Re: CVV Meeting & Participation

[Evan Daniel Ravitz <evan@xxxxxxxx>]

Joe,

So our meeting can be a success, could you please send the sign-up
email list to someone you trust so they can inform everyone of the
meeting?

Evan

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Joe Pezzillo wrote:

>
> Sorry for any confusion. Yes, I think we all absolutely want to have
> another full group open meeting before the Public Hearing with the
> Commissioners, however, someone else will have to organize it as I'll
> only be available intermittently this week and next. I was away until
> late Friday night and had multiple other prior commitments over the
> weekend, there was no way for me to put out any call for full-group
> participation or even put much effort into it, and that's why I'm also
> so grateful to those folks.
>
> As for the past weekend's work, it was a "time is of the essence" issue
> because we understood that the hearing was to be on 1/22 (changed to
> 1/29 today), and there was a sense of urgency to make sure CVV got in a
> request for information as far in advance of that hearing as possible
> so that our entire group could have ample time with that info prior to
> then. There was no way to schedule and arrange a full group meeting
> between the County's announcement on the 8th and a response today, and
> so the people who I thanked earlier essentially "self-organized" the
> weekend's work. Also, considering that it took pretty much the entire
> weekend and most of this morning to get that letter done even with the
> limited number of participants, I don't personally feel it would have
> been possible to write the letter by consensus with the entire group in
> a timely manner.
>
> While I believe that the weekend's attendees are a representative
> sample of the diverse viewpoints of our group, I apologize and will
> accept responsibility for any unintentional exclusion of participants
> for drafting this particular letter. There is no "executive committee"
> of the group per se, which presumably would have been tasked to do the
> same thing, and I hereby nominate the people I previously thanked to be
> our core leaders for such a committee (and not include me).
>
> Also, please note that this is actually an improvement in the process
> over the previous letter I sent to the Commissioners (the Request for
> Participation on 12/19) which I essentially wrote and sent without even
> this much group participation, and about which I heard no similar
> issues raised. Had I know from that previous letter that more people
> wanted to be involved in drafting this one, I would have tried to make
> sure even more people were there. I have the general impression from
> the limited size of our sub-groups that most of our volunteers don't
> want to have to participate in every necessary activity, but certainly
> want to be represented by the group's consensus positions, which I
> believe our letter today represents and achieves. I again apologize if
> anyone wanted to participate and now feels excluded, please hold me
> alone responsible for failing to make sure the entire group knew such
> activities were occurring.
>
> Thank you for your e-mail, I'm sure others must have felt the same but
> didn't write. Please don't hesitate to let me know if I can clarify
> this particular letter any further, if there are issues that should
> have been included in the letter but were overlooked, or if there are
> any other problems I've caused or can correct. Anyone who's been to our
> meetings knows this isn't the first time someone has criticized my work
> or effectiveness, I certainly hope to learn from my mistakes so I truly
> appreciate being told what they are.
>
> I'm very sorry that this letter caused any such confusion or the
> appearance of exclusion. I personally remain absolutely committed to
> maximizing public participation in this process, and hope that in the
> broadest context this weekend's effort by a few is actually seen as
> helping the goal of including many.
>
> Like everyone else in our group, I hope Boulder County gets the best
> possible voting system. Please bear in mind that this letter was simply
> one step in that process, and by no means the final word.
>
> Sorry and grateful,
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 12, 2004, at 4:06 PM, Laura Price wrote:
>
> > I was wondering if there are any plans to schedule another CVV meeting
> > prior to
> > the Jan. 29th public hearing.
> >
> > Based on the prior message thanking some members for "an intensive
> > weekend of
> > work", on CVV's public response to the County's announcement, I am
> > confused as
> > to how CVV is communicating opportunities for interested individuals to
> > participate and contribute to our efforts.
> >
> > During prior meetings it was indicated that this list was to be CVV's
> > main
> > method for organizing and building consensus, yet I don't recall any
> > messages
> > offering the opportunity for any/all interested members to participate
> > in
> > recent CVV efforts.
> >
> > Please let me know if I am somehow mistaken about CVV's methods of
> > communication and participation.
> >
> > thanks, laura.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>