[Council] Is the core issue Director, or Direction?

[Art Bullock]

4 days, 2 directors, 1 issue.

 

AFN Director

 

At Monday morning's AFN Options Cmte meeting, the issue of an AFN Director was again voiced as an immediate, pressing need. The 3 ISPs and Hunter Comm. clearly and passionately articulated AFN needs and issues. Based on common messages from Navigant Consulting, AFN Dept, AFN Options Cmte, and now the ISPs and Hunter, I think we can reasonably anticipate what approvals an AFN Director will want from Council:

 

(1) Get serious about marketing.

(2) Re-structure to compete with Charter (pricing parity, control of central service costs, etc.).

(3) Budget for on-going equipment replacement/upgrades.

(4) Prepare to invest for HDTV, which in a few months will obsolete all analog TVs.

(5) Prepare to incorporate or compete with WiFi and upcoming technologies (DVR, etc.).

etc.

 

These are not new messages.  What has stopped us?  What decision-maker is responsible for these decisions?

 

The answer doesn't appear to be the AFN Director, past or future.  The AFN Director reports to Gino (City Administrator), who reports to Mayor Morrison, who implements decisions of Council, who represents the majority taxpayers.

 

What will be different from now if we hire an AFN Director, who predictably asks for what we already know AFN needs?  The Director will be the 5th step down the decision totem pole:

 

Community

|

Council

|

Mayor Morrison

|

City Adm Grimaldi

|

AFN Director

 

 

Planning Director

 

On Monday evening, Jackson County Commissioner Dave Gilmour showed us the county's Measure 37 claims ringing Ashland.  Thanks to Pam Vavra, Michael Dawkins, and the Green Party's open meetings, we had a community discussion about what we could about the implicit planning direction being set for us by Measure 37 claims.  Gilmour strongly recommended that Ashland's Council consider pre-annexation agreements with Measure 37 claimants, else Jackson County will define Ashland's community direction by passing Measure 37 claims just outside the UGB.

 

3 days later (Thursday) we had a community forum where the Executive Search firm from Sacramento asked what the community wanted in a Planning Director.  We generated a list:

 

1. Manage development in a real estate environment of rapidly increasing prices.

2. Implement the community's vision of downtown Ashland.

3. Raise the bar for ethics and communication.

4. Proactively address Measure 37 claims in Jackson County that narrowly ring the city.

5. Fix the CODE! Resolve inconsistencies, implement LUBA decisions, and close loopholes.

6. Address big holes in environmental components on the Comp Plan/Code.

7. etc.

 

These didn't sound new either.  What decision-maker is responsible for these decisions?  Answer (as I see it): the same 5-step totem pole:

 

Community

|

Council

|

Mayor Morrison

|

City Adm Grimaldi

|

Planning Director

 

Core Issue

 

While listening during these 2 sessions, it began to dawn on me that Citizens weren't really asking for a Director--we were asking for Direction.

 

We may be looking for help in all the wrong places.

 

In Ashland, Directors don't set direction.  Council sets direction.

 

We need Direction before a Director.

 

It's not the job of the Planning Director to bring or create Ashland's planning vision.  That's Council--Community's job.  And it's not the job of the AFN Director to set AFN's direction.  Even if an AFN Director had the desire and ability, they're too far down the totem pole to set direction.

 

Both directors have to respond to whatever direction is set by Community--Council.  The Mayor--Administrator--Director trio has no authority to set direction, only recommend.  The decision authority rests solely with Council.  Council and voters are the legislative decision-makers.  Mayor--Administrator--Director are the executive branch of government; they implement Council decisions.

 

We may be about to repeat the Housing Director scenario.  We can hire a top-notch director, for AFN or Planning, and when they ask for the obvious, if the answer from Council--Community is 'no' or 'we'll think about it', they'll get frustrated and taxpayers will get little for their money.  We might learn from our own Housing Director history: set direction before hiring a director.

 

If 4+ Councilors say we're going east, we'll go east.  Until then, we're treading water, with or without a director.

 

Conclusion

 

The work of the AFN Options Committee and similar groups (AFN Programming, etc.) is more important than hiring a Director.  At the risk of 'miracle worker' transference to a committee, the Options Cmte's report, which directly supports Council in setting a direction ASAP, is our best chance to resolve AFN's continuing issues.

 

Respectfully,  Art

		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good
 Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.