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.
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.)
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.