Boards! ... and Commissions

Mike Clark-Madison

Vice-Chair, Austin Public Library Commission

Member since 1998

Last appointed by Council Member Daryl Slusher

Also LC representative to Bond Oversight Committee

In real life: Staff writer for The Austin Chronicle

My son, who's four, has a video in which fearful citizens, describing one character's obviously (to them) malign intentions, exclaim, "Today, the library board; tomorrow, the world!" Damn straight. I wish I could say I joined the Library Commission to further my imperial ambitions. Actually, I used to be the public information officer for the State Library and then a consultant to the Texas Library Association, so I got initiated into the arcane mysteries of libraries, and my library friends urged me to apply.

Being on the board of a major urban library system isn't the worst training ground for world domination, though, because you deal with such varied issues: What facilities to build and where, what materials to buy and where to put them, what services to provide to whom; in short, everything from planning for a $100 million central library to putting in a coffee cart, from the First Amendment rights of Internet users to the picture on the new library card. And above all, how to pay for everything. For something that's so apple pie and taken for granted, a library is extraordinarily complex.

Historically, the Library Commission has done a very good job of representing one important constituency: the neighborhood patrons of the 19 branch libraries, who like them pretty much as they are and adamantly defend them against closure and budget cuts. They've been fixated on getting the currently leased branches replaced with new city-owned buildings (which they apparently think makes the branches closure-proof). That's why the 1998 library bond package only addressed existing branches, rather than either new neighborhood locations or a new central library.

There are other people whom the library serves, though, and other issues facing the institution, and I think in the last year we've turned a corner toward being more effective on all fronts. The current membership is about as good as one could ask for -- all our positions are filled, all our members are active and engaged, and we're not afraid to tackle our real mandate, which is to advise (i.e., lobby) the City Council, not to micromanage the library department.

We've had a reputation for being grouchy and difficult to work with, which is one reason why, when the city embarked on a major effort, dubbed Austin Libraries for the Future, to plan and build support for a truly world-class (and appropriately funded) library, we were on the outside looking in. That has also turned around; relations between the commission, library staff, the city hierarchy, and the library's community supporters (such as the Austin Public Library Foundation) are a lot better now than they were a year ago. At this point, the City Council takes us seriously and, I think, is grateful that we're no longer a problem child. (We went a year with vacancies because council members couldn't agree on whom to appoint or reappoint.)

The new library movement was going to ask the City Council for $5 million a year in new money to realize the ALFF dream, but in the current climate of budgetary constraint, that ain't gonna happen. The Austin Public Library has over the past decade won a bunch of awards at both the state and national level, and has more library cardholders than any other city in the city manager's all-important nationwide benchmarking database (which he uses to compare Austin's service levels with those in other communities). So we can't get too depressed.

But staff morale is pretty low, people are horribly overworked and underpaid, and every time we put a new book in the central library, we have to take one out. (Note to neighborhoods: Having great branches and an obsolete central library is like having great doctors and lousy hospitals.)

I can think of worse things for Austin, the City of Ideas, to be than the home of the nation's best public library system (surely we can do better than Cleveland, one claimant for that title), and I'd be happy to have less police riot gear and fewer traffic-calming devices if it would advance us toward that goal.

Rosemary Castleberry

Chair, Parks and Recreation Board

Member since 1994

Last appointed by Council Member Daryl Slusher

Also Parks Board representative and chair, Bond Oversight Committee

Member and chair since 1999

In real life: Retired PARD employee

As someone who has had a 30-year relationship with the Parks and Recreation Dept., I have nothing but glowing things to say about the Parks board and PARD staff. With three children, my first contact with the department was by way of Deep Eddy Pool and the Austin Nature Center. Eventually I went to work in Montopolis as a neighborhood center director and became involved with the Montopolis Recreation Center. The present director of PARD, Jesus Olivares, was a site manager at Montopolis. As you might expect, I have a good relationship with him, and most of the staff I have worked with over the years.

We have a good board -- very intelligent but down to earth -- and we have developed strong working relationships within the board. Even if our members have special areas of interest, they manage to deal with issues as they affect all of us as we consider the many recommendations that cross our table.

City staff respect our recommendations, and it is rare that we do not reach agreement with them. We take into consideration citizen input and try not to make suggestions without looking at city regulations and liability issues. Other departments are getting used to our probing questions on the issues they bring us that relate to parkland and the preserves.

The City Council, for the most part, uses our recommendations as an outline for their decisions. We don't win them all, but council members do seem to be sensitive to what we have to say. We all are concerned with budget issues, and are not shy when it comes to talking to council members and speaking out at council meetings about issues that concern us. For example, the department does need to have more maintenance money. If Austin likes to brag about its parks, it only makes sense to fully fund their maintenance.

As for the Bond Oversight Committee, on which I sit as a Parks Board representative, it is difficult to say how effective we are. We on the Parks Board have seen bond money approved years ago sit around for years with no movement on the projects, and we have rarely been able to answer citizen questions with any authority. People do remember what they voted on and want to see projects completed in a reasonable time.

My major concern is that the BOC is one of at least three groups that makes recommendations to the council on the city's capital budget. Attendance was and is spotty at best, and we have had a lot of changes in our membership. This makes it difficult for new members to catch up, as we are looking at millions of dollars' worth of bonds that cover city projects that we are not all familiar with.

The first year, in 1999, we had a long learning curve and met often. We did manage to change some staff recommendations, and they were accepted by the council. Departmental staff have been responsive to our questions, although we need to standardize the information we get from the departments.

A final note: A public hearing that has more than one person attending would be nice.

Kevin Connor

Chair, Austin Music Commission

Member since 1999

Last appointed by Mayor Kirk Watson

In real life: Morning man at KGSR-FM.

The Austin Music Commission has been improving, both in terms of its membership and its effectiveness. Whereas a few years ago we had to struggle to achieve a quorum, we now have a full slate of competent music industry professionals on our team, and there's actual competition to fill open seats.

We're not a commission that is part of a process like zoning, where you have to get approval from the commission before going to the City Council. We simply advise the council on matters of concern to the music community. For several years, our meetings have been dominated by the ongoing intensive-care status of the Austin Music Network. We need to get AMN off life support and into a regular funding structure like that of Channel 6 and ACAC (Austin Community Access Center, formerly ACTV). Right now AMN gets whatever the city decides to give it from general fund; it doesn't have a set budget. A broadcast facility larger than a tool shed would be nice, too.

Does the council listen? Yes. City staff? Well ... Case in point: Last year, we worked with council staff and the city's music liaison Jim Butler to bring back the Music Industry Loan Program. Various commissioners and others had long been told "Forget it. It's never going to happen." Well, it did happen. The council approved $250,000 to bring back the much-needed program, which is supposed to provide loans to small businesses in the music industry. That was last September. Has the program been put into practice yet? Nope. Why not? I was told that the person who was supposed to oversee the project "wasn't into it." He's gone. Let's hope our next project overseer has better vision.

Perry Lorenz

Vice-Chair, Design Commission, and DC representative to the Downtown Commission

Member since 1989

Last appointed by Council Member Daryl Slusher

In real life: Downtown developer and landowner

I have watched the Design Commission grow from the token role of rewarding good architecture in an annual awards ceremony to the completion of Austin's Downtown Design Guidelines. In 1997, the mayor and council requested that the Design Commission come up with guidelines for new construction occurring downtown. The directive anticipated that the process would take 90 days.

In the end, it took two years of weekly meetings, throughout which well-meaning people with diverse interests and backgrounds struggled to come up with a document that meant something and would not be shelved. Juan Cotera (an architect and DC chair) led the group, which included individuals with interests ranging from parks and open spaces, to architecture and landscape design, to art and real estate development.

On May 18, 2000, the City Council adopted the Downtown Design Guidelines as "recommendations for all downtown development and redevelopment projects by both the public and private sector." Since then, the work of the Design Commission has been primarily related to ensuring that the guidelines are applied to emerging downtown projects.

Has anybody read the Guidelines? Does anybody care? Well, virtually every significant downtown development has been presented to and commented on by the Design Commission. Developers are encouraged to present new projects to us early in the process so input will be meaningful. Developers with projects requiring right-of-way vacations and/or variances come seeking support from the commission prior to their appearances before the Board of Adjustment and Planning Commission. Our agenda is so full that rarely do two weeks go by without a meeting, nor can I remember a meeting ever failing for lack of a quorum.

So the Design Commission does meaningful work, is taken seriously by the council and city staff, and provides a valuable, early heads-up to developers about what to expect as they seek approvals for downtown projects. I am glad to be part of it.

Leslie Pool

Chair, Telecommunications Commission

Member since 1999

Last appointed by Council Member Beverly Griffith

In real life: Aide to state Rep. Ann Kitchen, D-Austin

(Pool declined to be photographed for this story.) I've served in a number of appointed positions for the city and Travis County. These are typically not easy assignments, but I'm interested in how government works. Governments work best when they interact with the communities they represent. Most governmental issues are complex, yet they affect people at the most fundamental levels: health, safety, quality of life. You can't get much more grassroots than serving on a bond committee and holding a public hearing on whether to acquire land for soccer fields or expand a juvenile detention center. What more direct way is there to plug into the dynamic force of a community?

Having said that, however, I am not a proponent of creating a citizen board for every issue. Austin has used ad hoc groups well in the past; I have experience with two, the Town Lake Advisory Group and Downtown Advisory Group. These groups were successful because they were focused and temporary.

I also support the idea of a sunset review for boards and commissions. The Texas Legislature reviews state agencies every 12 years to modify or abolish ineffective ones. The city should consider adopting a similar review process.

I believe the council listens to us. Advisory roles can be powerful, but volunteers must be aware of the limits inherent in their roles, too. Council members are not required to take our advice. At its best, the relationship is a form of contract that is fluid and collaborative. I've always felt comfortable talking to council members and respect that they have many demands on their time. I trust they know that when I raise an issue it's because it's important or relevant.

The commission has a good relationship with TARA (the city's Office of Telecommunications and Regulatory Affairs). The relationship works because the staff recognize the function and value of a volunteer, citizen-directed board, and the citizens recognize the limits of the staff. I can see how an advisory board can become a burden to bear or an obstacle to manage. But it's also a good way to gather information to help inform controversial or difficult decisions -- or to deflect political heat.

The Telecommunications Commission had vacancies for a while, but we are now at full capacity. The members are, to a person, involved, committed, and really dedicated to the purpose of the commission. I'm impressed with the diversity of profession, opinion, and world-view my fellow commissioners bring to the table.

It's not easy to be up-to-date on everything that's going on in telecommunications nationally and locally. Commissions and boards will always depend on staff for information at some level. Staff can influence a board's decision-making through the amount and quality of information they provide and how they treat citizen members. To be effective, citizen boards must understand this and work to keep a balance between depending on staff too much or trusting in staff too little.

The value of citizen advisory boards depends, ultimately, on the qualities of the people involved: council members, staff, volunteers. Some boards work better than others. Some tend to wander in the wilderness; others have a better sense of their mission. I've seen both good and bad, but on balance, I believe that the boards and commissions system benefits the city.

Darwin McKee

Chair, Water and Wastewater Commission

Last appointed by Council Member Danny Thomas; member since 1992

In real life: Lawyer, former Travis Co. Commissioner

The Water and Wastewater Commission was formed by the City Council to provide citizen input into the operation of the Water and Wastewater Utility and to provide advice on how to maintain and improve the city's drinking water supply. Over the years the council has also requested the commission's advice on other issues, such as service extension requests and the cost of service to customers.

Overall, despite some negative publicity a few years ago, the commission has functioned quite well. We have had, and continue to have, the active participation of all the members of the commission. We have given our advice on a wide range of issues affecting the water quality of the city, the operation of the utility, planning for the future water and wastewater needs of the city, the viability of the city's Historically Underutilized Business program, and many other issues. I have found the City Council quite receptive to our input.

The proof of that comes when our recommendation is different from the recommendation of the staff. Invariably, the council will ensure that the concerns we express are addressed. Fortunately, because of our good working relationship with water and wastewater staff, such situations do not arise very often, because over time, the staff has learned to anticipate the questions and concerns of the various commissioners.

Sabino Renteria

Chair, Community Development Commission

Member (this time around) since 2000

Last appointed by consensus

In real life: IBM'er, leader of United East Austin Coalition

The CDC is responsible for advising city staff and the City Council on how to invest money to help communities that the federal government deems economically disadvantaged. The origins of this commission go back to the War on Poverty in the 1960s, which I was involved with as a teen growing up in East Austin. Historically, the CDC has focused on policies and funding levels for affordable housing and job creation programs, with some social support programs that target special needs populations like senior citizens and homeless folks.

We also review requests from groups that serve residents in targeted neighborhoods, and want to get CDBG (Community Development Block Grants) money to invest in things like neighborhood and youth centers, recreation programs, and child care for the working poor. We advise on commercial loan programs that help small businesses in an effort to create economic sustainability in these neighborhoods and jobs for people who live there.

The CDC has evolved over the years as state and federal funding requirements have changed, and those changes have played a major role in the CDC's effectiveness as a community-based, consumer-oriented advisory board. I believe that, at one time, the various funding entities required so much stakeholder representation that it took 17 people to form a quorum. Hopefully, our new structure will help solve the longstanding problem the CDC has had with making quorums.

Regarding our working relationship with city staff, I'd say the CDC must rely more on staff than most boards and commissions. City staff have always had an incredible amount of work to do, because the feds require extensive community and stakeholder input before the city can submit its plan on how to spend the money it receives. I think the relationship between the staff and CDC members is improving, but because we have to make decisions about where to allocate money, there will always be some tension between competing interests.

It's better than it used to be when the CDC not only recommended the funding levels in competing categories but actually recommended specific dollar amounts for certain agencies. It was politics at its worst. Agencies would lobby the CDC, and if they didn't get recommended for funding, they found a back door to the City Council, laid out their game plan, then packed the public hearings to skew the processes required by the feds. The agencies still lobby the council and skew the public hearing processes, but at least the council is no longer in the position of ignoring the recommendations of volunteers on the CDC.

This is my second stint on the CDC. I served in the late 1980s at a time when UT was tearing up the Blackland neighborhood and the homeless people started organizing. They climbed onto the rooftops to stop the bulldozers. Relationships between the staff, the CDC, and the City Council were very strained due to extensive media coverage about the boom, the bust, and the destruction of scarce affordable housing. The community's trust in the staff and City Council to address the affordable housing crisis for the poorest of the poor is shaky, but we're still at the table.

The needs of the very poor in Austin have always been so great, and the public will and necessary dollars so scarce. So it comes down to which interest is the most needy: Frail elderly people, homeless people, or youth? Do we fund jobs programs so people can pay for housing, or pay for housing so people can have stability to find jobs? That's always been the real question. That will never change.

Jim Walker

Chair, Robert Mueller Municipal Airport Plan Implementation Advisory Commission

Member and chair since 2000

Last appointed by consensus

In real life: Director of Sustainability Indicators Project; president of Austin Neighborhoods Council

I've served on the Solid Waste Advisory Commission, Green Building Task Force, and currently on the Mueller Commission. They've all "worked" to varying degrees. Our boards and commissions are the only formal method of citizen input on city policy other than the citizen's communication period at council meetings and public hearings, where one's time is often limited to three minutes.

I'm fine with boards and commissions being limited to advising the council on policy (as opposed to directing staff on anything, or advising the council on operations within a city department), but the balance between the inherent, albeit cumbersome, value of public process and the daily needs of management to simply get things done is out of whack. Is it frustrating for citizens when staff seem not to be sharing information? Yes. Is it frustrating for staff when citizens seem to want to talk ad nauseam about precedents and perceptions? I imagine, yes. Do the council members make better policy decisions because of citizen input? Absolutely.

When boards and commissions work, I believe it's due in great part to two things. First, when there is a city staff member in a decision-making role who wants to be there (as opposed to being told to be there), he or she will be more likely to perceive the value added by the board to the staff's deliberation (of course, sometimes there is no value added). Second, boards and commissions work when the council shows interest and allows time for the board to deliberate, and deliver a considered recommendation. Although I wouldn't expect any council member to have time to show interest in and patience with all of our boards and commissions, it's a powerful motivator when they do take an interest.

Yes, boards and commissions have to earn and establish credibility with the council, but they also have to be given that chance. I think the boards and commissions could be more effective if the council would set clearer guidelines for city staff and citizens on what issues the boards and commissions should review (i.e., big and precedent-setting policy) and how much time they get to do so; if the council gives greater weight to a board or commission recommendation (somewhere between ignoring it and supporting it without question); if both staff and citizens get beyond appealing to the city manager or the council (respectively) when an issue becomes controversial; and if we have periodic review of each board and commission to see if it's still relevant and effective.