Williston Conservation Commission Meeting - Report Example

Report on Williston Conservation Commission (WCC) meeting Conservation is an important undertaking for many commissions tasked with ensuring environment remains conserved amidst major destruction. Besides, the issue of global warming has aroused more actions to ensure conservation is taken a notch higher. Williston’s conservation commission understands this all too well, and several meetings have been held to fast track these programs. This is a paper that seeks to report on the progress made in a meeting held on 4th February 2015 at the Town hall Annex meeting room where the discussions of the meeting were open to the members of public. Prior to the meeting, the commission through its website had released the agendas to be discussed during the meeting. The agendas included a call to order, public comment, approval of previous meeting’s minutes, update on the Environment Reserve Fund, Herskowitz property, Select board update on approval of Lake Iroquois Bylaw Amendments, Emerald Ash Boer update, DRB decision and Recreational trails program update. The public could access all the agendas on the site but in total there were at least eleven of them that would be discussed during the meeting. The meeting would start at 7:00am, and the members of the public had contacts provided in case they needed to communicate with the commission. Preliminaries The meeting’s starting time according to the commission’s website would be 7:00am, but upon arrival at the venue at 7:03am, it had not started. However, seven minutes later it did, with every member of commission having arrived earlier than 7:00am. It is this punctuality that caught my attention first. Contrary to my expectations that the commissioners would be the last to arrive, it dawned on me that they are very punctual especially with this meeting. Armed with notebooks and an iPad, I was ready to listen, and if possible participate in this all-important meeting. Meeting commences At precisely 7:10am, a Mr. Gary Hawler called the meeting to order, and it started where all members present sat listening keenly. After this step, the members introduced themselves and the following were the members present: Eric Howe, Carl Runge, Jean Kissner, Jude Hersey and Gary Hawley. Additionally, there was another category of other members – two to be precise-who, after enquiry I came to know they were staff. These ones included Jeniffer Murray and Ken Bellieveau. In the commission, one only member, a Mike Harris was absent and apology was conveyed to the chair of the meeting. The previous minutes were read out by one Eric Howe, after which the members of the commission unanimously approved them as accurate (WCC n.p.). Meeting proceeding smoothly After the meeting minutes were approved, the commission invited public participation where anyone with a question or opinion was granted the chance. Here, several individuals, around 7 of them, asked various questions. However, due to time constraints, not everybody got a chance for questions. Moreover, some were not eligible to participate in either question or comment because of the procedure used to select those who participate. Any person who does not have a card is not allowed to participate as this would take much time. Once this session was over, the commission continued to discuss the agendas which had been availed prior to the meeting. The first agenda, update on Environmental Reserve Fund (ERF), was debated for some time since the issue of funding needed further deliberation. The commission needed to know the amount that would be assigned to the funding of the ERF, and Gary was given the room to elaborate. The members remained diplomatic despite having varied opinions, and no one interrupted the other during the discussion. Similarly, the few members of public remained calm and attentive as Mr Gary went through the update. Another peculiar thing noticed during the meeting is that as the meeting progressed, the members of the commission recorded the proceedings with their tablets. Worth noting here is that they did not necessary leave their seats; rather, the set the iPads and tablets in a way that not many realized it was being recorded. Also, there were cameras, CCTV, at least on four corners in the room. The room was well-ventilated and no member left the room the entire time of the meeting. Again, I found exciting that the members of the commission did not raise their hands to participate in the debate or the meeting. Instead, the chairperson almost expected each of the members to offer their opinions one by one. During the discussion, each member would give their opinions without bypassing the other. Later, after enquiring from the chairperson, I was informed that this mode they have adopted as it eliminates arguments and saves time. Apparently, this explains the reason the commission is punctual even in concluding the meetings. Notwithstanding these positive observations, it would be imperative if the commission restricted the use of mobile phones inside the room. It was observed that a number of the members of public kept chatting with their phones; in fact others’ phones would ring too often. Obviously, this is an action likely to distract others who are pensive on the proceedings. As of the time of the meeting, there was no notice barring the use of mobile phones. This recommendation ought to be implemented because the work of this commission is important to the society. Further, the participation time by the public need to be increased as it is not enough currently. During this meeting the public participation was allocated only 20 minutes, and this is not enough for many of them whose questions and participation could prove valuable to the commission. Actually, even these 20 minutes are allocated for everybody but only those who have a card. It was later established that to participate in the meeting, one ought to arrive on time and must have filled the card at least 24 hours before the commencement of the meeting. While this step is to be applauded as it gives members the much-needed opportunity to express their views, it would be more effective if the criteria would be changed. For instance, this information on how one participates is not public; one is only aware of the same during the meeting. Surprisingly, there are new people that I met during this meeting including some very close friends. At first, the assumption was that they too were in the meeting because of an assignment, but that was not the case. Apparently, some of these friends, three of them, wanted to hear the plans of the commission and even participate. Upon further questioning as to what exactly motivated them to be in the meeting, they cited their passion for environment as the reason for the attendance. Also, there was another neighbor in the plenary whose attendance was a catalyzed by the understanding of the effects global warming has on humanity. The rest of the people present were unknown to me, but seemed to have a similar passion as that of my friends. Truly, their passion was unquestionable since each had a writing material and as the minutes were being read was attentively listening. Later on when the commission talked of the plans they had, each of my friends and other attendants at large were busy on their tables and notebooks. Outcome of agendas As reported earlier, the commission had several agendas for the day’s meeting and by the adjournment of the meeting several things were reported. First the outcome of the agenda on ERF saw Gary give a summary of the budget. Furthermore, Gary reported that the Select board unanimously voted to have the ERF funding stand at $140,000 in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016. The bylaws amendments on Lake Irouois update was that the management of the lake would have to get state-issued authorizations for any new development they might undertake. To get this license, the management would have to fulfill certain conditions including detailing how waste management will be carried out. Additionally, the permit would only be issued upon clear proof that all the activities sought to be carried out would not be detrimental to the environment. Nonetheless, it was noted that the required height had been reduced from the previous one to the current one which is 30 ft. Concerning Herskowitz property, the Selectboard had to reaffirm its commitment concerning the acquisition of a conservation easement. Emerald Ash Boer update was that Gary spoke with Rick McGuire who expressed his intention to have a productive meeting with the members of the commission. Jude, Jennifer and Ken were members who expressed interest in accompanying Gary when the meeting with Rick will be scheduled. The update on DRB decision was given by Ken who proceeded to give a summary of the decisions which had the earlier recommendations by the commission in the other meeting. Recreation trails program update was provided by Jen where she reported grant awards for the year 2013 and 2014 helped in the funding. The commission was also reminded on the need to improve on ways to ensure trail would be usable even during the winter as well as offer a much needed solution on wet areas. In the update, Jen talked of the need to resurface part of the Allen Brook trail. Following the finalization of the main agendas, the chairperson went on to adjourn the meeting until March 2 2015. After the meeting conclusion, the members of the commission and the staff mingled freely with the members of the public momentarily before leaving the venue. Overall, one could describe the meeting as one that was well coordinated, attendees showed high levels of decorum since none of the members of the public was chaotic during the meeting and a highly diplomatic commission. Having arrived at exactly 7:03 am, I realized that the meeting took exactly one hour and thirty minutes since it ended at 8:40am. Works cited Agendas & Minutes - Town Of Williston Vermont .Town.williston.vt.us, N.p., 2015. Web. 24 Mar. 2015. Read More