Nevada’s Vision – We’re Not Quite There Yet
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Friday, May 14th was supposed to be the last meeting of the Nevada Vision Stakeholders Group, appointed by the Nevada Legislative Interim Finance Committee to assist in developing 5-year, 10-year and 20-year strategic plans for improving the State’s quality of life. With the rather strong negative public outpouring of opinion on the draft “Preliminary Executive Summary”, the “last meeting” turned into a session for members of the group to put forward more recommendations for the consultant from Moody’s Analytics to use if drafting a more complete report for action by the group.
The timetable outlined in Senate Concurrent Resolution 37 says that the consultant is supposed to be delivering the report to the Senate Interim Finance Committee on or before July 1, 2010 – so there is some time for improvements to be made in building a better report than what we had to work with. The necessity of making use of that time was also an idea that nearly each of the members made in their comments during the May 14th meeting. Another “last meeting” to improve on the work product to go forward is a good idea with the possibility that the outcome could include a much better vision for Nevada that the draft was suggesting.
Although there were some hurt feelings about the nature of the criticism that was leveled against the initial draft, the increase in the public awareness (at least in Southern Nevada) and by those who obtain information from news sources which are paying attention to the project is also a good thing. The editorial opinions of the Las Vegas Sun and the thoughts of public opinion-shapers from the Nevada Policy Research Institute have raised the attention levels to establish some type of blip on the public’s radar screens. Other writers of the area have also contributed their perspectives, which have added to the mix. Brian Greenspun and Tom Mitchell are a couple of the more noteworthy authors who have done outstanding work in getting their views out for public consideration of the details being hashed around.
There hasn’t been as much attention given to the topic, especially in the Reno area, which is cause for concern by those who think that Northern Nevada might possibly have a reason to be interested in what a vision for Nevada might look like. Although the main print media outlets for Northern Nevada news haven’t paid much attention, there are those who have been watching and who have weighed in with their perspectives on subjects/topics being raised.
Perhaps controversy doesn’t make for the most effective venue for discussion of these public policy matters, but without passion and opinion interchange the “vision” of a select few doesn’t make for a very doable future either. A group with a great deal more input than the Vision Stakeholders received, the SAGE Commission, presented their well-discussed proposals and have not been able to make as much progress in getting Nevada Legislative buy-in as one would have imagined they should have. Those proposals came complete with specific actions (as compared with the more nebulous Vision Stakeholders’ Draft proposals) and directly linked fiscal impacts (as compared to the inferred increased potential costs that the Vision Stakeholders’ Draft offered).
We’re not quite where we need to be in seeing clearly what the report is going to tell us on what our Vision is going to be. So waiting for more details and having lots more conversation are good things, which should be done with a lot more public citizen engagement along the way.
Friday, May 14th was supposed to be the last meeting of the Nevada Vision Stakeholders Group, appointed by the Nevada Legislative Interim Finance Committee to assist in developing 5-year, 10-year and 20-year strategic plans for improving the State’s quality of life. With the rather strong negative public outpouring of opinion on the draft “Preliminary Executive Summary”, the “last meeting” turned into a session for members of the group to put forward more recommendations for the consultant from Moody’s Analytics to use if drafting a more complete report for action by the group.
The timetable outlined in Senate Concurrent Resolution 37 says that the consultant is supposed to be delivering the report to the Senate Interim Finance Committee on or before July 1, 2010 – so there is some time for improvements to be made in building a better report than what we had to work with. The necessity of making use of that time was also an idea that nearly each of the members made in their comments during the May 14th meeting. Another “last meeting” to improve on the work product to go forward is a good idea with the possibility that the outcome could include a much better vision for Nevada that the draft was suggesting.
Although there were some hurt feelings about the nature of the criticism that was leveled against the initial draft, the increase in the public awareness (at least in Southern Nevada) and by those who obtain information from news sources which are paying attention to the project is also a good thing. The editorial opinions of the Las Vegas Sun and the thoughts of public opinion-shapers from the Nevada Policy Research Institute have raised the attention levels to establish some type of blip on the public’s radar screens. Other writers of the area have also contributed their perspectives, which have added to the mix. Brian Greenspun and Tom Mitchell are a couple of the more noteworthy authors who have done outstanding work in getting their views out for public consideration of the details being hashed around.
There hasn’t been as much attention given to the topic, especially in the Reno area, which is cause for concern by those who think that Northern Nevada might possibly have a reason to be interested in what a vision for Nevada might look like. Although the main print media outlets for Northern Nevada news haven’t paid much attention, there are those who have been watching and who have weighed in with their perspectives on subjects/topics being raised.
Perhaps controversy doesn’t make for the most effective venue for discussion of these public policy matters, but without passion and opinion interchange the “vision” of a select few doesn’t make for a very doable future either. A group with a great deal more input than the Vision Stakeholders received, the SAGE Commission, presented their well-discussed proposals and have not been able to make as much progress in getting Nevada Legislative buy-in as one would have imagined they should have. Those proposals came complete with specific actions (as compared with the more nebulous Vision Stakeholders’ Draft proposals) and directly linked fiscal impacts (as compared to the inferred increased potential costs that the Vision Stakeholders’ Draft offered).
We’re not quite where we need to be in seeing clearly what the report is going to tell us on what our Vision is going to be. So waiting for more details and having lots more conversation are good things, which should be done with a lot more public citizen engagement along the way.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 5/17/2010 3:15 PM 
Categories: Nevada Vision Project
Tags: Vision Group Nevada Budget State Spending Taxes Nevada Legislature
Categories: Nevada Vision Project
Tags: Vision Group Nevada Budget State Spending Taxes Nevada Legislature
Thank you for being there for the people! Without people and organizations like you this country would be spiraling down at even a faster rate.
Reply to this