Lack of Courtesy in Dissolving Central Park Committee
Former members of the Central Park Committee (CPC), which was abruptly disbanded at the new Board’s organizational meeting an hour after election results were announced on April 3, expressed dismay and surprise at this action by the Board.
John Blevens, moved to Oakmont from Placerville with his wife in September of last year. Having a background in irrigation design, when he saw a request for volunteers for the CPC in the Oakmont News he volunteered to join the committee. “The new board has different ideas, so they want us to discontinue our work,” said Blevens. “Well, okay, but can you acknowledge volunteers who spent a lot of time? It’s common courtesy just to give an appreciation of your effort.”
Another former committee member Kay Nelson also expressed disappointment with the manner in which the committee was dismissed.
Several CPC volunteers commented that members of the new board never approached the committee during their campaign “to learn anything about what we were doing.”
Former Board Director Karen Oswald said, “I am very appalled at the way this committee was treated and disregarded.”
Broken concrete near the shuffleboard courts
The CPC was formed almost a year ago by the Board to repair the damage done by bulldozers the day before last year’s election and the resulting unsightly appearance in the area behind the Central Pool. Oswald was appointed to the committee and later became the board liaison when she joined the Board last summer.
One preliminary sketch by CPC member Blevens
Several months of meetings and discussions of design features for the proposed park followed. Committee members made preliminary sketches, which included a more formalized entrance, a permanent green space and restoration of the natural features of the existing creek and vernal pool.
Additional features under discussion included a brick-paved walkway serving as an honorarium for First Responders and a memorial for those who lost their lives or their homes in the recent fire. Preliminary plans were discussed for an opening ceremony on 10/8/18, the anniversary the devastating fires. Attention was also given to plans for wildlife restoration in the adjoining pond by controlling reed overgrowth and invasive plants.
The committee had recently engaged a landscape architect and a contract was in the works to present to the Board.
According to Oswald, “We had two meetings with the landscape architect. He was in the process of finalizing his design from the comments we made to create drawings. He had sent us a contract just last week (first week of April). He was going to perform a survey of the land to determine property lines and then work with our drawings and give us ideas.”
In light of the hasty and discourteous dismissal of this committee and its volunteers (and the disbanding of the Reserve Study Committee in the same fashion), it is worth revisiting some of the statements made by current board members during the recently completed campaign.
Tom Kendrick: “We need to build trust and respect among the board members and with the committees that are formed and with all the people we delegate efforts to in order to make sure that people act civilly and that they interact.”
Al Medeiros in referring to the previous Board: “Watch the way they talk to volunteers, watch the treatment they give to committees and committee members, and then you will understand why people are resigning.”
Marianne Neufeld: “We need to have more transparency to our board, explanation to the public. We need to get more information out to the public.”
New Board President Steve Spanier recently wrote: “Generally, our process for making decisions will be: 1) gather all necessary information, 2) debate (that’s the official RR word for the discussion that happens after a motion is seconded) the possible decisions in open meetings, 3) ensure those community members who care about the decision have many opportunities to learn the details, ask questions and express opinions, and finally 4) make the decisions we were elected to make. We believe skipping steps as a concession to expediency is not in the community’s best long-term interests.”
Every new Board is entitled to set their agenda and add or remove committees as they see fit to address that agenda. However, gathering necessary information and soliciting input from committee volunteers and from the community at large prior to making decisions, as voiced in the above quotes, is most often the prudent and courteous course of action.
Actions always speak louder than empty campaign promises.
I absolutely agree with Julie Cade’s comment. There was no justifiable reason or cause to treat the CPC committee in this manner except perhaps to make a statement. My feeling is that we have another board that ignores the wishes of Oakmont residents.
The other side complained about poor behavior of incumbents and then replicated what they “accused” the incumbents of doing. It felt like a tantrum to me. Very unprofessional even when disagreements occur. I recall and was glad Steve abstained and 2 voted against. We need to learn to disagree respectfully and try to reach win win solutions. 101 of good negotiations.
Please put dates in the articles.
The first paragraph lacks context without a date. Articles will be stronger if the lead paragraph follows the five Ws of journalism:
Who
What
When
Why
Where
(and sometimes How)
I crossed my mind that the CPC and all activity relating to that particular area has been put in abeyance because if a Burger 2 is built this area will be needed for that construction.
If they are going to do soil sampling at the current Burger will they do the same a few hundred yards down the parking lot where the new Burger 2 would be built.
I say this because it seems that many of the new board members are in favor of building a Burger 2.