Minutes of the Long Range Strategic Planning Committee – Monday, March 17, 2008
Call to order 7:35pm
Attendance: Gerard Robiloti, Michael Floros, Kathy Fetchick, Julia Wasserman, Anna Wiedemann
Absent: Peter Marshall, Geoff Dent
Public: None
Public Comments: None
Acceptance of Minutes: motion to accept minutes made by Gerry, 2nd by Michael, passed unanimously.
Correspondence: None
Unfinished Business:
1. Discuss & Evaluate Mission Statement:
Per Michael’s suggestion, the italic insertion will be added to the Vision Statement submitted by Julia
“Newtown Long Range Strategic Planning Committee Vision Statement
~
Newtown's citizens expect their town government to provide quality education, recreational and leisure access, public safety and human services. Our vision is to maintain and improve these services in the most financially responsible manner.~ We will encourage and support commercial and economic development that is environmentally conscious and in harmony with our town character and encourage expanded volunteer participation, representing multiple generations, in government and community service.~ Moreover, we will meet the future challenges of growth while maintaining a balance between the core values of the community and the implications of change both statewide and on our neighboring towns.”
~
Gerry made a motion to accept the vision statement with the one modification, 2nd by
Michael passed unanimously.
2. Cost of Consulting Services:
Kathy searched web but was unsuccessful in finding a service that would help municipalities. Most did long range plans for businesses. We need to find someone who can work with municipalities – a facilitator – get someone who is objective. One company quoted $8000. We need to define what the scope is and what our aim is. Need to find someone who is familiar with the process and familiar with town government. Need to build credibility with public and town agencies. Helpful to have someone neutral. Julia will research this and see if there is someone who can come and speak to the group. Gerry asked Julia if she would call Jonathan Shu – he is a staff person for the Housatonic Council for Elected Officials. Julia will call
him.
3. Town Agency Planning Documents:
Anna handed out a packet containing the plans from Technology & GIS, Planning & Community Development and the Police Dept. Joe Borst wants a report from our committee. Kathy told him we might have something by the end of April. Our charge was to recommend a process.
New Business:
1. Results of Town Interviews:
Peter spoke to Patti Flynn-Harris of the Cheshire Long Range Plan. He was not able to be at our meeting, but sent an e-mail, which I will copy here:
I was fortunate in having an extensive conversation with the Chairperson, Patti Flynn-Harris, of the Cheshire Long Range Plan.~ As you will recall, it was an impressive plan with the following attributes (that I ascribed to it):
~
1. An impressive effort, evolving 65 people
2. Well organized under specific sections:
a. Vision statement
b. Description of Departments
c. Prioritized Goals
d. Detailed Goals, Strategies and Projects
e. Summary and Review Process
3. It appeared to be more of a “Business Plan” than a Long Range Plan
~
Below, not listed in any particular order, is a synopsis of my discussion with Ms. Flynn-Harris:
~
1.~ Preceding the start of the project, there was a two-year discussion whether it should proceed.~ Some town officials felt it was a waste of time and money.~ Others felt strongly in favor.~~ It was somewhat “political.”~ In the long run a consensus was achieved and a working committee formed.
2.~ It was critical, however, that senior Town Management bought into the project and expressed enthusiasm for it to proceed.
3. Funding was needed for the project, principally for two areas:~ a questionnaire and an outside consultant.
4. They engaged an outside consultant who was familiar with this kind of effort (his name is Justin Adinolfi and lives in Cheshire).~ Patti indicated that this was really essential.~ He organized the effort and kept it on track.~ They did not have a model to follow, so it developed according to perceived needs.
5. The project was organized into several groups: Administration/Finance, Public Safety, Public Works, Leisure Services, Social Services, etc.
a. There were a variety of people involved in the effort, including business people, educators, real estate, bankers, retired people and town employees (the latter were not permitted to be on Committees involving their duties, to avoid conflict of interest).
b. Sub committees were formed for each of the major areas and a Chairperson was selected for each area.~ Patti indicated that there was a substantial workload for each Chairperson.
c. At the very beginning, priorities were formulated for and by each committee.
d. There was a significant amount of structure to the entire process (attributed, in part, to the efforts of the outside consultant).
6.~ Town Officials were not that deeply involved in the process or the work.~ However, the Assistant Town Manager did act as a type of facilitator.~ Also, Town personnel were always available to the sub committees and were helpful in the effort.~
7. Consequently, the Long Range Plan was an independent effort and reflected the desires of the citizenry.
8. Timing:
a. One thing that was “cast in concrete” was a specific starting and ending date.
b. Now, this is impressive!~ The entire effort started in September and ended the following January!~ (I can’t imagine getting 65, unsalaried volunteers, working on several sub committees to produce a 65 page Long Range Plan that met with approval of Town Officials, in less than 5 months….Bravo Cheshire!).
c. Asked if they would have done anything differently, in their effort, Patti said they would have changed the time frame to be April-September in order to avoid the heavy holiday season.
9. At the start, a questionnaire was mailed to every household in Cheshire.~ In addition, it was published in the local newspaper.~ Based on the responses, the type and number of sub committees was developed.~ The numbers of responses to the questionnaire were “reasonable” although a larger response was desired.~ They felt they had a reasonable “cross section” of the town’s demographics.
10. The style of the report, that is “narrow” versus “broad” simply developed as the work proceeded.~ Finally, they decided that they wanted a detailed and “deep” report because “we didn’t want to leave anything out.”
11. Overall, the Long Range Plan Committee was very pleased with the effort and there was good acceptance on the part of the Town, “it was basically accepted by everyone; there was no resistance to the published Plan.”
12. Results of the Plan:
a. It has had more impact in some areas; less so in others.~ “There have been minor improvements in the area of the Library and the Arts Center, but not so much in other areas.”
b. The Plan is definitely used as a reference and can be viewed as a focal point of discussions.
c. The Town Manager “took many things to heart” especially in the areas of Administration/Finance and made significant efforts in matters of “customer service” and “responsiveness to the public.”
d. The Plan contained “dreams” of what might be possible (i.e. acquisition of certain parcels of property) and is frequently referred to in that context..
e. Patti indicated, “basically, it gets down to funding as to whether many of the aspects of the plan can be implemented.”
13. Current Status:
a. The Plan was conceived as “five year” plan (possibly a little longer).~ You will note that their Plan is dated May 2003.
b. The Plan has not been kept current, that is, no effort has been made to “revisit” the goals set forward.~~ There was no specific process on updating or evaluating progress on the Plan.
c. Currently, there is no strong feeling for redoing or updating the plan or undertaking an effort similar to the initial process.
~
I really appreciated the amount of time given, and details that Patti shared with me and I’m sure she would respond positively if further details were desired (her phone number, at home, is 203-272-1392).
~
I’ve attempted to objectively report, in the above, details of the conversation.~ Below are my conclusions and implications to our effort, which may certainly differ from others on the committee:
~
a. It is highly likely that to create an effective plan we will need the following:
1. An outside consultant to help with the organization and structure of the effort.
2. An absolute start and end date.
3. Complete support from the Selectmen and Legislative Council.
4. Adequate funding for the project.
b. I’m not convinced that a detailed overall Long Range Plan is worth the time, effort and funding that it may require.~ A brief statement of “vision” and “mission” maybe is preferable.~ It can be summarized, clear, easily understood and effectively communicated.~ Wethersfield plan comes to mind.
c. It is probably more effective if each of the major functions of Newtown government (Administration, Public Safety, Education, Social Services, etc.) develop their own long-range plan (with central guidance from the town).
d. Although the efforts of Newtown might be substantially different from that achieved in Cheshire, it appears that their Plan, while representing a concerted and well-coordinated effort, has not had a substantial impact (this is a personal opinion based on my impressions).~ We need to carefully weigh the alternative use of effort and funding for the needs of the Town and what we hope to achieve with a Long Range Plan.
e. Based on my business experience, the most effective plans have been those that have specific goals, are well structured, have broad acceptance and support by every level of management, are measurable, are updated and clearly communicated.~ Long range “vision” statements have value, but more as part of the cultural backdrop to the specifics of getting “real things” done.
Peter also heard back from Farmington. I’ve cut and pasted that e mail as well:
Some of the key elements of the Farmington Plan that I had summarized for my purposes were as follows:
a. It was direct, short and easily understood.
b. Forms the basis of good communication.
c. Would appear to have measurable goals.
d. Only five broad goals are listed (followed by detailed specifics)
~
Below is a summary (in no specific order) of my discussion with Bruce.
~
1. The impetus for the plan was a degree of frustration that there were different town functions that were pulling in different directions.
a. People were complaining about various functions.
b. The Town Council “wanted to bring it all together” rather than having differently constituencies going in different directions to attempt to meet citizens perceived needs.
2. It was critical that all of the top leadership of the town “bought into the process and enthusiastically supported it.”
3. Getting the funding was an effort, but it was essential.
4. They looked at what other towns had done and paid close attention to the process that Cheshire went through (although they performed the process somewhat differently).
5. They decided early on that they needed professional help and went to UCONN, in particular Chris Barnes, of whom Bruce spoke highly.~ They felt that outside professional help in getting started was essential to bring a degree of discipline to the process.~ Later on, they relied on internal, local help in the leadership process.
6. It was also decided that a key concept to employ was a series of SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analyses on the various Town functions.
7. Overall the Plan was a two-year process and it was “hard work.”
a. They conducted 11 meetings that included citizens, town personnel, business people, etc.
b. The decided against a questionnaire approach, feeling that:
i.~~~~~ It may not be sufficiently reliable (demographically)
ii.~~~~~ Face to face meetings in which all views could be “aired” and challenged was preferable.
8. Having a strong leader to head up the process was critical.~ They were fortunate in having a member of the Town Council (Deborah Pasquale) undertake this leadership role in working with UNCONN (Chris Barnes).
9. There was also heavy support from various Town Government functions (Education, Police, Fire) and they all “bought into the process.”
10. They considered that the final plan contain both specific goals and deliverables.
11. Results:
a. The Plan is being effectively used.
b. It has been integrated into the budgetary process.
c. Operating results are being specifically measured against the Plan.
d. It is part of the evaluation process on the performance of various government functions.
e. The town’s “newsletter” frequently refers to the status of the Plan.
f. Updating has occurred in 2006 and is planned for 2008.
12. What might they do differently?~ Basically, Bruce said “nothing”; they are very satisfied with the Plan and how it is currently working.
13. ~ Bruce felt it is important to stay focused on the Plan and “keep it on the agenda.”~ Otherwise “it will sit on the shelf.”~ However, the Town leadership is key and there is always the concern that with changing administrations, it could fall by the wayside.
~
Our conversation was an interesting in juxtaposition with that of Cheshire.~ Bruce conveyed a significant amount of enthusiasm with the results of their effort.~ It should be noted that he is no longer part of the Town Council (deciding to leave due to business/professional demands on his time).~ His sense, however, is that it is still an effective function of Town government.~ He suggested that we call the current Town Council Chair, Mike Clark for a later update (860-676-5032).
~
I appreciated the time Bruce provided and below are my own observations.~ It would appear that the success of their Plan might be attributed to the following:
a. Town leadership enthusiastically supported the effort
b. Various Town Government functions were an integral part of the effort
c. There was “buy in” to the idea from everyone; that is everyone (government and citizens) were stakeholders.
d. The Plan is a viable document that is actively used both in the budgetary process and management process.
e. The Plan is used to measure performance.
f. The Plan is updated.
g.~ The Plan is brief, straightforward and easily communicated.~ It contained only five broad goals and beneath that thirty-six “sub goals.”~ The entire Plan was only 13 pages (which included details of how the study was conducted and facts on the Town).
~
It was certainly helpful to have this input from Farmington and provides and important to comparison to Cheshire.
2. Discuss Long Range Planning Summary Report:
Kathy took time to put together a summary: who made up committee, what our charge was, minutes. We need to have buy-in from our stakeholders – town leaders, citizens. Tie our goals to financial resources. We need to hire a facilitator, must develop a vision. Use survey results from Paul Lundquist study as a jumping off point. Perhaps have town meetings for each separate area followed by a survey after each town meeting. Need to group different areas, public works, health, cultural, leisure, etc. Put departments into different groups. Find volunteers for each area, nominate a chair and get 1 or more employees for each committee. Ad hoc group needs to be clearly defined. Process needs to move forward to a broadly represented group. Suggest process in summary fashion stating it’s a suggestion. We’ve done the groundwork. Need to have a timeline to capitalize on momentum. Take the process and work on one area at a time, perhaps pilot one area.
3. Next Steps:
Peter suggested taking salient points from the Farmington Long Range Plan and pilot that. Julia will contact Jonathan Shu and see if he might be able to join us at our next meeting. Kathy will e-mail the summary to each member for input.
The next meeting will be held on Monday, April 14, 2008, 7:30pm in the Mary Hawley Room
Motion to adjourn at 8:50 by Gerry, 2nd by Michael, passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted: Anna Wiedemann
| 