HomeMy WebLinkAbout101024 email - JCSO Citizens Advisory CommitteeALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
TO COMPLY WITH THE WASHINGTON OPMA, THIS EMAIL IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY - DO NOT REPLY
Dear Joe,
I've been attending CAC meetings since March, as a CAC member since May. I understand that the JCSO is understaffed and the CAC does not, and should not, have the hihest priority, so
my critique below should be understood with that in mind. I respectfully request that the contents of this email be added to the agenda for discussion at the November or January meeting.
Also, I want to put my critique in context. As some of you know, I've served on many citizens advisory committees, a few in Jefferson County, but mostly in the City and County of Los
Angeles. Three examples are below.
* L.A. City Dept. of Environmental Quality (chair for 3 years) with about 25 members.
* L.A. Mayor Tom Bradley's Citizens Advisory Committee on Rapid Transit (Executive Committee member for 1 year) with 135 committee members participating in about 8 subcommittees, and
17 on the Executive Committee.
* L.A. County Transportation Commission (Chair for 1 year) with over 100 members in several subcommittees, and a 15-member Executive Committee.
The members of these CACs were all dedicated and actively participated in assignments given to them with deadlines, as well as providing suggestions and feedback they generated on their
own.
I have two areas of concern regarding the JCSO CAC.
* CAC meetings are little more than a social gathering. The members don't seem very interested in actually doing anything. For example, there has been little to no effort to do the following:
* Review and provide feedback on the draft long range plan needed for accreditation; I'm the only member who provided feedback.
* Provide input on past and future preparation & training for mass active shooter incidents.
* Communicating with Jefferson County residents in the areas they have responsibility for and bringing their concerns to the CAC for discussion, as required by Section II of the CAC
By-Laws. I informed residents in the area I thought I represented via the NextDoor social media platform that I was a member of the CAC and that they could contact me with their concerns.
When I did mention a matter of concern that was brought to my attention, one member of the CAC chastised me for doing so and suggested the person with the concern should bring it up
to the BOAC.
* Tthe JCSO has not done enough to ensure that the CAC is effective and satisfies the objectives stated in the By-Laws and the BOCC Resolution 39-16 that created the CAC in 2015. For
example:
* The existing strategic plan that was approved by the BOAC over four years ago had not been updated and was provided to the CAC for review only after I asked for it. I was the only
CAC member who provided feedback.
* The CAC By-Laws that has been under review by the legal department (County Prosecutor’s Office?) for many months was provided to the CAC for review and comment only after I asked
for it. I was the only member who suggested any revisions, which were appropriately discussed and dealt with.
* After promising in the July CAC meeting to update the JCSO website's CAC page with a list of CAC members with the areas they represent and an official JCSO email address so county
residents can contact them, this has not been done.
* The CAC web page has a link to the "Archived Agendas and Minutes" but only the agenda or the September 2022 meeting exists there. This link is misleading and should be removed until
the archive is updated with the relevant documents. This is important information and should be present since all meetings are supposed to follow the Washington Open Public Meeting
Act. As I understand it, this means documents such as agendas and minutes that are emailed to CAC members should be available for public viewing.
* There are only 7 CAC members out of the 15 that are authorized and nothing has been reported to the CAC regarding efforts to recruit more members. The lack of active, interested members
renders the CAC ineffective for the most part.
Respectfully,
David Tonkin