Minutes:
3 March 2005 Steering Committee Present: Brian Shupe, Phil Huffman, Nancy Elkington, Jean Butman, Holly Boyce, Cecilia McGuire, John Fedor, David Cunningham, Tina MacMillan, Whit Humphreys, Heather Potter, Joe Trenn. 3 PM Whit called the meeting to order. Minutes of 16 February 2005 and 24 February 2005 meetings were read. Brian and Phil had a few changes to 16 February 2005 Minutes - John will make changes before they go into the file. Whit read draft of letter to VLT and UVM regarding budget. Phil spoke about the budget and about mapping. Phil discussed his perception of lack of trust of VLT as indicated in the 24 February 2005 minutes. Brian and Phil spoke with Whit this afternoon after they read the 24 February 2005 minutes. Brian says their responsibilities are to Benson, not VLT - who is their employer. David addressed his and the Steering Committee’s reasons for lack of trust. The Steering Committee wants control over maps even if produced by VLT. Cecilia: The Steering Committee presents this project to the town so we are concerned about the perception of an underlying agenda. We want a clear and clean presentation of the project.
Heather: We have a sensitivity about the choice of words and language, which will have a big impact. Even how things are portrayed on a map will have a big impact.
Jean: Perceptions of the public color how people hear things.
Whit: Sensitivity to language is more difficult than sensitivity to intent.
John: I suggest we move forward and address the trust issue only if something comes up to cause the Steering Committee to have the reason to discuss it.
Brian: The 24 February 2005 minutes imply it is an issue now.
Joe: We don’t have the funds for the work.
John: What is the total amount of the grant?
Brian: I don’t know, but $25,000 is for me, Phil and Claire. There is $7,500 for each of us and $2500 is reserved for all expenses. Most of the $2500 went to mileage.
Jean: So there was no money for us planned in the budget?
Phil: There is now $750 available without taking money from the Project Team. We never intended to fund all the items on the Steering Committee’s list of engagement techniques.
MUCH DISCUSSION about lack of communication about funds before 16 February 2005 and about no time now to fundraise for events which will take place very soon. There were expectations that funds would be available for direct costs and now the necessary funds are not available. If there weren’t funds available, this should have been communicated to the Steering Committee up front. Phil: If the Steering Committee wants to do all the community engagement techniques listed, then the money has to come from someplace and the Steering Committee members would have to pay if they want to do all the events.
Phil: We [Brian and I] want to move ahead only if there is trust among all of us.
“Our fear is that we will end up in a state of distrust again in the future maybe a month from now”
Nancy: The vagueness has led to my feeling of mistrust.
Nancy: The late date of the $500 budget disclosure leads to a lack of trust.
Brian: It does not seem like the Project Team and the Steering Committee are on the same page.
Jean: Grant and budget issues have left us feeling not on the same team.
How do we move forward?
Though the Steering Committee asked three times recently, the Steering Committee did not insist on a budget for the project BEFORE identifying goals, products and engagement techniques.
This was the fault of the Steering Committee.
Brian and Phil made suggestions for the letter to VLT and UVM: 1. Consider scaling back in the early language in the letter.
2. Look hard and try to reduce the money requested.
The discussion ended with Brian and Phil indicating that they have never walked away from a project in their history of working with towns as planners. The implication was that they were considering walking away from this project. Began brief discussion of questionnaire. Began discussion of new timeline: The Steering committee indicated their desire to eliminate the Big Public Meeting and keep to the original intent of the Conservation Fair, which was to gather information, not to present results.
Brian wants to keep the Big Public Meeting.
Phil wants Conservation Fair to simply present results, not gather information from the public.
This is the opposite of the Steering Committee’s wishes as discussed at the last Steering Committee meeting on 24 February 2005.
Brian and Phil said that they would shortly email their intentions and plan for the proposed Big Public Meeting for Steering Committee members to review.
Phil: I recommend canceling the Recreation Forum.
John: It requires no budget.
Brian: This is true.
Phil: I think recreation should be included in the Big Public Meeting.
David: The Recreation Forum is necessary.
Next meeting scheduled for 17 March 2005 at 3PM - prior to the next PLACE event. Review Talking Points for Phil’s introduction at first PLACE event at 7 PM today: Phil handed out his talking points as we left the room. There was no time to discuss them.
Adjourned at 5:35 PM. Respectfully submitted John Fedor | 
