Last night's general plan advisory committee meeting was really interesting. Many of the comments made it look like the board had little to do with drafting of much of the
The other interesting thing was the MIG guy (Daniel Iacofano) was very selective in which advisory board comments he would respond to. For many comments he would go into depth and with others he just wrote them on the board and tried to move on. To the credit of the board, various board members kept bringing up one key concern (this was another sign that board was distanced from the drafting of most of the plan). That key concern was the insertion of the word "endorse" into the document. Such a change can be construed as an effort to make the plan something other than a plan.
Daniel and Patrick Murphy were pressed to respond, but they did so in a very shallow manner and never discussed the word endorse. One member even highlighted the importance of clarifying terminology, regarding different language, as means of bypassing needless discussion clutter from the deliberative process. The terminology should have been the first thing Daniel addressed and to many it appeared that Daniel either had zero clue or was going to try to skip past its discussion. Daniel spoke at length about many subjects. Why not clarify language as a starting point?
Even Patrick Murphy ended up vaguely admitting that the usage of the word shall or should matters.
It is time to bring the deliberative process regarding the drafting of this document into the public's view. Hopefully, the upcoming meetings will be designed to result in options, each of which are analyzed and weighed. It sure would be easier if the staff released which options they had considered and their analyses.