Task force to form small subcommittees, keep work public and meet monthly

Chair opened the meeting and proposed small subcommittees to advance projects between full sessions, saying the groups would research issues and return recommendations to the full task force. “We really need to get into turning over some rocks,” the Chair said, urging more detailed review in smaller teams.

Members debated whether subcommittees should meet publicly or work informally and then report back. Committee member 2 argued that closed subgroups can move projects forward without repeating groundwork at every meeting, while others warned that secrecy would fuel public suspicion. Committee member 5 framed the tradeoff: “Communication with the public is the most important thing,” and recommended monthly public reporting so the public is not “locked out.”

The task force agreed on a compromise: subcommittees may meet separately at times and locations convenient for participants (Gary’s conference room, county training rooms and similar county facilities were discussed), but each subcommittee must provide a written report and a brief public verbal update at the main monthly meeting so the public can follow work. Committee member 2 also proposed structuring public comments at the main meeting and limiting speakers to three minutes to keep meetings focused.

Members assigned volunteers to lead the initial subcommittees and encouraged those groups to define project scope at their first meeting (identify project goals, stakeholders and an initial timeline). The group set a monthly cadence for full meetings to receive reports and agreed to coordinate subcommittee times with staff to ensure public notification.

The meeting closed with a commitment to circulate notes and county data packets so subcommittee members and the public have the metrics that will guide future recommendations. The next full task-force meeting was set for the second Thursday of August at 11:30 a.m.