Billy Dennis is reporting that the city is planning to de-commission the Heart of Peoria Commission and redistribute the members to other city commissions, most notably the Planning Commission. This has all come up relatively quickly, so I’m not going to have many comments on it until the HOPC meets (May 25) and we have a chance to discuss it. I will say a couple of things, though.
First, the part about putting Heart of Peoria Commission (HOPC) members on other commissions should be no surprise, since that was the recommendation from the city’s Committee on Commissions (item C.4.). The specific appointments to these other commissions that Billy lists on his blog are only suggested at this point, as not all commissioners have been contacted to see if they are able or willing to serve on those commissions. I have been contacted and have expressed my willingness to serve on the Planning Commission. I think dual appointments are a good idea, and infusing New Urbanism principles into these existing commissions will make them and the city stronger.
As for the HOPC being decommissioned, that’s something that needs to be discussed. I knew this idea was out there as a possibility, but I didn’t expect to see it coupled with the dual appointments as it was in the communication that Billy posted on his blog. There are a number of pros and cons to decommissioning HOPC, and I don’t know that all the ramifications have been thoroughly explored.
The idea promoted in the draft council communication would be to change HOPC from a city-appointed commission “to a private, civic commission, similar to that of Peoria City Beautiful, allowing the current and future members to meet as they wish, without Open Meeting Act regulations, to study, advocate, and take other actions as they wish related to the Heart of Peoria Plan and New Urbanism.” Another idea I’ve heard that was not listed, however, would keep the HOPC as a city commission, but have it meet more infrequently (quarterly, perhaps) to advocate for and educate on New Urbanism principles, kind of like it’s doing now.
I’m sure there will be some (ahem) spirited discussions about these ideas over the next couple of weeks. I think the dual appointments definitely need to be done because all the commissions need to have new urbanism principles represented. Whether the HOPC is decommissioned is still an open question for me. I look forward to hearing more discussion/debate on that idea.
The HOPC will never have much of a say leaving it the way it is, I’m afraid. This may be the best way to promote New Urbanism.
Joining the other commissions sounds good. I’m a little concerned that the HOPC could lose its identity or become diluted if it isn’t also maintained in some way. Would HOPC members on the planning and other commissions be eventually replaced with non-HOPC-type members?
Has to occur (whether in this manner or by future appts of individuals buying into that philosophy) if it’s going to have an impact on Peoria.
However, I love the part about making the commission a private committee so it doesn’t have to follow open meetings requirements. Have to say I think this is bad and will be a problem down the road. A group like this that is (hopefully) going to have a huge impact on development in Peoria should be open to all citizens to attend meetings, have minutes taken and transcribed, etc. Making it a closed group will cause it’s failure long-term. Motives and actions will be questioned based upon the lack of knowledge of how the group reached them.
The HOPC is (or at least should be) much different than Peoria City Beautiful!
Peo Proud: Wouldn’t any advancements in policy have to be discussed in open meetings in the various commissions that these commissioners will be serving on?
Wouldn’t the various commissioners still have to persuade other commissioners to vote for any ideas/polices being advanced in public?
CJ: As a private group — who would be providing the administrative assistance (taking minutes, etc.), the meeting space?
Who would be serving on the ‘new’ HOPC? How would appointments be handled?
What other type of ‘authority’ could the HOPC be given to give it more enforcement authority to increase its effectiveness?
Additionally, if the current proposed appointments to the Planning Commission are approved — Christopher Summers, Dick Schwebel, Joe Richey, Beth Akeson — how would three or more of you be able to meet in private to discuss New Urbanism which would then sound like planning issues for the City of Peoria without violating the Open Meetings Act?
Karrie — As usual, excellent questions. These questions have not been discussed yet (as far as I know), which is why I said I didn’t think the ramifications of de-commissioning HOPC had been thoroughly explored. It’s those kinds of details that need to be fleshed out.
also note that commissions are essentially political appointees (from volunteers), but appointed none the less, any future leadership changes in the many years down the road can influence this decision as well. Much to think about and to discuss.
The HOPC serves as a useful bully pulpit. I have to wonder if perhaps some folks didn’t like that pulpit and seek to silence it.
Karrie – I agree with C.J. – you raise good questions. I’m a little skeptical that the desire to infuse new urbanism into the various commissions (a good thing) will be done in a manner that ends up watering down the focus on the principles that the HOPC has been able to develop.
However, I’m somewhat comforted by the fact that C.J. is part of this and will raise these questions and others that need to be addressed prior to the final action. I’d just hate to see the progress that has been made – slowed or stopped.
Without knowing much in the way of information, I’m more inclined to support a HOPC, in essentially it’s current form and make-up, with members dual appointed to other commissions but without changing the current basic committee structure.
We’ll all have to take a wait and see approach for a week or so and see what shakes out.
O.K. this may sound a little odd, excuse my ignorance. The names of Planning Commission – Christopher Summers, Dick Schwebel, Joe Richey, Beth Akeson- do not overwhelm me with confidence. What I am tired of seeing is the same names and faces appearing as members of various commissions. I know they all want to be good public servants, but at what point does it become about ‘political – economic’ control in the city? I have talked with C.J. and judged him worthy. So many of Peoria’s ‘leaders’ have their hands in everything. Can we limit involvement?