Log In


Reset Password
Opinion Editorial Cartoons Op-Ed Editorials Letters to the Editor

Utilities commission

Disbanding advisory board would have chilling effect on citizen participation

The city of Durango has a hefty roster of advisory panels whose function is to study and advise the City Council on matters of public concern. Many of these boards consider matters of significant fiscal impact to the city; all of them have policy implications to the extent that elected officials consider the commissions’ input. These appointed bodies are advisory in nature, and their recommendations are therefore not binding, but the expertise the commissions comprise – and insight they generate – benefit discourse and decision-making in the city. That is particularly true when many tens of millions of dollars are being discussed, as is the case with the city’s utilities commission. Disbanding the board, as the city is considering, is wholly inappropriate. The reasons for it are even more so.

During last year’s lively discussion about where and how to replace the city’s wastewater-treatment plant – a universally recognized need – the utilities commission, whose members collectively possess significant engineering experience as well as many years of engagement in the city’s utilities-related conversations, expressed concern, then alarm, then protest about the apparent push from city staff to rebuild the facility in its current Santa Rita Park location. Commissioners were concerned that city staff never fully considered alternate locations, despite requests from the board that they do so. The commission’s chairman resigned as a result. Two others left the six-member panel after the sewer plant meltdown, and a commissioner who was an outspoken opponent of the city’s handling of the issue will see his term end at the end of this month.

That leaves two remaining members, a great deal of uncertainty and a particularly bad taste in the commission’s mouth. It does not inspire confidence in the city’s commitment to public input and civic engagement that there is active discussion about disbanding the utilities commission altogether. City Councilor Dick White, who serves as the council’s liaison to the commission, framed the conversation starkly: “We’ve hit a rocky road for a year or so ... Should we just get off the highway? Or what are we going to do?” The latter question is worth asking at today’s meeting between the commission and the City Council; the former is not.

While there is a clear need to rebuild trust between the City Council and staff and the utilities commission, both parties must endeavor to do so. Punishing the commission or its individual members for failing to advise according to the city’s desired outcome sends the strong message that the city is looking not for advice but for confirmation. If that is the case, it is difficult to muster any confidence that participating in a city commission is a meaningful way to participate in the community. When vast sums are at stake, as is the case with the $58 million wastewater-treatment plant, it is particularly disheartening to imagine that the city would really rather not hear what its residents have to say. But the issue remains for all other advisory boards whose function is to inform and help shape city policy, whether or not spending is involved.

However difficult it might be to heal the rift between the utilities commission and the city during the wastewater-treatment plant debate, the alternative would be far more harmful to good governance and civic engagement in the community. Rebuild the utilities commission and restore confidence that citizen participation is a valued and valuable commodity.



Reader Comments