Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Perry Boyle's avatar

One thing I missed in this article. KURA acually adopted a plan for what it was supposed to do, way back in 2010. You can find it here: https://www.ketchumura.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/urban_renewal_agency/page/38370/adopted_2010_plan_with_signed_attachments.pdf

The good stuff starts on page 127.

Frankly, this plan makes a lot more sense than how they have been operating under the Bradshaw regime.

Expand full comment
Liz's avatar
Mar 17Edited

Long post here. Please bear with me.

There is a clear remit/mission here: investing taxpayer dollars in Ketchum’s infrastructure. The question of WHO makes those decisions is what is at stake. Is it insiders choosing amongst themselves, or is it a fairly represented cross-section of the Ketchum community?

More inclusive and transparent decisions depend on a truly representative cross-section of the community being authentically involved in decision-making. Random selection of regular citizens, stratified to represent the community in terms of demographics, accomplishes this.

What might this look like in Ketchum? Extrapolating from other places where more inclusive and transparent government is a priority (Bend, Ft. Collins, Boulder), it might look something like this: a randomly-selected citizen panel/jury/assembly (whatever you want to call it) of 10 or so residents, paid for their time, that is tasked with making infrastructure decisions, as KURA does now. In places where this has become a permanent feature of government, citizen panels rotate members for 1 year terms, with optional 6 month extension. This means a randomly-selected KURA citizen panel would never turn over all at once.

Members bring life and community experience to the table, and quickly become well-informed about the pros and cons of various options having to do with investing in Ketchum's infrastructure. Rather than pay some city staff (example: City Administrator who currently serves as KURA Exec. Dir, so is defacto serving at the pleasure of the mayor) for their time, that money could be used to pay regular citizens for their time, which respects the important contribution of regular people, who are always the true experts, especially when presented with information from all sources, not just government-curated.

This can be done. It is fair. Strengthens civic capacity. Leads to better decisions and a more informed community. Strengthens community.

It is remarkable what happens when government truly trusts the people it serves.

Expand full comment
26 more comments...

No posts