I again welcome the opportunity to discuss Park issues with Tony Scallon.
(T.S.) "I have served on several bodies. All the part time commissions and Boards expected the CEO (superintendent) to have the vision. I think Scott confuses vision with strategic planning. Most Boards do strategic planning and priority setting within the mission. Scott wants the vision to be in the nine Board members of the park board. I think this will lead to further fracturing of the Board members." I find it strange and interesting that Tony Scallon undervalues his importance as a city council board member. I am truly grateful that Tony did not think that it was up to city staff to come up with a vision for Tony to implement. When the history is recorded about NRP, Milwaukee Ave. and Cedar Riverside land ownership, it was really Tony Scallon's vision as a (City Council) Board Member that greatly improved the city as I know it. I don't see why Park Commissioners should be functionally less responsible than other elected officials. One of my favorite books is Theodore Wirth's history of the Minneapolis Park system and if I have to win an election just to get a copy, it is well worth it. We are greatly indebted to his vision and his ability to communicate his ideas. I think if you look at his writings and number of different boards he worked with in his long tenure, you can see he credits the boards for the shared vision that has created this wonderful Park system. So if Jon Gurban can synthesize and communicate a vision to the board that makes sense to them that is great. But the responsibility of the long term plan is squarely on the shoulders of our elected officials. I can and I will say good things about Jon Gurban. I have been able to work with him on a variety of issues and I think one of the reasons that he has gotten staff support is that he has a great attitude of let's get it done. This in an environment where many things weren't getting done. He and I were finally able figure out a way of installing "our" solar panels on "their" roof at Matthews Park for the Seward Neighborhood solar project. His "goodwill trio" was a great inter department effort at solving problems that had languished for years at Park Centers. He is also working on changing the "silo" mentality of separate park divisions. But I disagree that the future of the park system is largely dependent on privatizing the Park system. Going back to the work of Theodore Wirth, his mission, carefully crafted with the Park Board Commissioners, was a system of parks that serves all the people. That in a nutshell is what the primary function and mission of the Park system should be. I think we need to be really careful when we have for- profit parks. When we veer away from that, you need to have a clear and defined purpose other than it might make money. If you asked me about some pragmatic criteria for making enterprise decisions I would say: The issues for me are issues of access, inclusion , history, affordability, mission, and corporate branding that diminishes "Park" branding. I think if we could agree that those things that provide access to all are a priority, then it helps us make budget decisions. Like would it have been better to have a free pool available to all or a water park that costs $180 for a summer family pass? Ideally in a budget process you look at what you want to do and define your core missions, you then design your system and structure to fit that and fund and fundraise to accomplish those goals. I think we need to talk about this "vision thing" I don't think Commissioners should be standing on the sideline waiting for a superintendent to come up with ideas as some have suggested. It is also essential to keep the public involved, not just as voters every four years, but actively informed and involved participants. Thanks, Scott Vreeland Seward REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
