Earth nature field

Passing the buck representation

Topics of general interest
Forum Member

Passing the buck representation

Unread post by Forum Member »

Preface: To understand accurately this writing, it's important to define one word exactly accurately: constituent.
constituent.JPG
constituent.JPG (27.68 KiB) Viewed 713 times
An elected representative should EXACTLY understand this word. The only representation of the people, by the people, and for the people can only come from the representative that the people elect. If the representative doesn't represent or tries to represent interests of someone other than who voted for representation, they are corrupt in the literal definition of the word.


Reference:
http://haywoodtp.net/pubII/230428Workse ... educed.pdf
http://haywoodtp.net/pubII/230428Specia ... gPart1.MP3
http://haywoodtp.net/pubII/230428Specia ... gPart2.MP3

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ONE

It's a well known issue that Waynesville's 2035 Comprehensive Plan is off-target when measured against the constituency. (viewtopic.php?t=274&sid=443a7405ccee25a ... a4d55ae3b8) That is likely the result of the plan being the work of everyone EXCEPT the constituency. The plan acknowledges a number of people and entities that created our "planning with purpose" document from The Haywood Realtor Association to WCU to our own town attorney. Somewhere there is a statistic floating around that 3% of the public was at least marginally or passively involved. Said differently, 97% of the public did not contribute to the document that controls and justifies Waynesville's future. That statistic right there is the root cause failure of our town. (Constituency and government collectively.)
Capture.JPG
Capture.JPG (47.77 KiB) Viewed 733 times
TWO

Now that Town election season is upon us, a significant issue will be that our town is purposely being changed. And the constituency in great numbers don't like it. So much that it will be interesting to see how many Aldermen (now Councilmen) will be voted out in November. If a majority are voted out, it's likely a great deal to do with how our town is purposely being changed. So that puts our Town Manager and Director of Planning and Development in the crosshairs of needed change. That sets up the context of the 4/28/2023 11:30am meeting between the Planning Board and the Elected Ones.

After listening to the recorded meeting, it seems an elected person may have asked what the outcome or purpose of the meeting was to be. The long, redundant, and thorough explanation summarized I think can be: The Planning Board processes content tactically and not strategically. The strategic content comes from the 2035 Comprehensive Plan -- which Elizabeth Teague started by saying was created in a different time, in a different environment, and may need updating or ratifying. Part of the presentation was the Planning Board to say how and why they need strategic guidance and input to do their jobs well. Also the hired consultant to represent the existing Comprehensive Plan document.

In summary, Teague (Waynesville Planning Director) and/or her boss (Rob Hites, Town Manager) acknowledge the town's latest planning and development does not sit well with the voters. (And I presume everyone is nervous as to the scale of that discontent.) And since the elected people seemed to not know the purpose/outcome of the called meeting, it's likely Hites and/or Teague are forcing the issue by calling the meeting expecting a feedback loop from the citizens that elect representatives to speak on their behalf.

THREE

So on that feedback loop that the government needs from the constituency -- the elected people seemed to punt. "Form a committee" they said? Did I hear that right? The worst performing department in town government proactively came to the elected representation asking for input and the best they could do was to have the same people asking for input form a committee to do the work of impersonating an elected representative? How jacked up is that?

SUMMARY

The town's planning and development is well known to be off-target. What we have is a failure because it has little or no input from the constituency. Now that the constituency is upset and threatening change in representation, there is interest in getting constituency perspective into the plan. How we got 3 years into the execution of a troubled plan developed by realtors and cherry-picked people is a Planning Department failure. And asking the elected people to bail them out only to be referred back to themselves is either a passing of the buck or a colossal accountability tactic to let the Planning Director (and/or Town Manager) drown in her (their) own failure.


CONCLUSION
  1. The Comprehensive Plan was off-target because it did not include 97% of the constituency.
    1. Shame on the constituency for not being involved and showing up at public meetings at 11:30am on a Friday and such.
    2. Shame on the Planning Department for not finding more effective ways to reach the constituency.
    3. Shame on the Planning Department for shaping the plan with special interests and people that aren't necessarily aligned with the constituency.
    4. Shame on the Council for allowing a non-representation of the constituency to be the basis of the growth plan.
  2. The Planning Department (and likely the Town Manager) are trying to close the gap.
    1. I guess if whatever was done before only yielded 3% participation, it's a plus that they aren't repeating that process expecting the other 97% to suddenly show up.
    2. It's encouraging that the Planning Department is coming to the constituency (represented by Council) for change, input, or ratification of the plan.
    3. If the Planning Department takes "go form a committee yourself" as a valid solution to close the gap of inadequate constituent input, that will be a repeat failure.
  3. The elected people do not understand their role.
    1. The planning document is a failure because there is inadequate constituent representation into its content. If the council will not represent that constituent input directly they should ensure the Planning Department has effectively done the hard work to go get that input. It's telling that the same issue plagued the homeless task force -- which was comprised of all special interests and no regular people that live in the community. And it's the same tactic as the false study that concluded we have an affordable housing crisis: viewtopic.php?t=286&sid=df22e8b1f3ff801 ... daf98a5010
    2. The problem of representation is systemic and the buck stops at who is elected to represent the constituents: viewforum.php?f=168&sid=443a7405ccee25a ... a4d55ae3b8
That's one way one can consider the topic. Let future events prove it right or wrong.
Post Reply