Re: “SCRD chops, changes advisory committees” (Coast Reporter, Feb. 5).
SCRD Board:
I am concerned about the plan to disband SCRD volunteer advisory committees. Advisory committees are not simply another form of public engagement. These volunteers play a much more committed and in-depth role. Some committees include experts in a particular field who are selected to give advice based on specific knowledge, experience and expertise that neither the members of the board nor the SCRD staff normally possess. Examples are the Agriculture Advisory Committee, whose members are farmers and others actively involved with local food production, and the Natural Resources Advisory Committee, comprised of geographers, biologists and others with similar scientific backgrounds. Committees such as Dakota Ridge and Recreation and Parks have members with a real passion for the subject area they are discussing and usually many years of experience working (paid or volunteer) in the field.
While there are many different kinds of volunteer advisory committees serving different purposes, what they all have in common is the commitment of their members. Unlike other public engagement processes where members of the public participate on a one-off basis, such as public forums or hearings, advisory committee volunteers commit to monthly meetings that last several hours, they read lengthy and complex reports and come to meetings prepared to discuss often esoteric topics, and they are willing to make this commitment for several years!
Advisory committee minutes appear in their entirety at standing committees of the SCRD. They are therefore part of the public record. Committee members have the benefit of being part of an ongoing conversation and their commitment over at least a two-year period provides a level of continuity other public engagement processes do not.
If there are problems with terms of reference, those can be tweaked. If you feel that some committee members have been there too long, take a look at the number of terms a member may serve.
At this time, no alternative public engagement process has been presented. Is it prudent to do away with the advisory committee structure before it is known what will be replacing it? I ask the board to take another look at this and reconsider. There is no reason why the SCRD cannot keep advisory committees who play such a valuable role and develop a robust program of public engagement. Surely there is a place for both.
Thank you, Mark Lebbell, for opposing this proposal!
Donna Shugar, Roberts Creek
