Select Board approves charge for EDSC. Reset process to include community input.
On September 7, the North Yarmouth Select Board set the charge for the Economic Development and Sustainability Committee (EDSC). It is a 2-part directive, which developed from a recent EDSC question and answer session with residents:
Define rural character and how it applies to North Yarmouth
Review feasibility of commercial business opportunities for North Yarmouth
Additionally, the Select Board appointed four new members, giving the EDSC a full slate. According to Brian Sites (Select Board Chair), the committee was getting a “reset.” Sites stated his excitement about the diverse composition of the committee.
Sites noted supporting business in North Yarmouth was a concern for most residents. Disagreement about how that was achieved related to resident’s understanding of “rural.” In a process that will involve community input, the EDSC is tasked to define “rural.” Sites explained this was a critical step needed before the Select Board could develop policy to support the Comprehensive Plan vision to encourage economic opportunities while preserving North Yarmouth’s rural character.
The Comprehensive Plan and TIF have been entwined with perceptions of the EDSC. Residents have expressed strong opinions about each and the impact on North Yarmouth, with some critics asserting policies are destroying the very character of the town. Some see the EDSC as having been directly involved in the process and responsible for accelerating the change. Opinions have been strong and discussions heated.
Related Stories: August EDSC Meeting - Committee is Without Quorum
On August 26, Kit Maloney and the two other EDSC members, took the bold step to engage with residents to discuss perceptions – what EDSC is and what it is not. Residents and Select Board members, Sites and Paul Hodgetts, joined in a lengthy conversation with EDSC members. Disagreement remains, but Sites facilitated a dialogue touching on many of the key issues. The outcome was to pinpoint a primary source of the divide, the simple word “rural.” Interpretation of the term impacts perceptions of policy. Sites observed the definition of this term probably varies from resident to resident. Establishing a clear understanding of what “rural” means for North Yarmouth will be vital to evaluating whether the town is indeed on the right path.
While attending the September 2 School Board meeting and listening to comments, I was struck by the similarity of the dynamic with the Equity Leadership Steering Committee (ELSC) to North Yarmouth’s EDSC. These committees focus on very different subjects. However, associated conflict can be distilled to the key elements of questions about process and definition of a single word.
Resolving this conflict will involve changes to leadership decisions. Tyler McGinley’s (School Board Chair) opening instructions regarding public comment highlight dialogue is not a regular part of School Board meetings nor is it encouraged. This is reinforced by the physical distance between the board and residents. The Greely PAC provides the exact opposite environment of the circle-of-chairs format utilized at the August 26 EDSC meeting.
North Yarmouth Select Board and committee meetings operate differently than the School Board, and the philosophy guiding each are in stark contrast. McGinley stated school board meetings are “meetings of the school board in public.” North Yarmouth Select Board meetings purposefully engage with “the governing body”, the residents of North Yarmouth. Because of the level of interaction with residents, Select Board meetings can be lengthy, as was the September 7 meeting. However, the result is work directly connected to community priorities.
Comments at multiple School Board meetings in support of ELSC have included the caveat “I can’t understand how anyone could think differently.” This opinion seems in contrast to a key focus of the ELSC, addressing biases associated with perceptions. Believing everyone must agree completely in order to achieve a goal only guarantees distorted and limited progress. In contrast, engaging with disagreement moves results towards a full-spectrum solution.
On September 2 during discussion of proposed changes to by-laws, Jason Record (Cumberland) advocated the School Board delay action and asserted a “reset” was needed for the ELSC. He further stated criticism against community members opposed to the ELSC was misguided. Based on conversations with residents who support the ELSC work and those who are critical of the committee, Record believes 99% of the community supports equity. The disagreement was with the approach.
Perhaps the first step towards achieving the stated goal of ELSC might be to simply define “equity.” The term is embraced by many, but its interpretation seems to be intertwined with ideas related to implementation. This will be a difficult process, because many of these ideas are connected to very personal concepts, such as gender identity or religious beliefs. An agreed starting point for policy development that is understood by the community is needed. Likely, this can only be achieved by a process akin to the new path the EDSC is embracing. Attaining agreement on what is meant by "equity” enables the next step, policy development, and within that an implementation plan.
Tentative efforts to establish a community definition of equity have met resistance. North Yarmouth resident, Ally Ford, targeted this issue in creating her feature column, “Conversations with Ally.” Ford has met some resistance to engage on the topic, including from ELSC co-chairs McGinley and Nick Whiston. Hesitation of the community to speak publicly about equity could be related to lack of clarity on definition of the term. Additionally, arguments from supporters of ELSC that characterize questions about the committee as equivalent to opposition to equity distort the issue further.
This process cannot be rushed. Leadership decisions will impact whether efforts are successful. Moving forward should be thoughtful, as work by both the EDSC and the ELSC will have significant impact on the future of our community. Finding the best path does not guarantee it supports all resident’s ideas. However, the process should respect those differences, because considering a broad-spectrum of options helps create a more robust and sustainable outcome. If those guiding the process cannot conceive the other side’s perspective, that is a critical vulnerability to successful implementation of any plan. Good leaders recognize the value of different perspectives and are willing to make course corrections to achieve success, even when those choices may not fully align with their personal views.
The School Board might benefit from a few lessons learned by North Yarmouth. Engaging in honest conversation with the full-range of opinions is difficult and requires a genuine commitment to the goal. If correctly facilitated, the “reset” process is an opportunity to move past differences and establish a clear path. This work is worth the effort.
コメント