I would support submitting questions similar to 5,7,8 and 9 - affordability in our neighborhoods and the FAN vision being the primary focus.
1 Like
As a Council member, what actions / initiatives will you advocate to help resolve
(1) Affordability
(2) Mobility
(3) Segregation
and how does moving to a more compact and connected Austin support your vision / strategy for addressing each?
Perhaps some variation of the above may somehow cover in a more open ended manner the areas @jonbrewer drafted, do so in a format @rcauvin suggested, and include specific highlights @harren alluded to.
1 Like
or, if you want it really simple, and to the point, some variation of:
How does moving to a more compact and connected Austin fit into your vision / strategy for addressing our affordability, mobility, and segregation issues?
I’m on board with the FAN vision questions, and believe the Affordability one can really be a subset of Q#8, and some of the others could be fit in to the Questions Frank Harren pointed out.
We spoke in a recent Board Meeting about keeping the questions limited as a way to differentiate ourselves with the other organizations soliciting answers, and also keep the FAN vision in the forefront.
I’d fully support something with Qs 7, 8, & 9 as a way to punctuate the drivers behind the more targeted policies affecting taxing, transportation & zoning.
1 Like
Actually I think I’d like to put a more positive spin on Q#9 & sort-of combine it w/ Q#8.
I like the idea of making the distinction btw N’hood and City issues in Q#7 and would only barely make any changes there:
This would give us room for one more Q if we want to have 3 total, and the specific one about Affordability could then be included. I tried to reword it so that it would also align with the Imagine Austin priority of Household Affordability but could also play into Compact & Connected:
Please keep in mind that these are all fabulous questions, and I hope that each of you can ask the more detailed & policy driven ones directly to Council candidates. We’ve got some of the Reddit AMAs underway, and hope to provide that forum to do so publicly in the near future. Stay tuned here in the atxfriends forums for more details when we get them scheduled.
There are also a bunch of in-person opportunities with other organizations around town. Check out the FAN calendar for those events with Austin Monitor, League of Women Voters & Austin Technology Council.
I’m concerned about using the word “growth” in our questions. It sounds like we’re either in favor of growth or believe it’s an inevitable negative thrust upon us. Our vision statement doesn’t use the word.
FAN’s vision speaks to “welcoming new residents” in our neighborhoods and housing type diversity. The theme is accommodating people in our neighborhoods. I worry that “promoting neighborhood diversity and inclusion” isn’t direct enough in challenging candidates to say what steps they would take to accommodate more and diverse people in high-demand neighborhoods.
The FAN vision also speaks of being “supportive of neighborhood improvement rather than the unsustainable status quo”. I see this point as distinct from accommodating more and diverse housing and people in our neighborhoods. It really strikes at the heart of our philosophy and approach. We don’t see change as a bad thing; we see it as an opportunity. Neighborhood “protection” has, unfortunately, become neighborhood protectionism.
Please do consider improvements to the language, but I hope we don’t lose the spirit and poignancy of the questions rooted in the FAN vision.
Should we have a questions that asks something specific about CodeNext in some way like #12?
1 Like
@rcauvin I guess our perspectives are different in that I’m taking the approach of not leading a candidate “to water” with our questions to suss out if they understand our vision, and it seems like you are perhaps challenging them to rise up to it.
I’m used to framing my questions to my co-housing applicants as such, because it’s easy to say one thing when you’re cued to do so. As an interviewer it can be hard to discern if the resulting answer is a quality / belief the person actually holds or is pandering to the base.
If the purpose of the questionnaire is to have a record of their answers as something to them accountable to, then I can understand your approach.
How about I at least change the first one to reference the candidate’s time in office then? So regardless of the diversity in housing changes, it would read something like:
1 Like
I think making the questions open ended is a great approach. My concern is about vague, not open-ended, questions.
More importantly, I don’t want to merge distinct concepts from the FAN vision. The issue of neighborhood improvement versus protectionism is distinct from the issue of welcoming an abundance and diversity of people in our high-demand neighborhoods. Trying to combine them into one question loses one, the other, or makes it so vague that it’s doubtful the candidate will address the issues.
But I can certainly see how the word “protectionism” has negative connotations and leads the candidate to describing policies that aren’t protectionist. However, I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. An open-ended call for specific policies and actions that a council member would take to improve neighborhoods could be very enlightening. And I think explicitly contrasting improvement with protection(ism) is clearer.
I think it’s a legitimate question, @Pete_Gilcrease, but it’s definitely a different “flavor” of question than the FAN vision questions. The FAN vision questions are broader and much more explicitly tied to the vision. And no other group or questionnaire is going to ask the FAN vision questions. I’m sure other groups will ask about CodeNEXT.
Let’s go back to what unique value we can provide. Candidates are receiving questionnaires from perhaps a dozen groups. Many of these questionnaires will contain overlapping questions. I’m a strong proponent of asking questions that no other groups are asking, asking fewer, more open-ended questions, and grounding those questions in the FAN vision.
If we obtain the answers from other groups’ questionnaires and combine them with the answers to our questions, we’ll be able to put together one of the most comprehensive and informative compilations of candidate responses, thereby enabling the membership to have an informed basis for its candidate preferences.
Please let’s consider a different approach to conclude, this and others. Skills based.
My earlier questionnaire suggestion for consideration, was more of a Rorschach test, very open ended, having come from an environment that included helping write and administer tests for PhD Psychology students, and Masters level statistics / marketing research work. Not necessarily fully applicable here, so take it where you want, but…
I am happy to punt the entire thing to Roger without question, knowing his professional skill set and background with the group and mission. Let’s get it done.
@alyshalynn, @Pete_Gilcrease, I do not think we need to burden any leader with having to be the expert on everything or having the final say on same. That is a no win proposition for them, the Board, and members - we need to empower people, and in this case - I highly recommendt Roger.
Thanks for considering.
Sorry, I’m just now catching up with this thread.
My concern is that many of these questions come off as very urbanist-specific, and FAN is not an urbanist interest group. We use terms like “incumbent residents” and “neighborhood preservationist,” which many people aren’t familiar with, and which come off as perhaps a little too aggressive.
Maybe we should keep the questions more general and let the candidates do the talking? Ask them how they plan to address affordability, transit, etc. and let our members decide for themselves if they like the answers, rather than trying to lead them to the “urbanist” solution
@cevangill, @rcauvin, @Pete_Gilcrease, @alyshalynn, @jonbrewer, it would be nice to get a questionnaire in front of the candidates. They are busy. Better if they have time to respond in time for voters / campaigners to consider how they view FAN’s priorities in the process. Please decide how to close, the only wrong answer is no answer, or one too late to be relevant…
In addition to the possible structures offered earlier in this thread, we could consider:
What do you see as Austin’s biggest issues / challenges, and what actions would you advocate to improve on each?
or
FAN’s vision is a, b, c, and how does your vision for Austin align or differ? I agree with others, it can be a loaded question, which is why 17 days ago I offered another structure for consideration.
@cevangill, I don’t follow the urbanist-specific comment, please elaborate. I understand that FAN is a supporter of the “Imagine Austin” plan for the cities future, which dictates that the “compact and connected” vision be implemented.
I don’t think the FAN Vision questions push the candidates in an urbanist direction, unless you think the FAN vision is itself urbanist.
As for affordability and transit, plenty of other organizations will be asking those questions in their questionnaires, and I don’t see much added value in our asking the same ones.
Our unique angle on neighborhoods and policy is rooted in our vision. I believe our questions should be, too. But I’ve now said that at least three times in this discussion thread.
@rcauvin, 26 days ago @jonbrewer proposed a template to work from, which was well received. 19 days ago I tried to take his framework and incorporate feedback from others, which Jon perceived positively, if others did not, no worries. Since that time there have only been well though out opinions, but not any obvious counter proposals, and it is clear one is needed. The the early November election date is not negotiable…
May we kindly ask that you provide proposed language for the Council candidate questionnaire?.
@Phil_Wiley, I really appreciate the attempt to break the logjam and the perils of trying to author something “by committee”. I also appreciate your trust in me to lead the charge in distilling the diverse input (I second the kudos to @jonbrewer for the collaborative spreadsheet brainstorm) and putting together the final-ish draft.
I’m going to take your suggestion and create a Google Form with the questions I think are best. However, while I appreciate your support, and I don’t sense that level of support from others for the approach I advocate. So we can hopefully get things moving, I’ll make a motion for the board to approve it. (We take all potential policy resolutions and positions to the membership for a vote. This decision is not one of policy, but is operational.)
1 Like
All, I’ve drafted a questionnaire. A preview of it is here. (If you have any trouble with the link or viewing the preview of the form, let me know).
As discussed above, my guiding principles in selecting the questions were:
- Grounded directly in the FAN vision.
- Allow for free-form responses.
- Minimize the number of questions.
- Ask questions that complement, and don’t duplicate, what other organizations are asking in their questionnaires.
I would prefer to eliminate the affordability question, since so many other organizations are already asking it, and because doing so would have the number of questions follow the “rule of three”. But I included it because several people in this thread seemed to think it was important to include it despite these factors.
@rcauvin, thank you for the draft. If the level of support within the organization is not there for one approach, perhaps we should consider (3)?
Appreciate that you want to incorporate the FAN vision.
Appreciate that @Pete_Gilcrease wants to incorporate CodeNEXT, as that is our best chance to achieve it.
Appreciate that @alyshalynn wants to include other related issues, of which there are many she (and all of you and most of us) supports.
May I suggest that you each get one question to propose and coordinate for overlap? Although many have contributed to getting FAN this far this fast, I don’t think any would debate that the three of you have earned it, deserve it, and this should be exercise that brings us together, not divides us.
If we are not united the logical alternative is to vote on preference for different proposals, and the need to go there is not compelling.
Thanks, Phil. The board has approved the questions I selected, and we’ll be sending the invitations to City Council candidates tomorrow.
2 Likes
All, the 2016 Austin City Council candidates’ answers to the FAN questionnaire are [here] (http://www.atxfriends.org/austin-city-council-candidate-questionnaire).