Development Standards Committee of The Woodlands Township

---

Recently, I attended a Development Standards Committee (DSC) meeting to observe what transpires these days in a regular meeting.  Resident attendance was abnormally high at this meeting.  There were one or two unusual resident issues to handle on the agenda available at the front desk, apparently creating a higher-than-normal interest. I picked this month for two reasons – (1) the Woodlands Board of Directors has been receiving applications for positions on this committee and are currently determining who will be appointed to the board for the coming year.  Next week, the board selects the new members. I was observing behaviors and interactions among the committee members and between residents and committee. (2) One resident has been telling his story publicly. I wanted to see what happened first hand on this particular issue.

I bring my observations for your consideration and interest. Walking in the door of the township service center, I found a number of residents and contractors waiting in the lobby. I signed the guest register for the meeting and proceeded to the conference room. I discovered that the protocol is to wait in the lobby until called, a bit different than other meetings where you just walk in. The committee was having a light dinner, so I returned to the lobby. A staff member announced the meeting was ready to commence, so we all walked to the main conference room.

Similar to a RDRC meeting, the committee sits in a U-shaped configuration facing each other and the overhead projection screen, with some visitors sitting on the side and others behind the chairperson. I understand in normal months, when there are fewer visitors, everyone sits to the side so that each can see more of the board member faces and the chairperson.     

On this occasion as others, in advance of the meeting it was recommended by staff to place a number of agenda items on the Summary List. That is, variances that had been reviewed and were considered to be OK as submitted or needed some modifications as recommended by an RDRC and the homeowners were present to acknowledge agreement. Also included was an application change of a property for Fire Station #8 on Gosling Rd.  These were all read to those attending and approved by one vote of the committee. The other requests were considered individually by the committee.

Several items on the agenda confused me. I either missed them or they were not considered at all. All were characterized as “consideration and action on legal action, regarding failure to comply with the Covenants and Standards for outstanding violations on the home”. But there was one of these that did make it to discussion that drew considerable attention. This one revealed a power struggle between a resident and the committee.  He was given 3 minutes to state his case and he did. The resident in his mind was repairing a fence that had been damaged by a hurricane. One of the fences encloses a dog area in his backyard. He also has an adjoining pool area enclosed by a fence, but that fence did not incur damage from the storm. Due to a change in height of the fence of the dog enclosure, within the limits of the covenants, he was asked to replace the fence pool area fence as well, based on consistency and appearance for the entire fence. Additionally, he was required to obtain a fence permit for his pool. He had volunteered to replace the fence for appearance but verbally refused to obtain a permit. Another resident came as a witness and also testified on his behalf. He was given 3 minutes. That gentleman was interrupted as he spoke because one member of the board and the chairman interrupted him and stated that what he was saying was irrelevant. I found that to be insulting, and am sure he did also. The proper way to handle the issue was to allow the resident to speak, receive the arguments he had and then tell the resident that the argument was irrelevant and could not be used to support the case. There is no reason to be disrespectful. I was uncertain at the end if the argument was or was not relevant, due to the way it was handled. The motion was made and passed requiring him to change the fence and get the permit. He walked out saying he would not comply with the permit request, because he already had a permit for a pool fence. His modifications would obviously exceed the safety criteria provided by the original permitted fence. Here was a case of an apparent power struggle. The human aspect of the situation did not seem to be handled very well. This could end up to be a high cost legal action for the township for a relatively minor issue.

In my view, residents generally managed to present their proposals easily enough with the assistance of staff, but it seemed that many were in a position of compromise. They wanted their application variance to be approved but looked to the committee for ideas to get it approved. For this reason, it appeared that much more information than necessary was discussed. In some cases, the resident was drilled on specifications of the materials being used, when in my opinion, those questions were simply irrelevant to the case. 

A desired outcome of a committee meeting should be consensus between resident and committee. There should be no feeling of superiority by the committee or a feeling of abused power upon a resident.  There should not be a feeling of injustice. All should be logical, guided by the covenants and common sense. Thinking beyond the box in this case, I think we may be a little short in due process. If there is a feeling of injustice, we should have a means for arbitration, if only to provide a means to hear a case of injustice, not on the technicalities of the covenants themselves.

Some of the case decisions considered by this committee can have significant financial impact. One application had a value of hundreds of thousands of dollars.  For this reason, some serious attention to skills must be given to the process of appointing a committee, especially the chairperson, who must make decisions on order and psychological impact. In fact, Experience is important but more important are the philosophies and attitudes embraced by the candidate. A candidate must embrace the covenants as his bible; he must possess excellent interpersonal skills; he must embrace objectivity in decisions; he must be able to distinguish between right and wrong ethically; he must know and understand the value system of The Woodlands; he must be respectful to peers and residents alike. This is a demanding job that should not be filled with a person unable to put himself in the shoes of a resident that is making the application and at the same time put himself in the shoes of his neighbors. The integrity and general quality of our neighborhoods depend on the decisions of this committee.

I can see that individuals on the committee should have certain roles to fulfill the needs of this job. Within the committee, some knowledge of architecture is required in some roles, but I do not see the need to have “experts”. We do need experience in The Woodlands for every single member. Each one should be a resident. We need at least one member able to communicate well, one who is efficient oriented, one who has neighborhood vision, one who will defend a resident, one who is technically competent  and one who has legal skills. The idea is to have a good effective team; we have to fill roles and skill needs on this committee for it to work as we would like it to work.

Election 2010 Apathy and Politics - Randy's opinion

I have heard various accounts of what happened on May 8th. Each one has its merits. However, most skirt the real issues by just calling the turnout “apathy”. One person characterized the 92% no-show as the "shame of America". From what I observed, the lack of turnout has numerous reasons that could collectively be called apathy. Many residents here believe the local government is complicated and beyond their available time and effort. Why vote on something that you don’t really understand, especially when things seem to be OK? We have had this problem ever since I moved here and long before. Apathy is just “leave it to the others to determine”.  If anything has changed since we became a township, we have a much better voting turnout than we did before, but the quality of the turnout may not have been so great. The turnout in my precinct was probably the highest ever, but not good enough to make a difference.

I’ve heard this question - "who knows what is right anyway?" And in some cases - "I don't even know what directors do! Do they have job descriptions?" Then there is the other simple perspective - "I go vote for someone I know, but I have no idea what the issues are. I trust the person, not the words." Personally, I understand both viewpoints. As a voter, I have been in both places. Circumstances around an election can create a feeling of ignorance to many and discourage people from coming to the polls, but that does not adequately describe what happened.

There were basic politics not too difficult to understand in this election. One candidate sought his position through one issue, thinking that issue was significant enough to get attention, and his solution would get him a position on the board. Nope. That does not generally work. The public was leery. Crime and policing seemed overstated anyway. There were other candidates who did not clearly set themselves apart from the incumbents; change is usually needed to take a position away from an incumbent. My team thought we had a good shot at Robb, because of his attendance and voting history, along with a solid issue platform which would have retained the waterway strategies of TCID for tourism and commercial expansion, but at a much lower cost. None of that seemed to matter, as it turned out, due to apathy and personal loyalty. Then there was a third person who entered the contest the same day as I did. She was endorsed by what I call the “anti” group of people. I am not an anti-establishment type of person; I am just a resident who wants to have an affordable quality lifestyle. I know how to get it done and why one needs to do it. The fourth candidate was not seriously running, so he was not on our radar.

It is tough for the working resident to sort out the issues and be able to make an informed decision on them. In this election, the voter had significant information provided by The Villager and the League of Women Voters, in addition to candidate websites and literature paid for by candidates, but many residents were not even aware of them. Unfortunate to challengers, the safe position for many voters is to vote for incumbents. After all, they have the "insights" into how things are run and have a great deal of knowledge and contacts, right?  Actually - wrong! Can you blame the voters? Yet there could be significant consequences from that attitude. Status quo through incumbent support eventually leads to a decay of living quality and lost opportunities for improvement. In this case, leaving it to others holds fast to the commercial-centric doctrine in lieu of residential needs. Consequences of this doctrine are not seen for the moment, but when the time comes, they will become evident. Then it is too late. Remember the stock market? Despite all the communication attempts, our residents generally remain an uninformed public.

Leaders of the community have a job to do in order to get more voters to participate, but that would not serve them well. They need to educate the public in a way that is clear and short, not in the terms of those seeking deep understanding, but that is not going to happen. Many of us question the status quo, but many also defend it as a safety net. A candidate's challenge is to gain voter confidence, so that the voter will truly listen. I understand that. I dealt with it daily when I was trying to describe my position on issues during the election. The more depth one wants to know, the more difficult it becomes to get the point across. The bottom line is that the public wants to elect candidates it can trust to make the right decisions for it, never mind the issues. That becomes the psychology of endorsements. What I call "limelight advertising" is reality in the eyes of many. Focus on the people around the candidate instead of the person. That hides the candidate's capabilities and presents an image rather than a person. It is also a social issue, blinding to the eyes of those who are not interested in local issues. It takes the common resident to vote in order to make a difference.

I felt most issues were simple rather than the reverse. Spending too much, wasteful spending, the need to have better alternative and contract selection criteria, the need to measure better, and last but perhaps more important than anything else, the absolute need for a director to tend to the business of the township instead of being absent from decision discussions and voting. Some people argued that work conducted behind the scenes of the township board meetings was more important than attendance at board meetings. I strongly disagree. Government should be transparent and arguments visible to the public. Otherwise those working in the invisible background should not claim any responsibility for successes. The evidence of performance is at the board meeting when one discusses a proposal and casts a vote. That participation could also be evident in open discussions with the public, but that is rarely seen in local politics. We do have town hall meetings for this purpose, but they are not sufficiently leveraged to affect many projects. Hot resident issues can be heard at these meetings, but they are not very frequently discussed with residents. I conclude that the Board of Directors remains a closed door operation to most of us, with political influence constantly used to gain support for individual ideas and perspectives behind the scenes. As long as that happens, we lack diversity in decision making, and our money is inadvertently channeled into pet projects. That was evident in the strategic planning exercise. Residents were not invited to participate in those proceedings, but the budget is justified on the outcome of that process.

So what happened out there on the 8th? I witnessed three groups of residents. (1) Those who feel like they don't have sufficient exposure to the government in The Woodlands or have no interest in local issues. These folks normally do not vote in local elections. This group constitutes at least 50% of the registered voters. (2) Family life comes first - hey it was Saturday. During the early voting there were homework assignments, getting home late, leaving early, and the old 50+-hour work week. No time for voting. This group is also very large and comprises most of the remaining 92% no-shows. (3) The voters – 8% of the registered voters who are oftentimes die-hard Americans, involved in local issues, appreciating the opportunity to speak out, and selecting the candidates who they deem best to serve the community. They are exercising their American privilege to choose.

In the 8% who did vote, I can think of six categories. (1) Status quo - give me an incumbent. I am afraid to change; (2) First on the ballot; (3) Loyalty: I know the person, have organizational ties, or I am from the candidate’s village; (4) Name recognition: I have heard of the person; (5) Issue-centric: based on ideals, desire for change, or values; and (6) Duty:  I am supposed to vote. Research often occurs at the polling location for these people. I believe the majority of the 8% group did their homework and were prepared to cast their ballot on arrival at the polls, but most of them voted personal loyalty for at least one candidate. If one looks at the voting demographics, I suspect the median age of voters was very high relative to the median age of the registered voter community.

What did the candidates do to get voters to the polls and vote for them? Money buys votes. There is no doubt about it. With money, you can also claim about anything you want. You have name broadcasting power. You can buy the biggest, the most, and the labor to get your message to the population. If you are an incumbent, you can claim virtually anything that went right when you occupied the position, to be your personal accomplishment. If you did not vote against it in an open meeting, then you are safe. You can also buy a following of people. If you have organizational power, you can influence your people's role and support from within the organization, including financial support.

Standing out in the hot sun earns votes. Being the last voice or image a voter sees before going into the voting booth is highly valued by the candidates. Being on location to greet them is appreciated by voters. I guess that depends though. I felt that the “hawking” done by candidates at the early convenience election location was frankly distasteful. Many voters chose not to be bothered and parked where campaigners were not allowed. The hawking had no value in attracting voters to the polls, but possibly helped to persuade them to cast their votes for some candidates. I was one of the few who preferred to go house to house and ask people to come out and vote. Calling friends brings loyal supporters to the polls. Going door-to-door educates the public. A personal “please vote” goes a long way.

Some of the things I heard occurring behind the scenes of this election made me bristle. Politics are not exactly ethical, you know. Candidates can be ethical, but their people may not. Signs were stolen out of yards for example under the cover of darkness in apparent attempts to remove advertising of targeted candidates. There were even reports of coerced contributions of skilled labor. Some activities by “supporters” disappointed me and some advertisement falsehoods disappointed me. There was no avenue to contest those claims except to spend more money.

In this election, residents were blasted by propaganda in every media possible. Many did not want to be blasted, so they turned it all off, throwing away the newspapers, and not answering or ignoring the calls. I heard "enough already" several times. I sure felt that way myself. "Another d*^# call from a machine!" How is it that a candidate can use a machine to call your home numerous times when you are on the national no-call list anyway? Is that ethical? Is it breaking the law? Also, why would anyone call from a church when that is against IRS regulations? Why did I get a call from Tommy Williams? Why did I get a call from Kevin Brady? Politicians were actually advertising themselves on someone else's campaign contributions. Maybe robo calls should have said "This has been a paid political advertisement for Tommy Williams and Ed Robb by the campaign committee for Ed Robb."  Why would anyone spend so much money anyway for a non-paying job? Ego? Issue? Ideal? Fun? Experience? Why? I am a voter and a stakeholder in this government, so I ask these questions. Don’t you? What is the motivation and why do certain political figures want to have a certain candidate in office, especially in light of that person’s past performance? Some people have connected the dots and made their own calculated conclusions.  Advertising can be informative and appreciated, but the repeated immersing of people in it is not.

Personally, I had one reason to run for office. I believe what has occurred on the board is not exactly right. That was exemplified by the all out campaign spending to maintain control of the waterway spending strategies and other projects. I bet there were some people who would have raised $100,000 and spent it, if they thought that was necessary to reach their goal. I draw parallels with the spending of our taxes. That leads me to think there is big money in getting all those people into office. Doesn’t it to you?

Look back at who endorsed the candidates and start asking yourself some of these questions. Politics here appears to run much deeper than any concerns about The Woodlands itself. Those currently in office are not suspected of neglecting township business in my mind, but I know the job can be done better at a lower cost. Government watch groups are chasing the money trails to check if there is foul play with money. They believe through those connections that we have an under-the-rug political machine operating here. They insinuate that some of the people on the board have personal agendas. The suspicion is raised to a much higher level when one looks under the umbrella of endorsements and favors. It is not about the quality of living in The Woodlands.  One person compared it to Chicago. That was because of the apparent money trail and endorsements. Well, let's see, a church where candidacy was announced from the pulpit without equal time to others (perception: my organization, I can do what I want). This raised the question of church vs. state in the minds of many. If one would compare the voting records against the church's membership role, some say the outcome would be obvious. I do not plan to conduct that study, but perhaps some organization or watchdog group should.

I have heard these thoughts from several sources, some from activists and others from long time residents. Several people say they are afraid to speak out, because they fear that they will not be heard in other matters, or their business relationships would be impaired. Influence and power drive them to be quiet. I am not one of them. My strategy is open and much easier to understand. We need to focus on one thing here – Be a great place to affordably live, that serves the entire family and community. Everything else takes a back seat.

For me, my values stand with those who originally came here, who developed the feeling of a hometown, those who walked to the store, even at night to get a gallon of milk for breakfast, in the darkness of the tall tree shadows. That is the way it was when I moved here, and that is the way I seek it to be in the future. Some people say we should not be out at night. Bah humbug. Quality and security is not defined in that way. Quality is defined and measured within certain focus points, namely safety, amenities, mobility, pollution, affordability, services, livable homes and our natural forest. Excellence in mobility gives us the complete freedom to move about anytime of the day or night. If you make the place not livable, then it is not the community we have known with the advertised values seen in marketing.

Residents missed an opportunity to make a difference on May 8^th.  Other opportunities will come along as life goes on. My hummingbirds returned to the yard five days after the election; I am going to double the number of grandchildren this year with my son’s announcement on Election Day. Yes, there are better things to do, but I do want to thank my supporters for their confidence in me.  A person can only offer to help. Some force it down the public. I will not. The community will likely continue to flourish but at a higher price than necessary. It will be a community of distinction, but maybe not one of quality. We continue to grow, but we are beginning to see deterioration, and we are only two years into the township. Now seven directors will manage your tax money. One of them was absent from voting for 37% of the decisions for the past several months. His loyal following and political allies voted for him to be on the board. 92 % of our registered voters remained quiet and allowed that to happen. If you are one of those quiet ones, will you allow it to happen again next year and the year after? What will it take to get you to help drive your own destiny?

Current candidate list for The Woodlands Township

Candidates continue to apply for the Township board positions. As we stated in the last article, there are four positions, each defined simply by a number. Each one is an at-large position. Incumbents occupy each one with one incumbent dropping out for personal reasons, leaving that position slated only with new candidates. Nominations remain open for those four positions, but will close soon.

Position 1 - Claude Hunter (incumbent) and Robert Tyson are vying for this position. Hunter has been a cornerstone of the community for quite sometime, highly involved in everything and reasons out all issues. It will be difficult for Tyson to successfully challenge him, but not impossible. Tyson is new to the scene but has challenged WCA directors for quite some time. He will need to convince the public that he is a team player to make any significant inroads to this position.

Position 2 -  Tom Campbell (incumbent) and Michael Donnelly are in this contest. I expect another person might emerge to join in this race. Donnelly, as a dissenter of the establishment, is a weak challenger, while Campbell is organized,  issue-oriented, and always willing to listen to the community, having  a significant following.

Position 3 - Lloyd Matthews (incumbent) has dropped out for personal reasons. He does not feel he can spend adequate time on the job in the next couple of years, so he was ethically obligated to step aside. We may see him back in two years. Those remaining in this race are Jeff Long, the last president of WCA. He is the strongest contender in that he has a great deal of experience in the community politically and has had significant influence on the transition to the Township. Running against him is Adam Muery who is starting a strong campaign based on policing the community. Muery is likely to make this race interesting. The last contender, Jay Mack Sanders is fairly obscure. I am uncertain of his doctrines or contention strength at this time.

Position 4 - Ed Robb (incumbent) has a strong hold on his position and has yet to be challenged for it. He is the pastor at the United Methodist Church on Lake Woodlands and has contributed significantly to the township board before and through the transition of government.        

I believe there will be more candidates entering the election. Some are probably waiting to see who is added on the slate before they select the incumbent they want to challenge.

Budget Police Proposal 2010

---

The new policing plan proposal of the Township will provide consolidated service for the entire community. It appears to be a cost effective program and accomplishes the goal to merge all resources into one package. Let me start by saying I endorse the proposal, because while reading this article, one might think otherwise. I do question if the proposed operating unit is sized properly. My focus is on the metrics and doing the right thing for the right goal. This proposal adds 0.9 cents to the budget. What is a $200,000 homeowner asked to pay for this service? I choose to use a $200,000 assessment because it is easily scalable - only $18 per year or $1.50 per month. I can see some political or psychological value of the proposal and logical value to the community, but am not convinced that we actually need the number of deputies in the proposal. People respond, “Can’t you see all the crime here?” I do not take a position because of the media, nor out of reaction to a short-term problem. Managing a business has been a long-term task for me. I’ve been here many years and talked to many people about the police manpower in this community. Personally, I do not like to invest in intangibles unless there is measurable value to them. Why would anyone do so when they can invest in tangibles, which have cumulative and long lasting value? So I will outline the plan, as I understand it, and outline what little portion of it that bothers me. Basically, I am concerned about the derivation of the proposal.

The proposed plan is to reorganize the Montgomery County law enforcement districts such that The Woodlands becomes its own district. Currently it is part of the large district 2. Having our own district, limits the trips outside of our area, except in dire situations. It makes the reporting easier and customization of services easier. What is more important is that it provides a captain over the Township, commanding the force – a single point contact accountable for costs, services and processes used for enforcement, directly reporting to the Sheriff and the Township, managing the personnel issues, and performing the reporting and administrative functions. District 2 is funded by the county and provides proportional police service to us because of our percentage of population in the county. In this plan, the workforce assigned to us from District 2 would be merged into the current Woodlands deputy force funded by the Township, forming one operational entity. We have known for some time that the merger has an opportunity to consolidate the resident patrols with the Town Center patrols. So we put all of this into one pot and call it The Woodlands District. This will enable an organization that essentially performs like a police force for a municipality. It conforms to the processes of the county, but it is flexible enough to tend to the needs of the community. Additionally, we pay for the cooperative policing in the I45 corridor with Shenandoah and Oak Ridge. That is an additional and debatable cost being phased out in the plan over the next two years. In the new plan, we would grow our contracted deputy staff by 27%. I have not yet seen all the details of the proposed Woodlands District plan, but the million-dollar price tag is staggering, and therefore my concern for metrics behind the proposal. I am certainly not alone in this, as I have had a few people express their similar concerns. It is still early in the budget process. I hope to hear from more of you on this and other issues.

Since we cannot execute the full plan in 2010 due to the county being under economic constraints, funds to hire the additional deputies to execute this plan are not available. In the first part of the two-year plan, 2010 would be a transition year, adding a patrol for the village centers. So you see, this will be part of the long term solution as well. Part of our taxes will go to commercial use, guarding businesses (and shoppers) in the village centers and their immediate surrounding area, perhaps snagging a bank robber or two near or in the centers. I see recent robberies playing a role here, even though the banks have elected to have insurance policies instead of guards. Currently, normal resident deputies serve the centers. So theoretically they would be more available to respond to resident calls or traffic issues, and the new deputies would provide a specialized service to all the commercial centers outside of Town Center. The cost for this part of the plan is $360,000, or 1/3 of the total. Commercial patrols would be divided into two zones. The north would serve Alden Bridge, Cochran's Crossing, Windvale and College Park. The south zone would serve Grogan's Mill, Panther Creek, Indian Springs, Walmart/2978, and Sterling Ridge. Coverage would be 80 hours per week by one officer in each zone.¹

Emotions are running high with some people in The Woodlands as a result of the number of bank robberies and other crimes, but we need just plain common sense to prevail. What alternatives were rejected in this proposal? It seems no one yet is presenting how we got here. This budget project proposal sounds good on the surface, but the details and history will tell the full story. I have not seen any metrics yet that drive the proposal nor have I seen metrics that tell us how many deputies we should have for the size of community we have and based on the workload of this force. For example, we need quick response when we call 911 and fairly quick response sometimes even when we call the non-emergency number. One stated goal of the project is to improve response. What is the current response? What do we need it to be? What can we expect different with the service level in the new plan? Those numbers are not (yet) published. What is the number of officers we have out on the streets on an average? I would think we should know the equivalent people on the streets for each given hour. (FTE patrolling). Accountability to operational metrics might also include a diversity of street presence. Instead, I see the metrics of the criminals. How many robberies, how many thefts, etc etc. Maybe one can staff based on the number of reported crimes, but that is not really a good way to staff, is it? The criminals, not the police force, determine that metric. That makes the criminals the drivers of our taxes. One can argue that the number of cars present will deter crime. I am betting that it would make little difference. One can call the number of crime incidents “the workload”, and it is just that to some extent, but it is certainly not clear that we have a handle on the number of officers needed for our community. Maybe the plan has too few, maybe too many. Metrics should be able to guide us through decisions that can be measured for effectiveness.

I know this could be considered a controversial article. It is intended to bring some resident issues to the table to stimulate thought. I know there are other residents here who have the same value system as I do, although they may have bigger pocket books than I. All good big capital project managers have value-driven metrics. Operational managers too will tell you they need meaningful metrics to make meaningful decisions. So when someone wants to spend our money on additional police, I have to ask, what will that money do for us and how was that number derived? Someone might say it buys you protection. I don’t think so. Read everything you can about policing and find out where the police have actually protected someone in neighborhoods. They are not guards, as we employ them. They are responders to help people when called. Then and only then do they normally provide something of measurable value.

We asked for additional law enforcement a few years back because we had serious issues on our streets. Several residents were killed in car accidents. Who is responsible for improving accidental death statistics on the roads? Injuries still occur. Maybe the additional staffing has had no effect, and we have just been lucky. We remain with many drivers doing crazy things on our roads. If we are going to throw dollars at the problem, let's do it cautiously with measurable results. Perhaps the biggest impact is to go door to door and get people to seek change in the community - to lock their doors. The Sheriff's office has told us over and again the same story - residents are contributing heavily to the crime problem.

We don’t have local ordinances to enforce. Local ordinances generate additional work. Our police work is standard for the laws of the county and state. Having higher police visibility is also a goal of this project program. I am not sure how to measure that and am wondering if it should even be a goal. Police presence in a neighborhood is negative to some people. In my opinion, the best deterrent in not presence but reputation. If our police force has a reputation of being johnny-on-the-spot and likely to apprehend anyone committing a crime here, that will deter criminals. If residents have a front line of defense and are known to not be easy picking, then that will deter criminals as well. I see those as two focus points for effectiveness. Newspapers advertise our crime. Maybe we should counter advertise with our successes.

I am sort of questioning the necessity of this project based on what not has been presented. The goals and metrics are not well defined publicly. I have been questioning it for the past year. It seems to me that we need to look at efficiency. This may only be a communication issue, but no metrics have been presented. How many deputies are in the office vs. on the street? How spread out are the deputies in the community? Do they have sufficient backup? What is their response time to emergency calls or those that that need immediate attention? How many false alarms are they servicing or missing? How long are they at a crime site? Metrics have not been used to present the case for the project. How many deputies are enough? What can we do to free the deputies up? Doing an efficiency and work process study could save us millions over the next five years. I don't think we have done that over the past 3 years, since we switched to the Sheriff's services. We continue to use the original study. Since then, our experience with policing this community has grown in size and complexity. If we take my neighborhood as an example, my neighbors can testify to their current level of service. But how about system-wide? My neighborhood has generally received acceptable police response to emergencies and non-emergencies. In contrast, our fire response has not been acceptable, yet our service level will probably remain the same until 2012 in this budget plan. That is measured and published. True, we are not having major fires here (yet) to raise our level of concern like the crime incidents that we read about in the newspaper.

What can we do to help reduce the number of police required and make our force more cost effective? There are several views to this. The statistics that people use now to show the crime rate has a mixture of what I call “forced crime” where the criminal breaks the law no matter the obstructions or difficulties and “accommodated crime” where the criminal breaks the law with no obstructions, or basically where the community or homeowner allows the crime to easily occur. We are told that the bulk of our crime is the latter case, committed by young people, who live here or in nearby communities, seeking easy fast targets so they are not detected. Their goal is to move quickly and get what they can as fast as they can and perhaps even use a stolen car (probably not locked) so that their identity is unknown. So the way I see it, if we are indeed driven by the number of incidents for staffing our police force, we who take precautions are paying for someone else’s negligence. Residents and businesses and the community have an obligation to protect their assets with alarms and locks. I do. Why can’t others? Some people say we need more presence on the streets. I say that would help just a little. Apprehension is the key to success, but if you look at when residents typically report an incident, it is too late to apprehend the criminal. A swarm of police at the time of the incident helps the apprehension process significantly. Otherwise, the incident becomes a report, not an engagement and an unlikely apprehension. The first line of defense is not the police but the resident, the storekeeper and store owner, and the community. They are the first responders; they are the eyes of the community. That will be the case no matter how many officers we have on contract (or employed for that matter, if that was an option). If they are not reporting the incident while it is happening, it is often too late to do much about it.

Why don’t we advocate conservative approaches in our governing body as it transitions to a consolidated entity? Maybe the first year we could have another look at the concepts behind our policing strategies. We need to lower our taxes if we can, but more importantly, we need to be right sized in police force and we need service levels based on the right measurements. If we have to, and it can be rightly justified, then we have to reorganize and deploy more officers on the streets. I just do not see yet that we have to fund this size of a police force. Is it too large or too small or just right? If we don't know that, we don't know the budget. Given the appropriate numbers to drive staffing levels, we could be convinced we need this exact number of deputies and administrative staff, but establishing a tax levy for this is simply does not seem right, given the current information available and economic climate. Maybe all of this has already been considered. I asked if efficiencies were considered and board member took notes, but maybe a better question would have been “what were the rejected alternatives to this proposal?”

Asking a few residents in our neighborhood how they feel about this, the response has been positive but conditional. One person responded: "There has been a lot of money wasted in the associations and it just continues. This would be more important than some of those expenses." Another said, "I would not mind paying the additional cost as long as it produces notable results." Asked if police response to recent calls has been satisfactory, the reply has been overwhelmingly "yes" from those who have needed and used the service with one exception. A resident noted that the response was good, the apprehension occurred, but the law breaker was released. "If the law is not enforced, why should I pay for law enforcement?"

In general, I am for right-sizing tax assessments to fit the needs of the community. Expectations are different among residents. Some have a 30-cent mentality, others a 32-cent expectation and still others a 34-cent expectation. Many people would like to drive down the cost of living here. Almost everyone I talk to wants to be taxed on need, not want or false perception. The desire for responsible and transparent spending is the trend of thought from about everyone I speak to. Personally, I want to see excellence here and live in a safe place. I do not believe it is possible to keep crooks out. It is possible to protect ourselves and get excellent response from law enforcement officials when we need it. Maybe we already have sufficient response. Perhaps an education program and resident participation program should be part of the budget. Yes, we have the awareness program, but it needs a tune-up. I believe it is a weak program needing a complete overhaul.

As you are probably aware, this program is one of four that raises the tax rate from an operational base of 25.3 to 32.8 cents per $100. The policing project costs $2mm over two years or 0.9 cents per $100. The table below from the presentation in the town hall meeting demonstrates the major add-on costs in the budget best. I have added tax payer dollars to it.

Program	Tax  in cents/$100 assessment	Tax for $200,000 home
Base Operations and debt - current service level	23.5	$470
New Police program	0.9	$18
Existing major capital projects on books (ISV fire station , Creekside station) plus replace Central Station	3.1	$62
Other capital projects - New parks and pathways - Village of Creekside Park and new developments	3.5	$70
Total	32.8	$756

Resources
¹ Public Security Plan by Vice President of Operations & Public Safety - Steve Sumner
²Township Budget Initiatives, page 2

Water - political hotspot

Here in The Woodlands, we are considering a systematic lawn-watering schedule, similar to what we have now in this drought, but not activated by drought conditions. We do need good water management. Who is the target of this possible new action and why? I see responsible people every day acquiescing to the current regulations for good reason – the drought, to conserve water by observing the current restrictions to water only two times a week (one inch). But let's get to some form of reality. Personally, I have been considering this from the moment it was instituted this year. Right now, I have to use more water for the lawn than I did before, to technically comply with the restriction. I have made it known to some of the authorities that this situation exists and why. Although there is no official accommodation in these restrictions for temperature, for soil conditions, nor for work schedules or home direction orientation, there is a means to get an exception. An example of need: Most of my lawn can go six days without water if I give it one inch and supplement the watering in a couple of small places. There are a few places facing west that cannot survive a week without water. Now it would seem that I have to water twice a week to comply with the drought restrictions. Technically yes, but actually no. There is good news, the Joint Powers Authority can and will accommodate case-by-case situations. It is recommended by the same authority to water once a week with a one-inch application. That is possible in my yard at a 95-degree maximum ambient temperature. It is impossible at 101. Our current restrictions are not inflexible. All that the Joint Powers Agency (JPA) actually asks us to do is to not waste water and help them keep the pressure up for fire safety. The current restrictions are good to help us to do that, but they need to be regarded as somewhat flexible. Try to follow them if practical. Neighbor-to-neighbor, no one wants to be seen breaking the rules. If there is an issue and you can minimize waste in some other way, tell the authority and get an exception. Then tell your neighbors why it is better for you, if watering in a different manner than prescribed embarrasses you. It might even help neighborly relations by being outside talking to your neighbor on watering days.

To accommodate my situation, I have to call the JPA and seek an exception. That I have not yet done, but when it is in place, I may be watering some days that are not mandated for my address. I seek to minimize my water usage on my lawn. That is my objective and that is the authority’s objective. The authority understands that goal and certainly supports it.

So look at the possibility of a “permanent” schedule. A schedule is not a permanent restriction; it is a model of usage. It should be thought of as a predictive model where everyone falls into a pattern of use, under a guideline of watering a maximum of twice a week, in all seasons. Then the water district should not face huge aberrations in consumption or water availability. The JPA should be able to manage the water and sewage systems much more efficiently and effectively. This does make sense!

The proposal is to establish a pattern of usage that distributes consumption as it does right now in this drought. That will probably require a model, similar to what we have now, but not necessarily confine us to that model. All that is needed is that we are consistent and water our lawns judiciously and to do it evenly across the community. Lifestyles may be different among households and homes a bit different, so a household is essentially asked to establish a predictive routine and stay with it. Don’t deviate from the model unless there is good reason to however. Exceptions cost administrative overhead.

There is more to this. 40% of our water in the summer is wasted, according to studies. It flows into gutters and into the sewage system. 80% of our consumption right now is estimated to be in irrigating our yards. A huge amount of our precious resource is wasted every day. Unfortunately, there are just a few residents who waste it in large amounts. There is waste in every household, but the bottom line volume consumption rests with a fairly small percentage of homeowners. I know I have some waste. I would say that perhaps 1% of the water applied goes down the street. If we were truly required to save every gallon, I would need to have my automatic system redesigned or just abandon using the system. I trigger it manually when my day comes around, so I can have two back-2-back cycles and get maximum penetration from the application. Managing the edges to zero runoff would be a serious challenge but may be a next step down the road, should water become so scarce that we have to regulate it by the gallon instead of by the tens of gallons.

Managing a drought is different than managing annual consumption, but what we learn in a drought can be applied to the management of the area resources in all seasons.

Isn't part of the problem the St Augustine grass that we use throughout the state? Where is A&M's solution to this problem? I do not support having a program at the spigot if we don’t have a long-range plan to deal with the root of the problem. There are two roots to the problem - people and landscape material or devices.

People are wasteful. Those who significantly overuse water should be interviewed and ways found to lessen their use of water. How do we know they are out of line in usage? There is a way to measure it. Abnormalities could be identified through an index method, which I will describe later. Maybe there is also a technology gap. I don’t assume that rain controllers, mulch and St Augustine are the solutions, and perhaps the technology used is not what is available now for the problems we have. For example, is there a better way to water the edges of the lawn to deliver water but not waste any water? Or can we use native or native-modified grasses, instead of St Augustine? For some families’ style of life, such an index may not be seem practical, but everyone can treat the limited water resource in a judicious manner. Where there is serious concern, there is always a practical solution. It is well known that misuse of water by some residents is the probable cause of our current issue, but must everyone suffer on their behalf? If it is true that 40% of our water is wasted, then why not find that 40% and find workable remedies to that problem? To me, this is a different issue than distributing the use of the water over days of the week.

St Augustine grass has always demanded considerable water to survive, although it will take a beating and usually grow back when the water is more available. Nonetheless it is susceptible to disease and drought. Is it time we change? This is a problem for Texas A&M. It is an issue all along the Gulf Coast. Grass helps to control flooding and is very useful, not just an aesthetic component of landscape. As water becomes more and more precious by short supply, shouldn't we begin to abandon our love for St Augustine and replace our grass with something requiring less water? . I am told “no’ by the GM of JPA. ¹Maybe Texas A&M could research a better St Augustine that survives drought better. Drought is a Texas normality. St Augustine is not a water-inefficient grass. As I stated in another article, there are issues with the other grasses but at the same time, there are alternatives and opportunities.

Our wells are not producing what they once did. We have to drill deeper into the reservoirs sometimes to make them produce at the required rates. I have never heard of any water wells in this general area that have maintained production without intervention. Population growth here has been tremendous, but we have not had an apparent water pressure issue, mostly because of drought interventions in the summer. I have witnessed serious urban water pressure issues elsewhere and that was not pretty! It was downright annoying, frustrating and dangerous. If we have to regulate the water, then let's regulate the volume of water used. That is the real issue here, not whether we are watering on given days of the week, but nonetheless, it is good to have a systematic scheduled watering schedule just to eliminate or reduce the threat of lowered water pressure.

So is it such a bad thing to ask residents to have the same water schedule we currently have throughout the year? That seems a bit of an over-kill to me. Austin² has a set schedule every year from May 1st through September 30th. Maybe we should have it from June 1st to October 30th. I am concerned about watering at night during October however. That will cause fungus. Maybe we can end at the end of September also. Face it any time outside of that window has no watering issues, at least from my meandering around The Woodlands.

Why not regulate growth? This would certainly be a politically explosive strategy. New housing could take on more of the issue, instead of existing residents. If we don’t have enough water, why do we grow? But the point is, we have enough. It is just being wasted.

Personally, I like using educational means to get people to judiciously consume water and when that doesn’t work, slap those who are causing the problem on the wrist. So here is a suggestion – since we know the volume of water used in every household and business, and we know the appraised square feet of each home and the lot size, would it be better to start using a meaningful measure to identify those misusing our resources? If I use 1000 gallons and a huge multi-million home uses 100,000 gallons, which one is over using water? Both have to maintain their homes and their landscape. You use a normalization technique. Say my home site is 3000 sq feet and the big home is on 20000 sq feet. Now who is using more than their share of water? Then I use 3000/8000 or .35 gallons per sq foot per month while the other homeowner is using 5 gallons per square foot. So is the large home wasting water? Not necessarily. However, what is reasonable and not reasonable can be determined from looking at the population of homes in the community and this usage index. I would say that anyone having more than twice the median index of the total population might be overusing water (just a shot in the dark). This may not be very close to an answer, but something like this is what we need to be doing.

Performance indices are one of my favorite subjects. The JPA has not publicized any yet and probably do not have one in the works. It would be worthwhile to contract an effort to assess a better way to manage this precious resource in our community. I know this can be done and it should not cost us an arm and a leg. Then metaphorically we could slap those who abuse the resource on the wrist and even break an arm if it comes to that.

This article was rewritten and published on July 22nd.

Resources
¹ Joint Powers Agency - Mr. James Stintson, P.E., General Manager
² Austin water regulations

City of Houston Mayor White and The Woodlands Government

As many know, the mayor of Houston played a key role to open the door for self determination of government in The Woodlands. His open-mindedness allowed us to be creative in our solution to governing ourselves. The timing could not have been better, since a seasoned mayor was in the position at the time of the government study and election. As a result, we have avoided being a part of that city and have control over our destiny with a government of our own.

Today, Mayor Bill White announced his candidacy for the Senate of the United States¹. Although his campaign is just starting, he shows a very good plate of credentials as a candidate for the Senate. I'm reasonably sure he will get support here.

We recognized from the beginning that the timing of the election was critical in moving forward with the township proposal when we did. It was important to have the support of Houston's mayor. Houston had the right to annex us; very little was required on their part to move an annex plan forward and close it in 2013. The city would get 1% sales tax from Town Center businesses and 2% sales tax from the rest of The Woodlands if it annexed us. Who would know then (when we voted on the proposals) how long the mayor would hold his influential position? Now we see him possibly moving on, vacating the position to someone else.

Visionary is the word. That has been and continues to be the word in major milestones throughout the history of The Woodlands. I still believe in our government and seek its success. Let's see what progress is being made and review where we stand in January. The year 2009 will be a very critical one of transition as the associations wither away and the Township takes hold of all their functions and responsibilities. This will be the year when the taxation process must replace association dues process. In the year 2010, we will be paying Montgomery County our ad valorem taxes for the Township AND our property taxes. Therefore, the timing of assessments will be different, coincident with the county assessments. The budgeting process will be different, because you must know how much is needed in the coffers before you can set the tax rate. As we approach 2010, we must be aware of and involved in the transition and its issues.

So good luck mayor! Your contribution to the formation of The Woodlands Township showed thoughtful leadership and innovation. You showed your ability to perceive a win/win situation, be decisive, aggregate political support and bring your decision into action, in time for it to be effective.

¹Bill White For Texas Campaign Site

Two Months after Elections - Woodlands Township, Texas

Now that the newly elected directors have had sufficient time to acclimate to their new community paradigm, we as residents have to ask - how is this government entity working out in the larger schema for May 2010, which is less than 2 years away? In 2010, the remainder of the seven resident directors will be elected. Until then, we will have eleven directors consisting of six Town Center Improvement District legacy directors and five at-large Township resident-elected directors. This is a government in transition with substantial issues on its plate. 

First, Frank Robinson has stepped down from his position as business manager for the Woodlands Township. This will affect our government operation. He had very significant influence. The many times I discussed issues with him, I always found he was on top of them with a clear vision of direction and outcome. He accepted the city manager job in Apple Valley California (pop 78000). His move is only the result of personal opportunity and the need for a change in his life. He will be missed here after some 14 years of contributions. This puts an additional burden on the Township board. Three vice-presidents of the Township have taken his role in the interim, while the board seeks a replacement. We the residents of The Woodlands wish him the best! 

Second, Bob Kinnear, a Woodlands resident and former director of the Township, has been appointed to the Township Director board to replace Mr. Tarrance, rather than placing the decision in the hands of the voters.  Kinnear's credentials in big business, stakeholder as a resident, and director experience became the dominating factors for replacing the vacated position. His appointment is intended to balance the board constituency during the transition period, while the association turns over its responsibilities to the township. Since he is not one of the directors of the association and has the transition knowledge needed to move forward,  Kinnear is believed to be the appropriate choice for the position. Bob Kinnear did not, however, seek the office through the election in May. This does not seem accidental. However, he is qualified to hold the job. Residents might have preferred to vote for a new director, but the wisdom of the board must prevail in this unique situation.  It was entirely within the legal right of the board to appoint whomever it believed to be an appropriate replacement for the resigning Tarrance and the work ahead. In my own opinion, the appointment process is unfortunate, yet we will nevertheless have an excellent person in the position to help during the transition period. Perhaps we would miss the training aspect of a resident who wants to participate on the board after 2010? This transition period is a training frame, an opportunity to position potential candidates for the future. The alternative person, who might have been appointed from the election slate, is heavily engaged in the transition and will remain an influential stakeholder in the process, so the knowledge base has not been eroded nor opportunities lost. I conclude now that the argument for using the ballot box to install a new director is primarily a political one and has little substance for gain except for voter confidence. I am of the opinion that the right person was appointed to this position, despite the controversy on how the decision came about. 

Third, a significant key to success will be how the board performs as a team. This has concerned me from day one in the transition phase of the Township. It is imperative that the board operates inclusively and as one unit. We must avoid polarization and cliques. This cannot be a board which seeks to exclude selected individuals by using internal politics as a means to further future political ambitions as some people have claimed. The selection of  individuals on committees does present an appearance of this phenomenon, but based on what I am told and have observed, there is a genuine attempt to have everyone engaged equally. Committee assignments are a bit overweight toward a couple of individuals as one observes the committee table. I cannot rationalize that fact. Hausman has the time to work on many things and contribute in many areas. Now that the committees have been selected, the challenge for the chair person Nelda Blair will be to ensure buy-in by all of the directors in the programs and decisions. She needs all of their support. Decisions must not be based on who made the proposals but the quality of the proposals themselves. That is all that really counts in the end - timely progress and decision quality. Diversity of thought will be essential to quality decisions; we will not get that diversity unless all of the directors are active and supportive in those decisions. Continual challenge by individuals because of political bickering will weaken and erode confidence and respect, so essential for good teamwork and progress. For that reason, our board must find ways to ensure that there is an inclusive means of participation, so that there is not any one director feeling that we have an inclusion issue. When the 2010 elections come around, I hope not to see this problem perpetuated. Two months into the transition, and we have this dissent. Personally, I am in favor of conducting team building exercises to strengthen the team for the remaining time in office and patching any dissent that may linger for the next two years. That investment could reap great reward. 

Our newly elected directors have spoken on several issues, which I will bring into focus at this time. For the moment, we will look into their comments, not seeking the related opinions of the legacy directors. We will defer focusing on that input until a more appropriate future date. As we will recall, two of the newly elected directors have returned to the board after being previously appointed - Peggy Hausman and Nelda Blair. The latter is the chairperson, playing a key role in the cooperative team. Every director is expected to be part of that team. Blair has experience and significant respect in the community as a leader. Hausman has a great deal of experience in various government entities and has earned significant respect in the community as a neighbor as well. Tom Campbell, Claude Hunter and Bruce Tough are new kids on the block but not in The Woodlands governance nor the association nor in services. They have a great deal of experience in the founding of the new Township as our governing body. Campbell is respected for his energetic and detailed contributions. Hunter has helped many a resident with community issues and has been working for us over the years in the association. Tough has worked for us in the association, services and various other activities including the governance project.

Here is the lineup on the committees:

Township Committees by Director
Director	Type	Committees
Nelda Blair	elected	1. Public Facilities Admin 2. Governance & Nominations 3. Executive (chair) 4. Convention and Visitors Committee
Tom Campbell	elected	1. Fire Dept board 2. Audit
Bruce Tough	elected	1. Museum Ad-hoc  2. Project Planning & Development 3. Governance & Nominations  4. Fire Dept Board (chair)
Peggy Hausman	elected	1. Convention and Visitors Committee
Claude Hunter	elected	1. Public Facilities Admin 2. Fire Dept board
Vicki Richmond	appointed	1. Audit  2. Museum Ad-hoc (chair)  3. Executive
Kemba DeGroot	appointed	1. Audit (chair)  2. Public Facilities (chair)
Ed Robb	appointed	1. Museum Ad-hoc 2. Project Planning & Development 3. Governance & Nominations
Alex Sutton	appointed	1. Museum Ad-hoc 2. Project Planning & Development 3. Public Facilities Admin 4. Executive 5. Governance & Nominations
Lloyd Matthews	appointed	1. Project Planning & Development (chair) 2. Convention & Visitors Bureau 3. Fire Dept board 4. Executive (vice-chair)
Bob Kinnear	appointed	1. Governance & Nominations

¹ "elected" strictly refers to the at-large election, not the Town Center elections
¹ "legacy" refers to the TCID legacy directorship which includes Town Center elections  

We readily see a spread of committee assignments  in this organization with one exception.  We must keep in mind the state of our government as we consider who has been assigned to what committee and role. There may be a need for additional committees in 2009 as the transition continues to unfold. In the meantime, one director (Hausman) has been assigned to only one committee. Are we under-utilizing ready, willing and competent manpower? This situation poses an opportunity for the board to get her working on other matters as the need arises. I would encourage the leader of the board to leverage that capability as opportunities arise. Again, I believe team building exercises might go a long way to promote unity in purpose, direction and shared responsibility through mutual understanding.  

Elected Directors opinions and perspectives

1. Nelda Blair - Blair has assumed the same duties that she had before the election - Chairperson of the board . She seems quite comfortable there. Given the question, "Have you noticed a difference in the content and progress of the board with the addition of elected residents?" Her thoughts are "the content of the Township Board has changed somewhat, of course, in that new ideas and leadership styles naturally come with new members. But, since a portion of our Board members has always been elected residents, and the appointed members were residents or area leaders, the ideals have not changed. I expect the progress of the Township Board will only become more forward-thinking with our current transition." In essence, from my (IndianSpringsGuy) personal viewpoint, the representation breadth of the board has changed, but the concept of partial representation has not and will not change until the 2010 election. That is part of the transition process. She goes on to say, "The changes that I believe are taking place as a result from the expansion of the purposes of the Township in general. The newly merged entity will handle economic development as well as residential services, so the focus is broadening. I fully expect that our Board mix will be very valuable in properly handling those functions."  She and I have a similar vision in this respect. Diversity of people will provide a  meaningful approach to governing processes and strategies. As the economic development strategies are transitioned to resident-elected directors, the resultant responsibilities of those directors will shift to a broader perspective than that of the association directors. Every opportunity to expose the new directors to the economic and development strategies will be paramount to our future economic health. Commenting on committee assignments, Blair emphasized that she took every measure to spread the load and provide opportunities for everyone equally so that they could contribute as they wished. We had five Directors who asked to be put on the Fire Dept board of four possible positions. I nominated all of them, and four of them were elected by secret ballot to the board. Hausman asked to be put on the Public Facilities Admin committee "but it was already full". She was instead nominated to the Audit committee where we needed her, but to which she declined. I nominated her for the Fire Dept board and the Convention & Visitors Bureau and placed them on the written ballots.  "I also treated her no differently in this situation than any other Board member."   
2. Tom Campbell - The board got off to a rough start in May when Bruce Tough was not elected as a co-vice chair on the executive committee with Lloyd Matthews. Unfortunately policy would not allow it; the board will review policy later this year. Campbell emphasizes the representation of residents on the board, coupled with good communication. He feels that some of the committees could have been chaired by an elected Director. The newcomers were asked on what committees they would like to serve and generally, they got nominated for them. The Fire Dept board has been established just as the transition agreement stated. On another plane, there is an issue with the timing of the monthly meeting, because many residents cannot attend an early morning event. They are often commuting or have other obligations. Another issue in the operation of the board is the executive committee. With the exit of Robinson, we have a void. Of additional concern are the six Vice-presidents and two presidents. Seems a bit top heavy. Campbell supports replacing Robinson with Don Norrell, manager of the association service company. "The good news is the (community) services are continuing seamlessly under the direction of our very competent, well qualified general manager, Don Norrell. The policing, waste pickup, Parks and Recreation, streetscape and covenant administration continue uninterrupted. Also, the Economic Development and Visitor Bureau continue.". 
3. Peggy Hausman  was disappointed in the outcome of the committee assignments. "The chairman recommends and then the board ratifies. I did request Special Projects, Woodlands Fire Department, and Waterway (Facilities)" committees. The chairperson "chose to not place me on any of my choices" and "I was never asked to serve on anything except the once an hour audit." Hausman is the senior member of the board and feels some injustice on the outcome. Both Matthews and Tough drew heavy responsibility on the committees. Hausman has much she would like to accomplish , thus her frustration.  
4. Claude Hunter - Hunter has not responded to my inquiries. I have to assume he is content with the board, its progress and his role after two months.
5. Bruce Tough - Tough is taking a wait and see approach. He has been included on several committees. It appears that he is content with his role on the board of directors, but his view on teamwork is not yet apparent. He intends to reveal his perspectives at a later date.

Operating Conditions

There are two issues on the plate for operating conditions. (1) As an open meeting, there is insufficient space for residents. Blair has stated that the board is looking into alternative locations for the meeting. Another possibility is to provide residents with a video-taped and/or internet-streamed or TV/internet broadcast of the proceedings, to enable a more open meeting. (2) The time of the meeting is inconvenient for residents, many of whom must commute to Houston. The board will be discussing the pros and cons of changing the time in the near future.

Conclusions

Our journey from one form of government to another will not necessarily be a smooth ride. We can expect rough spots on the road. All members of the board in my view desire success for this community. They are making the decisions the best they can under the circumstances imposed by rules and law. They are not seeking conflict; it just happens when something goes awry. The goal is to resolve the issues. Now we have an issue of dissent along with the burdens of change. A certain sensitivity exists which needs to be worked out. Wounds need to heal. Our community will thrive as long as we all put all we have into it and remember that we are neighbors. We are in this together for the long haul. Let's keep on trucking.       

Reference sources

• Many thanks to the continuing cooperation of the Township Board of Directors for providing timely feedback to my questions, sometimes even unsolicited. Residents here appreciate candid insights to our government and the efforts of our public servants.
• Committee assignments from The Woodlands Township website.
• Frank Robinson - Apple Valley City website

Last updated committee table 8/2/08

Evolving government and politics

The Woodlands is evolving month by month and year by year. Yesterday there were three associations and TCID. Today the three associations remain but are sunsetting, as The Woodlands Township takes the reins of governing the area known as The Woodlands and assumes ownership of all the assets by 2010. This is the place where that evolution will be documented.