|
Letter: Engineers got fair treatment by parks board
Op-Ed · February 04, 2016
In reference to Rick DeClue’s fine piece leading the issue of Jan. 28, and speaking strictly for myself, I would comment on a topic which he reports on, namely, Parks and Recreation Commission unanimity.
Four of seven Commission members, dedicated an entire day interviewing five different engineering and design firms, one right after another. We gave each firm at least and hour, some a bit more.
Afterward, knowing we needed to provide three firms to the City Council, each Commission member selected his/her own list of top three candidates without consulting each other. As could reasonably be expected, we were not unanimous in which three firms were best, though we all agreed on one firm. But, after spending a long day in interviews, we deferred discussion of our opinions until the forthcoming Commission meeting, that evening.
At the full Commission meeting we reported that only one firm made each top three list. Subsequently, the Commission voted, unanimously, to include that firm in it’s list of three to go to the Council.
That left us with four firms. One didn’t make anyone’s list and was not a subject of the discussion. Two of the remaining three firms were on three lists and the fourth firm had been selected by two of us. We discussed the relative merits of each firm and came to a consensus whereby we could add one firm to the one we had already chosen; and that too, was a unanimous vote. Thus, three of four Commissioners who interviewed firms had their top two choices selected by the full Commission, unanimously.
For our third candidate, the Commission conducted a free-ranging discussion and chose it’s third candidate by a vote of 5-0. We had come to a consensus; although one Commission member abstained from this vote, explaining that not having participated in the interviews, he would not choose based on the information at hand. Thus, we made our best effort to assist the Council in its responsibility to make a final decision.
There was no objection from within the Commission as to what three firms we would pass on to the Council, nor was there discussion of a minority report to accompany our recommendation because we believed we had reached unanimity, and none of the Commission members expressed any desire to object to the recommendations.
Personally, I believe the Commission has conscientiously followed the Council’s direction to make three recommendations, and, yes, we discussed recommending four but decided that would only make the Council’s job more difficult.
As to the issue raised in Council, regarding our procedure, ranking, and voting, the video of the Commission meeting speaks for itself. Clearly, as will also be seen from the minutes of that last Commission meeting, each candidate firm recommended to the Council was the result of a formal Commission vote.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my views.
Douglas I Klein,
West Branch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
