05-15-14 Envision Connecion Project Executive Board Minutes MINUTES
Envision Connection Project Executive Board
May 15, 2014
7:30 pm
City Hall Council Conference Room
Directors Present: Jim Heidelberg, Philip Lund, Dean Penk, Wendy Rubinyi, Mike Schleif,
Marshall Tanick, Blair Tremere
Directors Absent: Mike Berger, Lynn Gitelis (chair), Sharon Glover, Cindy Inselmann, Helene
Johnson
Other: Cheryl Weiler (Staff Liaison)
1. Call to Order
Vice-Chair Heidelberg called the meeting to order at 7:48 pm with a quorum.
2. Approval of Agenda
Rubinyi moved the approval of the agenda and Penk seconded. Motion carried.
3. Approval of April 17, 2014 Minutes
Tremere moved approval of the minutes, Rubinyi seconded, motion carried.
4. Work Plan and Budget
Penk suggested discussing another summit. The Board looked at the budget and discussed how
to move funding from other events to pay for it. Heidelberg asked about timing. Schleif said it
would have to be in 2015. Board discussed how to tie a summit to the community center project.
Heidelberg asked Weiler about the Community Center Task Force schedule, which she outlined.
Tremere said it would make sense to focus a summit on the community center. Penk said
Envision should ensure the community center project has appropriate community input. Tremere
said it would be appropriate to have a summit in 2015 focusing on community input on the
community center. Penk said another option would be to recommend to Council to get citizen input
on the community center. Tremere didn't think it appropriate for Envision to get involved unless
Council asks them to. Rubinyi pointed out the Board agreed to form a subcommittee on another
summit, that the group needs a budget item for that event, and that the issue should be
addressed. Heidelberg clarified that she wasn't asking for additional funds, and Schleif asked why
everything gets scaled down, why not add to it? Rubinyi said she wanted to keep the budget flat.
Heidelberg asked for a motion. Schleif moved to add $2,000 to the budget for a summit in 2015.
Penk seconded. Lund said the summit would have to be "bang-up" to succeed and that he didn't
think people are responding to Envision and Bridge Builders. Schleif said if the legacy of
ineffective marketing continues, it won't succeed. Motion passes.
5. Projects and Council Updates
Continuation
Tremere handed out Resolution 13-52, the latest Envision memo, and a report he prepared
summarizing the Envision Board's accomplishments. He then asked what it means about the
Board completing its charge by 2014 and said the next question is "What is the charge?" Next yet
is "What still needs to be completed?" He said these questions need to be answered before Board
representatives meet with the City Council and suggested asking the following questions of the
Council:
• What is the charge going forward?
• What is needed to complete the charge?
• Is the sunset a completion date or something else?
• Does the Council see this Commission as different from the others?
He then suggested the following questions for the Board:
• What does the Board need to communicate to the Council?
• Will the last transmitted letter suffice?
• What does the Board need to know from the Council?
• Who on the Board will be spokesperson at meetings with the Council?
• Who are the current champions of Golden Valley Envision in the community, besides those
who are on the Board. Where are they?Why aren't they here?
Tremere said he extracted his report verbatim from the report to the Council in 2012. Is that, with
the transmittal letter, enough? He said he was optimistic looking at completion date not as a
sunset, but as a date by which to accomplish the charges. What comes next after the Board
accomplishes everything on the list?
Heidelberg pointed out the Council/Manager meeting is before the next Board meeting and asked
if the Board wanted to ask for more time or have a subcommittee tweak Tremere's materials.
Schleif pointed out that the Resolution mission points are not finite but ongoing in nature, so if not
us, who? He said he didn't see any other entity in the community doing a better job at these things
he values. Tremere suggested focusing on responsibilities. Have they been completed?Which
ones have been accomplished and which ones haven't. He said that in conversations with City
officials that#5 in responsibilities is interpreted that the Board's days are numbered. He said Penk
also heard the same thing regarding the Foundation. Tremere suggested the Board tell the
Council it's charge has been met and then ask what more it can do.
Heidelberg asked if the subcommittee is ready to go. Tanick asked of the Board should ask for
another month. Schleif said if the Board continues, most member's terms expire in 2016. Tremere
said it would be easy to tweak the report to the Council and the next thing would be to present the
report. Heidelberg said if the Board wants to continue, it should ask the Council for that. Tremere
said the Board already decided it wants to move forward and asked if everyone still agrees.
Schleif suggested reformatting Tremere's report to relate it to the mission in the Resolution, point
by point. Penk said to ask the Council if it still wants people to continue doing the things in the
Resolution.
Schleif moved that the Board should ask the Council for continuance beyond January 2015.
Tanick said he didn't think that was the question. Tremere asked if the recording secretary could
pause while the Board votes off the record. Weiler, Rubinyi, and Heidelberg said they couldn't do
that. Tremere then asked who believed the 2014 closing date was real. Heidelberg suggested
adding a chair and vice chair to the subcommittee. Tremere said the work of the subcommittee
was done and the body needed to decide what to do with it. Heidelberg followed up with two
questions: "Do we believe Envision should continue?" and "Do each of us personally believe we're
done as individuals?" Rubinyi said the issue is should the Board move forward, and then vote on
it. Heidelberg asked who will represent the Board at the June Council/Manager meeting.
Tremere said the subcommittee recommended submitting the letter and accomplishments to the
Council and then ask what the Board's charge is for 2015. Heidelberg said that means in very
rough terms the Board is asking for continuation. Tremere moved to accept and file the
subcommittee report with revisions as discussed. Tanick seconded. Motion passed. Tanick said
Gitelis and Heidelberg should take the report to the Council in June. Schleif made two
suggestions: 1) to relate the list of accomplishments to the five missions, and 2) if the mission is
ongoing, if not us, who? Lund said it seemed like the Board was attempting to validate its
existence by showing these accomplishments and that the Board wasn't focusing enough on the
need for connections and the value of it. Schleif tried to clarify his earlier motion, which was to
take a formal vote that the Board believes it should continue—not the particular individuals, but the
Board as a body.
Bridqe Builders
Next event is June 14, 10 am, Golden Valley Historical Society, for a sneak preview of the
remodeled building. Event needs to be publicized.
Vailev Volunteer Dav Plannina
i Penk said he contacted the former chair, who is making contact with people from LIVE in the
Valley.
6. New Business
Tremere will work with staff to revise the letter for the City Council.
7. Upcoming Meetings
Tremere suggested someone should announce the Bridge Builder meeting at the Commission
dinner.
8. Adjournment
Moved by Rubinyi and seconded by Schleif. Motio c ried unanim sl . he ti djourned
at 8:55 pm.
i Heidelberg, Vice Chair �
ATTEST:
��,
Cheryl Weil , Staff Liaison