[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Committee assignments for Matt

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Appelbaum, Matt



Colleagues – I’ll check in as well with my rather minimal request for a committee assignment: continuing at the Colorado Municipal League (CML) (and also at the National League of Cities (NLC), which isn’t really a “committee assignment”).
 
First, some context, which is a bit long but I hope helpful.  We recently seem to have decided that the mayor should, in general, be assigned to very few of these committees, and, apparently, none of the internal committees.  This is presumably
 due to the fact that the mayor is a permanent member of CAC, and also the city’s representative to the Metro Mayors Caucus (MMC) and the US36 Mayors and Commissioners Coalition (MCC).  I think this approach is generally OK, although as a rather new and informal
 concept we’ll see if it sticks in the future.
 
MMC, whose retreat was today, has been very busy over the past couple of years due to its leadership in transportation issues.  I’ve attended many dozens of meetings of three related committees on statewide transportation, regional transportation,
 and FasTracks.  This effort will no doubt continue this year, but at a greatly reduced pace; I would expect perhaps five to ten sessions at most.  I’ve also been on the MMC Executive Committee, and will continue in that role.
 
MCC has also been absurdly busy over the past two years, both with at-least monthly, formal MCC meetings, and also with NAMS sessions and any number of other gatherings.  I expect this too will calm down quite a bit once NAMS is complete
 (fairly soon) and we come to what I hope will be a very positive consensus agreement on how to move forward.  The MCC also takes a yearly trip to D.C.; this year that will occur at the end of February, and we’ve timed our city/CU visit to D.C. to coincide
 with the MCC trip.
 
I’ve served as one of the city’s reps to the CML policy committee for several years, starting before I was, or thought I might be, mayor.  As with many such assignments to represent the city at external bodies, it takes time to build relationships,
 which are of course the key to credibility and success.  As I think any of you who have joined me at a CML event know, I have worked quite hard to build those relationships with a very large number of CML regulars, including staff of course – and I believe
 it is accurate to note that Boulder has been quite well-respected at CML (thanks in no small part to Carl’s great work) for several years now, as well as quite successful.  (No, we aren’t as successful at getting a seat on the CML Board, but that’s likely
 due to the simple fact that most of the voting members are from tiny, often conservative, communities that still, unfortunately, find it hard to support our candidates.)
 
As Suzanne noted, the CML Policy Committee meets only 3 or at most 4 times per year, always during the day, at CML’s offices in Denver.  It is also very helpful – both for information and for the all-important schmoozing – to attend their
 all-day legislative workshop (mid-February; all can attend, not just committee members), and at least part of the multi-day annual conference (mid-June; again, all can attend, although it’s a bit pricey).  I’ve attended both of these for several years.  There
 is also, not surprisingly, considerable overlap among folks I meet at CML events, Metro Mayors, and NLC, which I find very useful.
 
NLC is a special case.  Boulder hadn’t been active in NLC for some time when I suggested that I’d like to get involved.  It isn’t, in my view, particularly worth it to just attend the two, annual NLC conferences – although going to one
 of them from time to time should be considered by everyone (and several Colorado cities bring their entire councils).  But I think it is quite worthwhile – and important for Boulder – for us to get involved in NLC’s policymaking and lobbying efforts.  Thus,
 and with some luck, I quickly got appointed to the steering committee of EENR (Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources Policy Committee) – where over the past three years I’ve served twice as vice-chair and just finished a year as chair.
 
I’m still on the EENR steering committee, have served on a number of NLC task forces, represented NLC on a national EPA committee and at an international conference, and serve on the steering committee of NLC’s Sustainable City Institute. 
 I may consider running for the NLC Board this fall.  I believe it is essential that Boulder be a player at the national level, and NLC is one good place to accomplish that.
 
So, I’d obviously like to continue on NLC.  While this does not require an “appointment” by council, it does need, I think, council approval due to the cost involved.  EENR meets four times/year, twice at the conferences, and twice elsewhere. 
 Travel and conference registration costs are not insignificant.
 
A final NLC thought: many cities have multiple councilmembers involved in NLC.  I think it would be great if we had a second person, preferably one who would get on the steering committee of the Transportation and Infrastructure (TIS) Policy
 Committee, which has been something of a problem for EENR in that it tends to focus on road-building.  I don’t know if I could get someone on the steering committee at this point, but I think I’d have a good shot at it since I’m friends with NLC leadership
 and staff.  Of course, this would also cost the city and might not be the best use of limited funds for this sort of activity.  In addition, anyone interested in this needs to be available for about a dozen days out-of-town each year.
 
Finally, this seems like a good place to mention two other groups of potential interest that we’ve never really discussed.
 
First, the US Conference of Mayors (USCM).  So far as I know, Boulder has never been a member.  This is a much smaller group than NLC, composed – not surprisingly – only of mayors.  It seems to get amazing access to congress and the administration,
 probably because most of the big-city mayors are members.  And it tends to align very strongly with Boulder’s agenda (we’ve often signed onto their position statements), more so than NLC (although NLC is far better than it might be given its broad membership).
 
However, we’ve tended to feel that most of the mayors at USCM are of the “executive” flavor, and that Boulder would both by size and by organization be a rather small player.  I don’t really know if that’s accurate, and I certainly know
 mayors of our sort who are leaders at USCM.  But this too costs money both for attending conferences and travel if one is going to be active (and why bother otherwise?), and there would be some scheduling difficulties.  And, of course, it is mayors only, which
 may exacerbate some understandable council concerns.
 
Second, the Mayors Innovation Project (MIP).  This has about 150 members, cities of all sizes – and many aligned with our viewpoints.  Colorado members are Denver, Golden, and Aspen.  They have two meetings/year to discuss issues of interest,
 generally tending toward sustainability from what I’ve seen.  No doubt it’s a good place to learn what other cities are doing and make useful contacts.  There is a small yearly fee, plus, as always the travel issues.  And, again, the mayor issue.
 
We regularly get invited to both USCM and MIP, often being cajoled into attending with various first-time discounts.  Whether either of these is worth it is difficult to say, and we obviously can’t do everything – but there are many opportunities
 out there that we have chosen to ignore.  I happen to think that Boulder – of all places – should be more involved with (inter)national groups than we are, and at some point might want to investigate further which, if any, of the myriad possibilities deserve
 a closer look.
 
--Matt