Homepage - Brochure - Application - Newsletters - Issues - Links - Weather - Board
'Users' need not apply
Clay Evans, January 26, 2003 (evansc@dailycamera.com)
When making decisions by committee, it's easiest to deal with people you agree with, or at least tabula rasa-types.
However, true discourse demands that many viewpoints be considered. That's messy, but silly old democrats, they seem to like it that way.
Especially distasteful is the removal of dissenting voices before they can be heard. Last week's wranglings by the city of Boulder Open Space Board of Trustees had a whiff of that, intended or not.
On Jan. 8, as it geared up to select citizens to advise on the much-anticipated Open Space Visitor's Plan, the board encouraged various "stakeholder" groups - i.e. users such as Friends Interested in Dogs and Open Space and the Boulder Area Trails Coalition - to select and endorse candidates to represent their views. Recognizing they wanted a say in the Visitor's Plan, many groups put forth candidates.
But just two weeks later, the board abruptly announced it specifically would not consider any candidate endorsed by a stakeholder group. Nefarious or not, that move looks suspiciously like an attempt to nix certain viewpoints before debate even begins.
"It turned out that an endorsement from a stakeholder group was the kiss of death," says Dan Sukle, endorsed by FIDOS. "Now FIDOS and other stakeholder groups are without representation on the (12-member) committee that could affect their activities on open space."
(Curiously, association with the preservation-oriented Boulder County Nature Association - a group I admire, though I differ with it on some user issues - was not considered reason to disqualify one candidate who made the final cut.)
Comedy of errors? Political deck-stacking? What?
"When we got 64 (applicants), we decided we needed to rethink our original notion," says Larry MacDonnell, chair of the board of trustees. "We were pleased to discover a whole lot of people who traditionally hadn't been part of the mix had applied. We had a surprise opportunity to engage a part of the public that historically we had not been successful in engaging."
OK, they wanted "fresh faces." So why not say that up front, instead of making a mid-stream decision behind closed doors that leaves room to question their motives?
MacDonnell admits it wasn't the best way to handle things, and understands user groups' frustrations. "But," he adds, "there is nothing about this that precludes the continuation of their voices in this process."
Let's hope so. With open-space use increasing every year, the widely held expectation is that the Visitor's Plan will include many new restrictions - and minority "stakeholders" expect to bear the brunt. (Note to fanatics: Riding a bike or horse or walking a dog does not make one a despoiler of the environment.)
"It's like the majority will constantly vote the minority off the island till we're gone, and all we have left are nature-study people," says Eric Vogelsberg of the trails coalition. And, he notes, "fresh faces" have their down side: "You bring in a collection of novices, and they'll ... tend to take everything on faith handed to them from above."
Anyone who uses open space and wants to see it protected should keep an eye on this Visitor's Plan. The trustees' ill-considered stumble may be nothing more than that, but it demonstrates the need for continuing vigilance.
Copyright 2003, The Daily Camera and the E.W. Scripps Company.