Town Council, they will be subject to NC Open Meetings Law as well as the necessary Town Staff support necessary to uphold that law.
Examples of Town of Cary Staff support potentially required for Issue Groups:
· Issue Groups will be required to attend “Group Orientation” by the Deputy Town Clerk, regarding Open Meetings and Cary Public Policy and Ethics Guidelines
· Group members must read and sign the Ethics and Conflicts of Interest Guidelines
· Meetings of the groups will be posted on the Town of Cary Website, Agendas, Rosters and minutes must be taken and posted
· Meetings must be scheduled/held at a Town of Cary location
Meeting Space: Given that “Issue Group” meetings must be held on Town Property, whatever resources are required to make those rooms available to the public, will be necessary.
Technology Resources:
· Groups may have a need for projectors, screens or other tools to facilitate the meetings.
· Tools for brainstorming and collaboration, such as Mind Mapping software may be needed (and training to assist)
· Citizen Center: As previously discussed in the “Citizen Center” section, a number of tools and resources may be leveraged for citizens to leverage other “citizen volunteers” using technology
Ad Hoc Resources: Issue Groups may request other services from the Town as either part of their application, or, during their meetings. For instance, Issue Groups working on “environmental concerns” may want a study to be completed, or potentially a Town engineer to meet with them about a particular question or set of issues. Only “reasonable” resources will be available to Issue Groups.
As with any new program, there are potential risks associated with aspects of its design, implementation and deployment. In the case of this program, the Task Force has identified several areas that need to be addressed by the Town Staff as potential “Issue Groups” move through the process.
· How many applications can the CIRC review per meeting?
· When will Groups come before the Council, and how often?
· How will the CIRC and Council handle controversial or highly politically charged requests?
It’s been said that “You can’t manage what you don’t measure.” So, an important consideration of the implementation and longevity of the Citizen Issue Advisory Group Process will be evaluating the success of the program, the process and the results of having additional citizen engagement.
The metrics use to measure the citizen satisfaction with the ease and use of the process will be relatively straight forward. But another set of metrics must also be created and measure that are linked to the goals of the program, as well as measured over time.
One way to evaluate the success of the process itself is to survey the actual stakeholders, that is, the folks that use the process, its tools and resources. This feedback should be gathered from the applicants immediately after they have submitted their application, and potentially later in the process, should they be sanctioned as a “group.” This data can be collected in an online form, using any number of online survey tools available.
The feedback from these surveys could then be applied to improving the process and the tools available, as well as identifying any significant issues with the tools, resources and documents available to citizens. Trending can also be done, over time, to evaluate how changes to the documents might apply to the “citizen satisfaction.”
A more difficult measurement will be the actual success of the program, itself. Care should be taken to understand the key metrics to be used in this identifier. A suggestion by the Task Force is to leverage the Biennial Town of Cary Citizen Satisfaction Survey. Additional questions regarding this new venue for “citizen involvement” could be addressed within this survey, to gauge citizen thoughts and opinions with respect to citizen participation in their town government. A suggested additional question for the survey from the IATF is:
“How well do you feel that you have an opportunity to positively affect change in the Town of Cary?”
Both the IATF and the IASB believe that the program and the process should be evaluated to ensure they are meeting their goals and objectives, as well as performing as expected. The ISAB has suggested in their endorsement of the program, that the program should be evaluated in 6 months. The IATF feels that this may potentially be too soon in the program implementation, given the length of time it may take to create the CIRC, have the first Issue Groups move through the process, and have time for the Issue Groups to return to council with their recommendations.
The IATF suggests that the evaluation occur 12 months from the submission of the first application, and that this evaluation program should be managed and owned by the Council.
Below is a listing of the Task Force members, and other interested parties that participated or assisted with the Task Force. The full Task Force roster and contact information is available online at: http://www.townofcary.org/agenda/specialcoms/taskforceonadvisorygroup/roster.htm
Special thanks also goes to the citizens that participated in the “mini feedback sessions” held during regular Task Force meetings that allowed the task force members to get valuable citizen input and feedback to the proposed process.
|
Name |
Role |
Appointed by |
|
Lori Bush |
Task Force Chair |
Mayor Harold Weinbrecht |
|
Tommy Byrd |
Task Force Member |
Council Member Erv Portman |
|
David Forvendel |
Task Force Member |
Council Member Don Frantz |
|
Lloyd Hinnant |
Task Force Member |
Council Member Gale Adcock |
|
Don Hyatt |
Task Force Member |
Council Member Jack Smith |
|
Susan Lawson |
Task Force Member |
Council Member Jennifer Robinson |
|
Vickie Maxwell |
Task Force Member |
Council Member Julie Robison |
|
Council & Staff Support |
|
|
|
Bill Coleman |
Staff Liaison, Town Manager |
|
|
Teri Peralta (AD) |
Staff Liaison |
|
|
Julie Aberg Robison |
Council Liaison |
|
|
Additional Support |
|
|
|
Karen Gray |
Deputy Town Clerk |
|
|
Lana Hygh |
Assistant to the Town Manager |
|
|
Ben Shivar |
Assistant Town Manager |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Citizen Feedback Groups |
|
|
|
Elizabeth Ann Adams |
Citizen Feedback Group (1) |