INYO SCORES GOOOOOOOAAAAAAAALS
Forget the life coach pablum that, “the journey is more important than the destination.”
For the five Inyo County Supervisors, the journey to reach agreement on a dozen “goals” was a morning-long torture session. The agonizing journey then consumed the afternoon, highlighted by putting each proposed goal to a vote of the five.
Finally, after arriving at the “destination,” it was unclear what action would be taken to achieve those goals or speed up ongoing efforts to achieve them.
The “goal and priority setting workshop” could be summarized as a workshop to determine what topics will be presented in future workshops to the supervisors.
Not surprisingly, there were no big surprises in the final lineup. Topping the list were: Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and volunteer fire departments; wildfire prevention and emergency management; roads; Health and Human Services; seniors; housing; the Bishop Airport. Inyo County does not directly fund or set policy for most of those priorities.
Then came a string of familiar issues and complaints. At the bottom of the priority list were homeless services and economic development.
“There is nothing more frustrating than not knowing what your boss wants,” stated Inyo County Chief Administrative Officer David Fraser, who facilitated the session on Monday, June 29, at Cardinal Village Resort. About 30 county staff members, including elected officials, department heads and managers attended the event.
Fraser tried to frame the discussion by noting high-flying overviews from 70,000 feet should not be included. Nor should goals listing what to do “on the ground” or detailed plans “at treetop level.” A 30,000-foot view would be a nice middle ground. “Goals not projects” was the objective.
The airplane view analogy, however, flew over the heads of numerous participants.
The supervisors and staff unloaded a big list of potential goals, priorities and, alas, specific projects.
A sampling: ballfields at Millpond; federal and Los Angeles land releases; small business support; county water systems and non-county water systems; cell phone dead zone in Wilkerson; broadband access; housing; homeless services; healthcare and indigent care; plumbing issues in the county courthouse; supporting local hospitals; supporting EMS and fire departments; county work culture; property taxes; raising more money; seeking more funding from federal land management agencies; preparing for weather extremes and emergencies; the role of the Eastern Sierra Council of Governments; tribal consultation and cooperation; the role of county advisory boards; economic development; county facilities; courthouse hot water; and deferred maintenance.
The afternoon brought a call from Fraser to have the supervisors narrow the list, weeding out the “project level” suggestions. That left 26 potential “foundational priorities” that the supervisors, he said, had to rank in order of importance.
That order was greeted with hemming and hawing, declarations that issues are “complex and intertwined,” or are all important thus too difficult to prioritize, muttering about already having improvement plans, strategic plans, and serious budget constraints.
Finally, Fraser stopped the excuses. “If you don’t come up with priorities, everything we’ve done so far has been wasted, even the lunch sandwiches.”
He imposed a voting regime requiring three supervisors to agree: Pick one: EMS or housing? Or housing or airport improvements. The “winner” got one point. That technique, pitting two goals against each other and having the supervisor choose one, was repeated for all the 26 listed goals. That process resulted in each goal getting a total numbers of “votes.”
Whether there will be any notable action on the top five goals remains to be seen.
The list from one to five and some background: supporting EMS/Fire/Search and Rescue (the county has started funding EMS and volunteer departments, the Sheriff is responsible for SAR); Wildfire issues (regional and state and federal guidelines and funding); roads (primarily using state and federal funding); HHS and healthcare support (federal and state funding expected to be cut by millions in the coming year); emergency management.
The next five: Seniors (again, mostly outside funding sources); land use (a county task, but with state constraints); Millpond improvements (limited parks funding for parks and campgrounds); and housing (the county does not have a housing department).
The priorities earning double-digit mentions: Bishop Airport/Air Service; county organizational culture; emergency communications; broadband access; county water systems and county facilities; developing county staff; and new sources of revenue.
The next steps, Fraser said, will be for county staff to create strategies to keep the supervisors informed about the status of their priorities. Plus, the inevitable slate of topic-specific workshops to inform the board of the opportunities and limitations regarding each priority or goal.
The journey continues, in other words.
