Mary's MAC and its future in the new District 2?? Around Town, posted by Hal, CDSI Research, a resident of another community, on Sep 2, 2011 at 9:24 am
What will be the role of the “Alamo MAC” in the new district 2?
This question repeats among Alamo region neighbors that fail to see any role for Mary’s seven volunteer staff members beyond their support of Supervisor Piepho and her current/past staff. With declared allegiance to Ms. Piepho’s former chief of staff as a candidate for district 2 supervisor, neighbors are convinced that the Alamo MAC will end its purpose in Alamo at next Tuesday’s meeting. Ms. Piepho, present/past staff and MAC members have little recognition or approval among the majority of Alamo residents and as a result MAC members will have little purpose in the new district 2.
What is expected Tuesday evening is a “love-fest” as MAC members celebrate their last meeting as part of District 3. Reportedly, Mary’s current and past staff will be present to celebrate what they consider to be the successes of a MAC that has never gathered support, recognition or participation by a majority of Alamo residents or any significant results for the community. It appears a location and agenda for Tuesday’s meeting has not been published and rumor has it the event will be more like a farewell party.
As a journalist, there is a story to be told about the next stage for Alamo’s participation in the new District 2.
Posted by CDSI Update, a resident of another community, on Sep 3, 2011 at 7:42 am
It seems we have an answer without answers: Web Link
In the BANG article, CCC-MAC Alamo’s role is correctly explained as “The group advises the county on issues in the unincorporated area” but failed to recognize that the seven volunteer staff members have no relationship with the majority of Alamo residents. In a quote, Supervisor Gayle “Uilkema said she has no intention on changing the members, whom she believes would be knowledgeable of the area. She also has no plan to end the group and said she finds municipal advisory councils helpful.” It leaves a curious question, if the CCC-MAC Alamo members are strangers in their community, out of touch with the will and interests of Alamo residents, and unable to offer interactive discussion, consideration and mitigation in community issues with the county, how can that be helpful?
Alamo residents have the answer as they continue to ignore mostly meaningless MAC agendas and unwanted parks and recreation, tree lighting and highway 680 landscaping programs that are the primary focus of these strangers in Alamo. Will such lack of recognition, support and communication carry over to Supervisor Uilkema when she comes to Alamo?
Posted by JIM, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Sep 3, 2011 at 10:34 am
SORRY MY FRIEND YOU ARE OUT OF TOUCH, WHEN YOU SAY ALAMO RESIDENTS DO NOT WANT PARKS AND THE TREE LIGHTING. PERHAPS YOU SHOULD ATTEND ONE, AND INTERACT WITH THE REAL PEOPLE OF ALAMO. I CHALLENGE YOU TO BE MY GUEST AT THIS YEARS TREE LIGHTING AND THEN TELL ME AND THE REST OF THE READERS TO THIS SITE THAT IT IS NOT WORTHWHILE, AND BY THE WAY THE COUNTY IS A SMALL BUT VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE FUNDS NEEDED FOR THIS VERY WORTHWHILE EVENT
Posted by [clarification], a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Sep 3, 2011 at 4:11 pm
JIM is correct that Alamo neighborhoods support our annual Holiday tree lighting in the Andrew Young Park in the business district. What Alamo neighborhoods do not support is the MAC's plan to put street lighting permanently in the trees lining the business district. A more desired solution is street lighting for Alamo's business district and major roads including underground utilities, covered drainage and walking paths along the roadside.
As for PARKS, please refer to the CC LAFCO study that clearly illustrates less than 7% of Alamo residents use Alamo parks and recreation programs. This was confirmed by <600 individuals out of >13,000 residents in <5000 residences responding to the MAC R-7A survey earlier this year.
Posted by CDSI update, a resident of another community, on Sep 8, 2011 at 8:49 am
A second segment on Contra Costa Municipal Advisory Councils and their unworkable policies focused cooridor subscribers on the lack of interaction, consideration and mitigation offered the community or region such CCC-MAC’s serve. MAC members in west, central and east county acknowledged that communication is difficult at meetings with residents and often at-odds with residents. Specific questions related to CCC-MAC policy comparisons before and after June 2006 illustrate the separation of MACs from their communities and make them a staff function of the supervisor’s office. Most specifically, MAC members are appointed rather than elected was acknowledged by current MAC members to be the issue that distances MAC members from their community.
In the segment distributed to subscribers this morning, MACs are illustrated as five to seven staff volunteers working for a supervisor with little ability to address all the functional services due a community. MAC members noted that they are seldom asked to address issues important to their communities because the supervisor, staff and county departments commonly do all review and make all decisions. Certainly in Alamo, the most common subject is R-7A parks and recreation and for the most part CCC-PW and the Town of Danville decide the uses of our parcel taxes quite without residents’ preference as illustrated in the CC LAFCO report that few in Alamo want or use parks and programs.
This separation between the MAC and Gayle Uilkema will only grow as five of the seven Alamo MAC members have endorsed the Tomi van de Brooke for district 2 supervisor. It makes the Alamo MAC at-odds with the current supervisor and staff and further alienates MAC members from a community that had the MAC forced on the community by the arrogance of Mary Piepho and Tomi van de Brooke. As noted in the segment, Tomi approval rating in Alamo and the 24/680 corridor as district 2 is very low. It appears the five MAC members violated CCC-MAC policy with no potential result except the loss of relationship with Alamo and inclusion in a CCC Grand Jury report on violations of their appointments.
The story that was important for EMCEB to feature as redistricting takes affect was told to subscribers. What is unique in the subscriber segment is the interest at the state level in the performance of CCC-MACs as defined by State Statutes, “Do MACs exist in their region or community with purpose and function serving the interests of residents?” So far legislative analysis only proves that such MACs are volunteer staff seldom heard by their supervisor. It seems that a Governor’s committee is now intent on defining MACs to better function for their communities and be more representative of the residents’ will and interests in an update of state statutes.
Your readers need your journalism and to provide more than aggregated politics’ news releases in our region.