Will a CCC-MAC remain unwelcome in Alamo?
Original post made by [removed] on Oct 4, 2011
Melissa, government law counsel resident in Alamo, has circulated analysis of effectiveness of Contra Costa County Municipal Advisory Councils ("CCC-MAC") under new policies authored by Mary Piepho and Federal Glover in 2006. In cooperation with news service researchers, Melissa used interviews with current and former CCC-MAC members and leaders of communities to be served by such MACs to determine if community residents' will and interests are being served by current MAC's throughout Contra Costa County. The overall response from such interviews illustrated a major flaw in the 2006 CCC-MAC policy as the restriction of MAC members from having interactive discussions, considerations and mitigations with residents in the communities they serve. MAC members further noted that they cannot form committees of local residents for study of major issues in communities due to CCC-MAC policy restricting all committees to only those appointed MAC members.
Tonight, Contra Costa County Municipal Advisory Council for Alamo will meet at Hap Magee Park for the first time as District 2 volunteer staff. Melissa points to the posted agenda on www.alamore.org as absent any subject important to Alamo's majority and the lack of detailed description of MAC members' discussion of the topic list. Based on the agenda provided by Supervisor Uilkema's staff for tonight's meeting, the conclusion by Alamo residents is nothing has changed and CCC-MAC Alamo remains seven volunteer staff members of the supervisor's office without connection or role among Alamo's majority.
We will look forward to your coverage of the results of this meeting and your views on the impact of a new supervisor for Alamo.
on Oct 5, 2011 at 7:40 am
I sat through the meaningless drivel of the October 4 CCC-MAC Alamo meeting at the request of Alamo neighborhoods. CDSI courtesy to neighborhoods was to determine if Gayle and staff were going to make a difference in MAC members' ability to serve the majority of Alamo residents. I have already reported that there is no interactive discussion, consideration and mitigation of major issues impacting the will and interests of Alamo neighborhood, business district and community groups. Quite obviously there is no consideration of any issue important to the >8200 voters that are participants in Alamo neighborhoods or the overall neighborhood participants in the region from Saranap to Blackhawk.
Supervisor Uilkema has engaged Ms. Jill Ray, email@example.com, to be her liaison at CCC-MAC Alamo meetings and would be the appropriate contact for Alamo neighbors to express their expectations for operations and agendas. Alamo residents might wish to comment on the issues that previously divided the MAC from community support and participation:
1. MAC members Bowlby, MacDonald, Best, and Evans violated CCC-MAC policy in endorsing Tomi van de Brooke for District 2 Supervisor using their MAC titles.
2. Parks and recreation programs are not used by the majority of Alamo residents or aligned to interests in natural open space and self-directed recreation.
3. Inclusion of lighting and landscaping, as Z-36 parcel tax purpose, in R-7A funds usage for unwanted tree lighting in the business district.
4. Traffic management including removing Alamo from the consideration of Tri-Valley Transportation Council.
5. Plans to attract more commute traffic to Alamo by landscaping and identifying the Alamo off-ramp using R-7A funding.
6. Failure to review the impact of diversion of traffic from Diablo Road to Green Valley/Stone Valley corridor due to Danville's illegitimate development approvals.
7. Another reconstitution of the P-2B committee and the designation of a new chair without community consideration or notice.
8. Continued use of "fill out a card, wait to be recognized, do your 3 minutes and then shut up and go away!"
Your journalism is needed in determining what community organization or agency can represent the will and interests of Alamo region residents.