|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
At risk of dissolution, a Mountain View advisory committee focused on older residents squeaked by, with enough support from the City Council on Tuesday evening to continue its mandate to work on issues related to seniors in the broader community.
In a 4-3 vote, the City Council decided not to dissolve the Senior Advisory Committee (SAC), instead preferring to give it another chance to elicit more community participation.
Mayor Pat Showalter and Council members Alison Hicks, Emily Ann Ramos and Margaret Abe-Koga voted in favor of keeping SAC as a formal committee, albeit with some modifications at the Tuesday, Dec. 10 council meeting.
“I’m just a little concerned with the upcoming dramatic growth of seniors,” said Council member Hicks, who pulled the consent item for discussion. “Sometimes it’s called the ‘senior tsunami.’ We would be just dissolving the committee without any talk about the needs and how we might address them and get input,” Hicks said.
In September, Council member Matichak broached the topic of sunsetting the committee, along with the Public Safety Advisory Board, because of the large number of vacant seats.
The Senior Advisory Committee has not been able to meet for more than a year because of a lack of quorum, and recently dropped down to just two members. It’s supposed to have up to seven people on it, according to the council report.
The committee was established in 2009, and has a close connection with the Mountain View Senior Center, sharing resources and program ideas.
But in the past 10 years, there has been conflict among members about how they should move forward, said Michele Petersen, recreation supervisor and liaison to the committee. A big concern for the committee also has been attendance and a lack of quorum, Petersen said.
Council member Ramos strongly supported the continuation of the committee and remarked on some of the barriers to access. Typically, meetings are held at 2 p.m. on Wednesdays, which can be difficult for people to attend if they are working, Ramos said. There also is the perception that only seniors can be on the committee, she added.
The committee used to have an age requirement of 55 years or older to serve on it, but that was dropped in 2021. Petersen noted that the earlier meeting time was because people had a preference for not wanting to drive in the dark.
Council member Ramirez expressed strong opposition to the continuation of the committee in its current form. As a formal advisory committee, it is subject to the Brown Act, which imposes a lot of regulations, like requiring in-person meetings. This can impact seniors who often face mobility and health constraints. It also is not possible for the committee to discuss topics that have not been put on the agenda, potentially stifling participation, Ramirez said.
Ramirez advocated for a more flexible kind of advisory group, not subject to the Brown Act. “I feel like we’re at risk of confusing processes for effectiveness. I think if we want a group of people to do good work for our community, we should empower them to do that and not subject them to the constraints and burdens of a process that actually impedes their ability to do good work,” Ramirez said.
Council member Abe-Koga pushed back on the proposal to dissolve the committee, expressing discomfort with singling out individual advisory groups instead of conducting a more systemic review. “If we want to look at what commissions or committees to keep, I think we should look at them all and look at the history and the context,” she said.
Abe-Koga also noted that advisory committees serve as good training for people interested in public office and described the importance of expanding opportunities for civic engagement.
Community input at the council meeting was limited, with just two public comments, including one from a resident who recently submitted an application to serve on the Senior Advisory Committee.
Mayor Showalter expressed concern that the public did not receive enough notice that the city was considering dissolving the committee. “We really haven’t given the people in the community a chance to say, ‘Wait a minute, do we really care about this?'” she said.
Still, Showalter and others noted some of the limitations of the committee and proposed tweaks to it, like reducing the number of members to five to meet quorum more easily. They also suggested opening up the committee selection process to anyone interested in senior issues and to expand the scope to better address the concerns and needs of seniors.
The council settled on giving the committee a nine-months grace period to reinvigorate itself before further review.
“There are more levers that we could do instead of pulling the plug on it. So, I’m not inclined to withdraw it without taking a look at some of those levers because I do think there are people that are willing to serve on this committee,” Ramos said.
