The Key Peninsula Community Council:
An organization in search of issues, a budget, and an active constituency

 

Editor’s note
From time-to-time we plan to provide readers with in-depth analysis of organizations primarily focused on the Key Peninsula and its citizens. We begin the series with the Key Peninsula Community Council. We set out to interview every member of the council, and with one exception were able to do so. We feel this approach delivers more texture and nuance than is normally possible. By documenting all the organizations to which each council member belongs, we were able to assemble what amounts to a social map (click here to view the chart in Adobe PDF). Not a complete map of everything that happens on the Peninsula, but a fascinating look at how a relatively small number of people have a significant impact on our community.      

 

By William C. Dietz
KP News

 

According to the mission statement posted on its Website, “The Key Peninsula Community Council is a nonprofit organization whose purpose is to address, respond to and meet the needs of the community residents by developing partnerships, sponsorships and programs in order to maintain and improve the quality of life on the Key Peninsula.”

Lacking a better way to evaluate the council’s success, KP News asked council directors to comment on what they considered to be the group’s most significant accomplishment during 2007. Of the 12 people interviewed, nine mentioned the geoduck forum, which was co-sponsored by the council (with the KP News as the primary sponsor), as the group’s main accomplishment.

Director Lance McMillan, District Three, said, “The biggest accomplishment was the geoduck forum that we ran. That (topic) was, and currently remains, one of the hot-button issues out here. It was important to bring in an impartial panel that represented both sides so people could make up their own minds.”

Russ Humberd, council president and a representative for District One, felt the forum was important, but took it one step further. “Our greatest accomplishment was to get the community’s views regarding aquaculture in front of the Pierce County Council,” he said.

Danna Webster, who represents District Two, and also serves as an assistant editor for KP News, offered a different perspective. “Several members worked with the county on the Key Pen Comprehensive Plan. So for almost two years that was the focus. And meanwhile the council was getting on its feet and finding ways to serve the Key Peninsula.”

Having joined the council only recently, Jerry Libstaff, who represents District Two, and writes the “Genuine Article” column for Key Pen News, declined to offer an opinion. (Director Jonathan Bill could not be reached for an interview.)

Goals for 2008

While there is a fairly good consensus about what went right in 2007, many of the council members seem less sure about what to focus on during the year ahead. Although many of the comments regarding 2008 incorporated shared elements, there were differences as well, especially where emphasis was concerned. Five council members chose to focus on the need for better communications, which they believe will lead to increased visibility, and a commensurate increase in membership.

David Figuracion, who, along with his wife, D’Arcy, represents District One, put it this way: “The most pressing goal is to get the word out that we’re here — and to get out and do some things that people can see we’re doing. I think a lot of people don’t know we’re here.”

There’s some evidence that Figuracion is correct. When asked how many people show up for the average meeting, Director Arlene Williams replied, “Three or four show up three or four times a year. More if an especially hot issue is up for discussion.”

Three directors were of the opinion that the council should sponsor more forums for the purpose of providing information to residents. Some, like McMillan, believe in active lobbying, “in order to get the concerns of people on the Peninsula in front of county officials.”

Others, like Director Frank Shirley, have a different view. “I don’t see any issue that has come up lately that we would be lobbying for,” Shirley said. “The Community Plan was the big one but that’s done now.”

Two council members advocate increased community involvement, by which they mean working with other organizations, and in the words of D’Arcy Figuracion, being “more actively involved.”

KPC mission The 14-member Key Peninsula Community Council was created in 2002. In accordance with new bylaws, elections will be staggered according to position numbers.  At the present time there is a vacancy in District Two but that is expected to be filled soon. According to its Website (http://keycouncil.org/index.html), the organization has the following roles: ·         Facilitate interactions between agencies, residents, businesses and nonprofit groups in an effort to develop solutions to resident concerns ·         Act as a resource for Key Peninsula residents, businesses and nonprofit organizations ·         On behalf of other community agencies and groups, may assist in fundraising and volunteer-recruitment efforts. Accomplishments during 2007 included: Completion of the Key Peninsula Community Plan Geoduck forum Candidate forum Representing the Key Peninsula to the Pierce County Council Organizational issues including work on new bylaws

Webster said: “A lot of community groups are coming to the council to be recognized and get advice. We can work as a go-between. We’re being used as a directory and that’s good.” Webster mentioned the KP 20/20 group, Safe Streets, and the Key Peninsula Business Association as examples.

Williams, who represents District Three, emphasized the need to get “more input from the people on the Key Peninsula on what they want us to talk about.” Meaning that without input from its constituents, the council can’t be certain of which issues or activities to pursue.

While there’s a seeming lack of a laser-like focus on what the council should try to accomplish during 2008, there is general agreement that the organization suffers from a general lack of visibility, and directors offered up a variety of strategies to correct that problem. Ideas included the creation of print or email newsletters, council-sponsored seminars on subjects of interest to local residents, tackling issues that are likely to garner more press coverage, being a more visible presence at community events, seeking out ways to network with other organizations, and releasing council agendas earlier, thereby encouraging the public to attend meetings.

Some of the ideas wouldn’t cost any money, like being more visible at community events, increased networking, and issuing agendas earlier. But other recommendations, such as producing newsletters, sponsoring seminars, and conducting a public opinion survey, would require funding.

Insufficient funding seems to be at least partially responsible for a lack of a consensus-driven direction. Shirley, who serves as the treasurer, said: “In order to accomplish some of the things they (the directors) have put into the budget, we need to raise money…  Last year we didn’t do any fundraising because we didn’t have enough money to raise money.”

A look at the budget supports that view. With only $5,798 worth of income during 2007, $5,000 of which stemmed from a county grant, the council was left with only $1,855 after basic expenses. That isn’t much money to work with, and District Two representative Barbara Trotter feels frustrated. “Our biggest constraint has been in the area of communications,” Trotter said. “And so far every idea we have come up with in that area costs money. I think that’s been the biggest constraint. Most people don’t even know that we exist.”

Extended involvement

The question of how much volunteer council directors can reasonably be expected to accomplish in a given year raises issues related to the 25-plus organizations to which the combined council directors belong. Is it possible to serve so many organizations effectively?

When directors were asked if any of their peers were so overcommitted that it was affecting their performance, none of them thought so, and Libstaff even went so far as to make the opposite case. “No, I don’t think it’s bad,” he said. “That’s the key to the council. The more we know about the people and what they are cognizant of, the better.”

Then there’s the issue of why the directors belong to so many organizations. Is it because they feel a need to be part of everything that’s going on? Or because no one will step up and do the work? Director Barbara Schoos, District Four, said: “Overcommitted? That’s probably true… But I’d rather have a council of overcommitted people than no people! All I can do is hope that more people get involved.”

Director Chris Fitzerald’s frustration was obvious. “I went to three meetings this week, and at all three meetings I saw many of the same people, and there are what, 7,000 families out here? And yet it’s the same 20 or so people trying to preserve the paradise that we have. It makes no sense. There’s a tremendous amount of apathy out here… Let the other guy do it.”

Proposed ethics reform As reported by the News Tribune on Jan. 30, “For the second time in two months, the Pierce County Council has tabled a plan to revamp the county’s ethics code.” According to the article, Tim Farrell, D-Tacoma, said the council needs additional time to find a compromise between competing proposals.

D’Arcy Figuracion said, “If certain people have problems with people belonging to multiple organizations, they should get involved. I know it isn’t easy, but if you want to see change, then you gotta do what you gotta do.”

Multiple memberships raise another potential issue as well — and that’s the possibility of conflict of interest situations. When asked to comment on that, McMillan said, “I know one person who writes for the Key Pen News and won’t participate in votes when she sees what might be a conflict.”

That person is Fitzgerald, District Four, who is a news editor for the newspaper. She says she often feels conflicted. “I struggle with it,” she admitted. “At times I consider resigning because of it. It isn’t easy to see things going on and not write about them.” 

As one of the paper’s editors, Webster finds herself in a similar situation. When asked about the paper’s policy regarding potential conflicts, Webster said, “The present policy is to reveal our memberships.” 

Generally speaking, most of the directors don’t see a problem. Shirley’s comment was typical: “You have to identify the conflict, and if that’s going to be any sort of a problem, then you just bow out of the decision-making process.”

Tara Froode, who represents District Four, agrees.  “There’s a limited number of people to serve in these positions,” Froode pointed out, “and I haven’t seen anyone try to profit or pursue their own agendas. If there’s a potential conflict, we should excuse ourselves.”

However, Froode, like some of the other council directors, also sits on the Key Peninsula Land Use Advisory Commission (KPAC) —an arrangement that one member of the community has raised concerns about. During a recent council meeting, Key Peninsula resident, and KP News guest columnist Rick Sorrels told council members that because KPAC reports to the Pierce County Council’s Community Development Committee, any KP Community Council director who serves on the KPAC could be in a conflict of interest situation, because, as Sorrels explained it to KP News, “The people doing the lobbying are the same people being lobbied.” A situation that Sorrels believes could be in violation of the proposed Pierce County Ethics Policy.

Schoos, who is a member of KPAC as well as the KPCC, said: “We talked about that — and we couldn’t figure out how that could be. We’re getting training, and it seems obvious that if a matter having to do with a neighbor’s land comes up in front of the group, you would need to recuse yourself.”

Trotter, who doesn’t belong to KPAC, had this to say regarding Sorrels’ allegations.  “No, I don’t agree with him. The Land Use Advisory meetings (are) open to the public. I don’t see any evidence that there has been any crossover or problem so far.”

President Russ Humberd is a member of KPAC, and when asked to comment on the possibility of a conflict of interest, said, “We have been assured by the county that there isn’t any problem. I can see what he (Sorrels) is saying, but we (KPAC members) don’t make a decision on anything. We look at the information that’s available and make a recommendation to the (Pierce County) Planning Board. So we don’t make the actual decision.”

KP News asked for the perspective of Mike Kruger, past senior planner for Pierce County who coordinated the work of the KP Community Planning Board, which resulted in the adoption of the Key Peninsula Comprehensive Plan, and subsequently, the creation of KPAC. Kruger, who is now a legislative analyst for the county council, explained the process this way: A land-use application comes to the county’s planning department. Planners perform a detailed analysis of the proposal and issue a staff report that goes to the KPAC. Members of KPAC evaluate the information received, hold a public hearing in order to get additional input from the community, and come up with a recommendation to approve, deny, or approve the proposal with modifications. That recommendation goes to a hearing examiner, who makes the final decision. Meaning that while KPAC can influence the final decision, it does not make the final decision.”

Having explained the process, Kruger added, “The only conflict I could think of would be if the Community Council was pursuing a project that required a land-use permit from the county. Then those members on the council who are also members of KPAC might want to abstain from voting on that particular matter. We encourage folks who are involved in their community to be on these committees. The main thing is to have people who are active in the community.”

Sean Gaffney, a senior planner with Pierce County, agreed with Kruger, saying, “They (KPAC members) are making recommendations based on adopted policy rather than starting with a blank slate and acting on personal opinions.”

So as the Key Peninsula Community Council looks ahead to 2008, the group will need to decide which issues to focus on, find ways to increase their membership, and bring in the money required to get things done. Can they do it?  “…2008 is going to be an action year,” Webster promised optimistically.  “It’s going to be a fast ride.”

     

 

BACK TO TOP