Laserfiche WebLink
bodies, it takes a different mind-set to make planning decisions for the future as <br /> opposed to making and implementing policy for the present. It would be helpful if <br /> someone could make this dramatically clear for the members at the very beginning. <br /> • 2. Facing up to difficult decisions. This can always be a problem for every policy-maker, <br /> and it becomes much more acute when the interests of the future are pitted against <br /> some particular interests of the present. On one controversial issue, a few Steering <br /> Committee members were very honest about it. They heard testimony from their <br /> neighbors and friends, and even an brother-in-law, and they did not want to be put on <br /> the spot. Other committee members used some of the usual techniques for not making <br /> a decision. Maybe some training would prepare them to take the bull by the horn. <br /> 3. This is a commitment. Attendance at the Steering Committee meetings was less than ideal. It <br /> came to my attention that a few members were so disgusted at all the testimony in reaction to <br /> the transportation corridor that they absented themselves for the rest of the meetings I am sure <br /> that others did not enjoy being called on to make some of the hard political decisions. Training <br /> could not only help to get the members ready for what they might have to face, but it could <br /> also emphasize that this is a priority. <br /> 4. Wanting to be liked. Whenever there is crowd present on an issue, there is always a <br /> temptation to placate the crowd and to be a populist. We may be more aware of this on <br /> the Planning Commission, because of our legal constraints. Simply placating the crowd <br /> can be bad enough at ordinary meetings; it can be disastrous when planning for the <br /> future. With training, and with all committee members alert to the danger, it could <br /> possibly be curtailed. <br /> • <br />