Back to Choosing IndicatorsFrom Measures and Milestones: The Conference Proceedings
pp. 77-90, published 1997
Sylvia Lovely has served as the Executive Director/CEO of the Kentucky League of Cities since 1990. Prior to that, Ms. Lovely served as Director of Intergovernmental Services, staff attorney and lobbyist for KLC for two years. Ms. Lovely directs the activities of 42 staff members at the KLC headquarters in Lexington in a variety of service areas: insurance for cities in liability, property, unemployment, workers’ compensation and health; bond and investment pools; information services; legal assistance; training and education, and many other services. The Kentucky League of Cities is a statewide association consisting of 347 member cities. In her capacity as KLC Executive Director/CEO, Ms. Lovely serves on a variety of boards and commissions, in an effort to enhance and maintain the leadership role of Kentucky cities and makes numerous appearances throughout the state on behalf of cities speaking on topics such as civic involvement and entrepreneurship in cities. She has been appointed to several positions across the state and currently serves as Chair of the Kentucky Health Purchasing Alliance Board re-established by the 1996 General Assembly Session in Senate Bill 343, and as Chair of the Kentucky Center for Public Issues, a nonprofit group established to foster public discussion on a variety of vital topics. Ms. Lovely served on the Kentucky Tax Policy Commission formed by former Governor Brereton Jones, established to review and recommend change to Kentucky tax policy. She is excited about a new program to revitalize Kentucky downtowns, Renaissance Kentucky, which Governor Paul Patton has as a joint venture with Kentucky League of Cities, Kentucky Housing Corporation, and the Kentucky Heritage Council. She also serves as a member of the Board of the Greater Lexington Chamber of Commerce. Ms. Lovely is a graduate of the University of Kentucky College of Law and is licensed to practice in Florida and Kentucky. She resides in Lexington with her husband, Bernie, and two sons, Ross and David.
Steven Beshear is a native of Hopkins County, Kentucky, and graduated from Dawson Springs High School in 1962. He attended the University of Kentucky, from which he graduated in 1966, and the University of Kentucky Law School, from which he graduated in 1968. After working at White and Case in New York, New York, from 1968 to 1970, Mr. Beshear returned to Kentucky in 1970 and joined a local law firm. In 1973, he won a seat in the House of Representatives in the Kentucky General Assembly and served three terms. He was elected to the office of Attorney General and served from 1979 to 1983. Mr. Beshear served as Lieutenant Governor from 1983 to 1987. He currently is a partner in the law firm of Stites and Harbison in Lexington.
John Bowling has been a successful private businessman for 30 years. He has been Mayor of the City of Danville since 1986 and is a present board member and past chair of the following organizations: Kentucky League of Cities, Bluegrass Area Development District, Southern Municipal Conference, and Bluegrass Regional Recycling Corporation (Founding member). Mayor Bowling presently serves as Secretary of the Kentucky Council of Area Development Districts and is currently a candidate for the office of State Representative for the 54th District.
Mary Helen Miller, during 20 years in state government, served as Secretary of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, Chief Executive Assistant for Internal Affairs for Governor Martha Layne Collins, Legislative Liaison and Chief Administrative Officer for Governor Brereton C. Jones, Governor’s Alternate for the Appalachian Regional Commission, and Assistant Director for Committee and Staff Coordination at the Legislative Research Commission. She is a retired schoolteacher. Ms. Miller has served on the boards of directors for the Kentucky Long-Term Policy Research Center, the Louisville-Jefferson County Airport Authority, the Waterfront Development Corporation, the Shelby Development Corporation, the Western Kentucky University Alumni, the Shelby County Community Foundation, and the Shelby County Community Theatre. She holds a BA from Western Kentucky University and is a graduate of Leadership Kentucky. She and her husband have two children.
Stephen H. Miller is a native of Hardin, Kentucky, in Western Kentucky. He, his wife, and two children have resided in Fleming County, Kentucky, for the past 20 years. Mr. Miller attended Western Kentucky University and Murray State University. He received his BS in Urban Planning from Murray State University. He is a graduate of the Economic Development Institute at the University of Oklahoma. Mr. Miller is the Executive Director of the Buffalo Trace Area Development District in Maysville, Kentucky, where he has been employed for 20 years. Before being named Executive Director in 1986, he held the positions of Transportation Planner, Economic Development Specialist, and Assistant Director. Mr. Miller is the immediate past chair of the Kentucky Area Development District Director’s Association, and has served as a member of the Kentucky Workforce Partnership Council, the Kentucky Municipal Law Center Board of Overseers, Maysville-Mason County Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, and Kentucky Advisory Council on the Homeless.
Moderator, Sylvia Lovely:
We have a good small group, so I expect a lot of questions and discussion. What we’ve had here today has been tremendous. Mike, I commend you and the Board for putting on a tremendous program and as you can see I have a spectacular panel, people who have that kind of hands-on experience that you all need to hear about. You can share with us at the end some of your thoughts and ideas. I particularly enjoyed hearing the luncheon speaker, Carolyn Lukensmeyer. She made some excellent points. What we’re talking about here today with community engagement isn’t just an exercise, something that we should just talk about. All of us know that what we’re really trying to do is change. We’re trying to bring change to our communities and eventually to the world. We need to think about it as being that serious.
When people are talking about making change and changing the world, I always think about the recent news story of the woman in Vermont who won the Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts in getting land mines banned across the world. She lived down a dirt road in Vermont and didn’t even have a television. She did have a telephone. But here was a woman on a country dirt road in Vermont who truly did change the world.
So I think it is within our grasp and that’s our responsibility. What we’ve heard here today is a lot, a nibble around the edges of our topic. We’re going to focus on something that is particularly important and again I hope you’ll get engaged in this discussion because this is so critical. It’s investing these community initiatives with staying power. You’ve heard the word "sustainability," a buzzword today, but it means a whole lot. It’s keeping it fresh and alive, day after day, month after month, and year after year, so that you can keep building on that community initiative.
At the Kentucky League of Cities this is something that we’re vitally interested in. I’ve seen these things done in our 347 member cities throughout the state. I see them put on the shelf and not accomplish anything over time and that is the tragedy sometimes of civic engagement projects. The bad thing about that is that sometimes you can turn off the public. And we certainly have a public that is disengaged. I think that is already a failure and we need to find a way to re-engage the public. People are voting less, engaging less. There are lots of reasons for that, but one of those certainly can be that we ask for input and then we don’t do anything with it, either as community leaders, state leaders, local leaders, elected or appointed, or otherwise.
We have a tremendous panel here today and they all have hands-on experience in these areas in civic engagement projects. I will tell you just a little bit about each one and some of the things they have done and you have their bios in your materials. I’m going to start with Mayor Bowling and I want them to talk about their involvement in civic engagement projects and their particular roles because each of them has extensive experience in this. I want them to think about keeping their eye on sustainability, what was done right in the projects they were involved in, anything that they would have done differently, and any particular success. And it may be that success will differ. Perhaps we would have different definitions of what success would be with civic engagement projects. And then, finally, just any other observations that they have from a very, very rich history, and I hope that we’ll hear a lot of the specifics.
The first person I’m going to call on is very dear to me. He’s on my Board. Mayor Bowling is a tremendous individual. He is Mayor of Danville and has really, truly made that into a jewel of a community. If you’ve been to Danville lately, you will see what a tremendous place it is and that it is in large part owed to Mayor Bowling. Mayor Bowling, will you come forward and please address some of the issues about civic engagement projects you’ve been involved in?
Mayor Bowling:
Thanks, Sylvia. You’re very kind and affirmation will surely get you everywhere. I would like to take the credit for what Sylvia just said, but in all fairness, it is probably in the neighborhood of 15,000 people in a community effort in Danville that’s helped us to get where we are today. One day I was talking with the City Manager, Mr. Ed Music, as usual to find out what’s going on, what problems they have, who has called, or who we need to go see. I just happened to watch 2020 one evening, and it left an impact on me. I came in that Monday morning and I said quite frankly, "Ed, I wonder what Danville will look like in the year 2020?"
One thing led to another and so I called upon a few of my friends, Mayor Neil Hackworth from Shelbyville; David Adkisson, the Mayor in Owensboro then; and Jerry Abramson, and talked to them about what they had done in their communities and how they got people involved. From that particular conversation with those three people, we introduced Danville Vision 2020. The Vision 2020 citizen survey was an outgrowth of the meeting held on February 17, 1992, at Danville City Hall in which citizens, community leaders, and outside leaders came together to discuss their dreams, their hopes, their visions about what Danville can and would be in the year 2020. The diversity of the responses was unlimited. Over 300 people participated in that daylong event and the ideas flowed from each of the roundtables we had on economic development, economic renewal, community planning, community facilities, transportation, utilities, and governmental services.
The second phase of this daylong event was compiling the many ideas and major concepts into a citizen survey to gauge the opinions of each household in the community. Some 6,000 surveys were sent out to individual households and hand-delivered to people in apartments. We got some 40 percent returned from people concerned about those topics. We believe that 40 percent was a wonderful response. Out of those returned surveys, there were numerous ideas that people wanted us to implement. One of those was an economic development plan. The people in our community wanted an economic development plan different from an industrial development plan, but they didn’t want the city involved to the degree that the city was controlling it and running it.
From that economic development plan came an organization called CDC, the Community Development Committee. In Danville, we had a problem with different agencies that mean well and do wonderful things, but were all going in different directions. We had the Chamber, city government, the industrial foundation, the Heart of Danville, tourism, and Centre College, and we were all moving but moving in different directions. Our goals and our intents were good, but we believed that if we pulled together with our energies, then our results could be wonderful. The CDC met and there was a county magistrate, myself, the city manager, the Chamber, the Industrial Foundation, and a few of the other organizations. We shared this idea with them that we need to walk in unison.
Several of these different organizations didn’t want any part of that. They again saw control by the city and control by the county, and it was up to us to remove that distrust, that barrier that was in front of us. It took us three long years to convince all these different agencies that we were on an equal playing ground, and we all mean to move together. Since then, that particular organization has grown to include every facet of the community, including health care, education, agriculture, school systems, both forms of governments, tourism, and industry. Every sector of the community is represented. It took us another four years to get to where we are today.
Seven years later, everybody is on an equal playing ground. The city government has stepped back and the county government is in the background. We support from behind the scenes because trust has to do development if you are going to move a community forward. Now the CDC is in the process of hiring an Economic Development Director who will go out and beat the bushes for doctors, lawyers, retail merchants, whoever, and that individual is basically being funded from the private sector, which is an absolutely wonderful victory in itself.
From that, I want to get into the staying power. Quite frankly we saw the problem in Danville with a lot of different agencies and some individuals that did not want to see government control this organization or the way that community went. Today, the CDC and all these different organizations are taking our community forward. How do you maintain that staying power? How do you maintain those people involved? A lot of that has been through the simple equation of people coming and going off boards. There’s always a fresh infusion of fresh blood on the different boards of all these agencies. Those people touch an awful lot of people in our community.
In Danville, Kentucky, today, CDC knows where city government and county government stand, and our community is moving forward. The program is not perfect, but it’s farther along the way than it used to be. But to get people involved and into the staying power mode, they have to know that they’re on an equal playing field. Until you submit that to the people and they trust you, then it will never happen. It’s a long battle, but I think in our community, we’re there. I’m very proud of where we are, but it takes people in our community to make it what it is. It doesn’t take the Mayor, the County Judge, or any one individual. It takes all of us pulling together in the right direction with the same enthusiasm. And, with that, I simply rest my case and ask for any questions that might come forward later. Thanks, everybody.
Ms. Lovely:
Thank you very much. I was very much involved in that Danville project and it is one of those that has staying power and has sustained itself over time. John, your project was very inclusive of citizens. I remember that very well. The rooms were filled with citizens coming in, and it wasn’t necessarily who you would identify as being the community leaders. Everybody was invited to participate and that was made very clear. There was a strong sense of citizen responsibility, which I think is really important. I like to use the analogy of the toy store at We ‘R Us. There is almost a "We are not us" mentality out there that we are not responsible as citizens if things aren’t going well. We just shut it out and turn it off. We need to see more responsibility on citizens’ part and your Danville citizens certainly did that.
We heard a lot about distrust of government. That’s something we need to talk more about, because we in government must not be doing something right if we’re not addressing that issue. And, then, the external structure that’s the tangible piece that came out of this, the CDC, the economic development agency, that actually sustains itself and has a staff and a board is very, very important.
The next speaker is Steve Beshear. What a pedigree; it’s too short here. He was Lieutenant Governor, is a very successful lawyer, and he served in the Kentucky General Assembly for a time, but he did happen to run one of the most successful Attorney General’s Offices as the Attorney General from 1979 to 1983. I was an Assistant Attorney General under Steve Beshear, and we talked about utility rate cases. I present to you Steve Beshear, who will talk about some private projects he’s been involved in. Notably, I hope you’ll mention Kentucky Tomorrow, which was done when you were Lieutenant Governor. Steve Beshear.
Mr. Beshear:
Thank you, Sylvia. I knew she would get around to the fact that I hired her when I was Attorney General and that was, she told me, one of the best decisions I had ever made. When I think about futuristic planning in the state of Kentucky, I’m always reminded about that old comment that Mark Twain is credited with when he said, "When the world comes to an end, I want to be in Kentucky because everything in Kentucky happens 20 years later." Well, when you look back at our history, I think old Mark probably had a point. Hopefully, over the last 20 to 30 years, if he were around today, he might try to make that joke about someplace else because we have made on a statewide level some considerable progress in long-range planning for our state’s future.
When I became Lieutenant Governor, I had a fellow named Kris Kimel as my Chief of Staff, and, of course, Kris now heads up the Kentucky Science and Technology Council in the state. Kris and others came to me and we sat down and started brainstorming about what a Lieutenant Governor could do besides running for Governor. That’s always been a pretty big question. We wanted to do something substantive with that office that we hoped we could leave as a lasting contribution to the state, whether or not Steve Beshear ever became Governor, and we came up with the idea of a long-term planning project for the state.
At that time, to our knowledge, the only semi long-term planing project that Kentucky had had was back in the 1940s when a group of folks came together and formed what they called the Committee for Kentucky. We actually found their report, which was rather dusty and covered with cobwebs, and it was a fairly impressive report. And, from that point, until 1983 we could find no other effort like that for the whole state. We looked at a sister state that 25 years before that time was very much like Kentucky, North Carolina, and we saw how far they had come developing the research triangle, and all kinds of forward-looking projects for that state. The Governor at that time, who is now Governor again, had a long-term planning project.
So Kris went to North Carolina and met with their folks and the sum and substance of it was that we decided to try to do a long-range planning project for the state. We called it the Kentucky Tomorrow Commission. We funded it entirely with private funds because we couldn’t really convince anybody at that time that they ought to give us any state money to do it. We raised a considerable amount of money from companies and individuals around the state who, surprisingly enough, thought that this was a very, very good idea, that we needed to do something like this if we were going to be able to move Kentucky ahead like states like North Carolina had moved. We put together what we thought was a very wide participatory type of group. The Commission itself had 25 or 30 people on it. I look out here and see some faces like Senator Kafoglis who was on it. I have seen many others here. When I first walked in, I thought this was a Kentucky Tomorrow reunion because there were several people here that participated in that project.
It lasted for two years; we divided up into a number of committees looking at a wide range of issues affecting Kentucky. After a two-year period we came up with a report that I think had a lot of very, very good ideas in terms of the future of this state. Mary Helen, you were on there, too. We involved literally thousands of people at one time or another in this project and there was a very enthusiastic involvement by those folks in this project. Once you started talking about the need for long-range planning in Kentucky, it was very evident to almost anybody you talked to that there really was a very pressing need.
We had the report. We’ve had some successes. You asked us to talk about the successes and what we would do different. The one thing I’d do different is I’d get elected Governor because then I could have gone with it. But that didn’t happen, so that was one of the failures. But we had several successes with that report. The Kentucky Chamber of Commerce picked up on that report. Bill Samuels, the head of Makers Mark, was the head of their long-range planning process at the Kentucky Chamber and they’ve had a project, Project 2000 or something like that. He told me three years ago, which made me feel good, "You know, Steve, I know you’ve never gotten thanked for this like you should have, but what you all did with that Kentucky Tomorrow Project really served as the basis of the jumping off point for everything we’ve done at the Kentucky Chamber level in terms of planning for the future." So, to me, that was a success because an important group in this state picked up that work, took all of that time and effort spent, and moved it forward. That’s a group that’s going to be here from now on. Having those kinds of groups using and building on that kind of work to me was a very real success.
Another success that came out of it I mentioned a few minutes ago in connection with Kris Kimel. Kris, along with some folks that participated in the project, such as Lee Todd, who was on our Commission, formed the Kentucky Science and Technology Council, and they have been working since that time to bring more research dollars into the state to work with our companies in developing higher tech types of things in our state, really looking long range down that road.
We worked with the folks in Washington, the National Science Foundation, and others that had research moneys and at that time Kentucky was number 50th, 48th or whatever, in terms of research dollars that we were getting from the federal government into the state. And so we headed out in that direction also. This Kentucky Science and Technology Council has picked up on that and state government has picked up on that more than ever. I think now we have moved up some degree in terms of the amount of research dollars that we get into Kentucky.
Those kinds of things are good, but this type of thing is hard to sustain and I’m the first to admit it. We had some structural obstacles on a statewide level to long-range planning back in the 1980s, some of which we’ve resolved now. Our governors could not succeed themselves, and because of that every governor that came into office always wanted his or her name on something, not the last one’s name on something, which is understandable. But because of that rapid turnover every four years, you ended up with no real long-term planning for this state. Anybody who’s worked in state government, and I see Ron Carson sitting out there, can tell you that in order to make substantial progress in big areas, it takes more than four years. It takes more than two budget cycles. It takes about four years just to get us on the right road, and then it takes more time than that to move the state along that pathway.
A state’s a big thing to move and it takes a while to move it. I think one of the good things we did structurally was to change the succession of our governors so that at least we can have governors that can succeed themselves one time. Another forward step was the creation of this Kentucky Long-Term Policy Research Center and the way it was created. It is not just an animal of the executive branch, or of the legislative branch, or of the public; it’s a combination of all three. And, hopefully, that will give it long-term staying power.
I say "hopefully" because even if it’s there, if it’s not used it doesn’t do much good, but I find more and more that our leadership and the public in the state are becoming educated about the need for this kind of process. That’s not to say that there’s a big clamor out there for this, but I think we have had some success over the last 20 years in educating both the present leadership and the upcoming leadership as to the very real importance of long-range planning on the state level. And, that long term is one of the best things that these projects have done.
I think it’s one of the best things the Kentucky Tomorrow Project did because we involved a lot of people who are still involved in state, county, or local government. It’s not easy but it’s absolutely essential that we continue to engage in this process if this state is going to be able to compete in the long term in this world economy of ours. I picked up some of the publications that the Center has put out and I’m very impressed with them because they are picking up obviously on a lot of the same issues we picked up on because a lot of the things we need to do don’t change because we still haven’t done them. With the existence of this Center now, in terms of long-term planning, that will help us a lot; and hopefully future governors and future legislators will listen, pay attention, and look at the kinds of issues that this Center’s going to keep throwing up in front of them.
Look what we’ve done in education, for instance, in primary and secondary education. With all of its flaws and all of the griping that we do about it, we’ve come a long way since 1990, when the legislature passed the Reform Act. As I say, you can argue with some of it, but we are a lot better off than we were before. Those kinds of issues we’re starting to grapple with and to me that’s another signal that our folks are becoming more educated as to the need to look long-range in this state so that our people, our citizens, will have and be able to enjoy the same quality of life as citizens in other parts of the state and of the world. Thank you.
Ms. Lovely:
That’s the first time I’ve heard Steve speak that he didn’t tease me about being pregnant the whole time I worked for him. By the way, my boys are 13 and 15. That’s how many years ago that was. That was wonderful. I actually learned something new. If any of you are aware of the Kentucky Science and Technology Council, the League is in partnership with them now to grow entrepreneurship in Kentucky communities. Kentucky Tomorrow really set the stage for that whole idea of exercising the ability to do citizen involvement programs and the Chamber has shown the leadership.
I would also note Steve’s comment about structural problems. In fact, if you read about civic engagement projects, one of the biggest issues is it lacks the structural components to make it last into the future. And that’s certainly something that we should examine and take a look at in our question and answer period. And now, we have the Millers, no relation to one another. First, I’m going to call on Mary Helen Miller, who is truly one of the tall timber of leadership in this state. She served 20 years in state government in various capacities, most recently with Governor Jones as his Chief of Staff and just about everything else. I know she was instrumental in making policy in this state and has been very involved in citizen engagement projects for a long time. Mary Helen, come on up and tell us about it.
Ms. Miller:
Thank you, Sylvia. I’ve said many times in my life that I enjoy challenges, but I have to say today is a challenge to be on the last program of a full day and third on a four-person panel, but I appreciate the audience, and we have had a good day of discussion and ideas. The previous sessions today have discussed the leading qualifiers for community initiatives and I reaffirm all of those.
It has been my privilege to be involved in a number of strategic planning efforts including the Kentucky Tomorrow Commission which was a wonderful experience. Steve, I really do applaud you for the vision to set that up. It was a good experience for Kentucky. I was involved with the Chamber of Commerce’s 21st Century Project. And, then a couple of years ago, there was strategic planning for the Appalachian part of the state, which developed the report, Communities of Hope. It’s exciting when people come together and the ideas begin to flow and form these visions for an area. The Kentucky Commission on Quality and Efficiency examined state government and provided strategic planning for greater efficiency. As chair of this Long-Term Policy Board a couple of years ago, we did Visioning Kentucky, and this conference is a follow-up to that.
Today, though, I’m going to focus on an effort that I was involved in some seven or eight years ago, called Shelbyville 2000. Neil Hackworth, then Mayor of Shelbyville, now works for the Kentucky League of Cities as General Counsel. I’m focusing on this effort because it illustrates so many of the things that we’ve talked about today as being important in a community initiative, and since it did involve the community of Shelbyville, it’s a more appropriate example to use today. And I’m very proud that I was a part of this effort as well. Neil was Chair and I was Vice Chair and a lot of people in Shelbyville worked very hard through this effort. The results are still coming in and that’s why I wanted to focus on this particular effort.
In looking back over all of these efforts and thinking about what made them work, I’ve come up with a few strengths that I want to mention today. The one I think is the most important is committed leadership from those who are in authority and who can make resources available to the effort. You remember this morning Nancy from Simpson County noted that theirs was a Chamber of Commerce effort, so it was a group of citizens. But they did approach the leadership of the city and county and got their endorsement, so even though the leaders were not the ones who initiated the project, they endorsed it. In Shelbyville, we were fortunate enough to have the leadership from the elected officials and the people who were in a position to provide some finances. Now obviously those of you who are involved with city government know that finances are very limited, so resources were limited, but with the credibility from the leadership you can tap into other resources, and there will be some follow-up. So vision, energy, and positive reinforcement from officials are needed.
Secondly, organization is necessary. To have a smooth operation of meetings requires some paid staff, which means resources must be available. There is nothing more frustrating than disorganized meetings with no agenda. The structure has got to be there to move things along. I have on occasion been chairman of volunteer efforts and I’ve been in administrative positions in my job. It’s easier to direct staff than it is to direct volunteers. Sometimes working with volunteers is like pushing string. You’re never real sure where it’s going to go, but if there is staff who will make sure that the meeting room is set up, and the basic things are covered, the volunteers can then work effectively with their time rather than being frustrated and thus become cynical about the whole process.
The meetings themselves have to be open, fully participatory, and meaningful. There has to be a reason to be there, not to just sit around and talk. It has to matter that you’re at the meeting in order to sustain interest. People have too many things to do with their time to want to go to meetings just to hear their neighbors complain or give opinions. The agenda needs to be set, but it needs to be flexible enough that changes are made based on public input, so that the people who go to the meetings know that they can effect change. That again goes back to that it has to matter that they’re there at the meetings.
The public needs to be kept informed of what’s going on at the meetings so that those who don’t actually attend still know what’s going on. I think this is extremely important.
There has to be a visualization of the plan. The people who are participating have to see it. They have to know what’s going to happen with these initiatives. It needs to be based on the community values, not some abstract planning developed by somebody from outside. The community itself, the people themselves, has to do the planning. When we began Shelbyville 2000, we considered hiring a consultant to come look at Shelbyville and tell us what we could be in the year 2000. But as we got into the process, we realized nobody knows the community better than us, so we were the ones who needed to be doing the planning. We did get a facilitator to keep the meetings on track, and I do endorse that. We set time frames and identified funding sources for the plan.
As the implementation starts, there needs to be room for fresh faces and new ideas. John Bowling made reference to this and I certainly do agree. This plan was made in 1990. Neil is no longer Mayor. I’m no longer on the Board. The person who was Executive Director when this plan was established is no longer there. There is a new Executive Director, but the work is going on, and it’s going on beautifully. Some of the people who were on the Board at that time are still involved and on the committees, but a lot of us aren’t. I think this prevents burnout. When you get into the public policy arena you hear the same issues and complaints over and over so somebody needs to come in with fresh energy, take up those battles, and move ahead.
You need to recognize what’s working as well as what needs to be improved, and we also enjoyed having a fresh perspective. We have a creek that runs around most of downtown Shelbyville, which was perceived as a barrier, something to overcome. There was a lot of trash in it and it was seen as a problem. The facilitator who looked at our community presented the idea that this is like a green necklace around the city, and we could make a walking path there. So we started looking at it from that perspective and now it’s considered an asset. There are now canoe trips, and a cleanup group goes on the creek in the spring and the fall to clean up the trash. A change in perspective can be creative and energizing.
I would also suggest that the plan itself list the items for implementation which would involve not only organizations but also allow individuals or community businesses to participate as well. As an example, one of the parts of the plan was to emphasize some of the historic preservation, not only of downtown, our core area, but of the corridors coming into downtown suggesting landscaping and planting of trees. As the old trees fell or became diseased, other trees should be planted. People who were not formally involved in the planning process could participate.
I have the report which was made in April of 1990 and just indulge me a moment in format here. I want to just point out that the report was divided into several areas and with each area there was a priority or strategy listed. Then there’s a column noting who has the responsibility for that strategy. The next column notes the source of finances for that strategy. The next column is the date. Is it an immediate action, is it a long-term action, or is it a short-term action? And, those terms are defined in the time frame. Consequently, it is simple to keep score on the implementation.
This is something I’m proud of because it’s the community where I live and have lived for over 30 years and plan to live, hopefully, a long time. When I drive down Main Street and see that the electrical lines in our core business area are now buried, we have new sidewalks, there’s a canoe launch for Clear Creek, and Clear Creek has been cleaned up, we have trees planted along Main Street, we have new benches, new trash containers, we have new street lights, we have a defined entry area for both the east and west sections of the city. I’m convinced that none of these things would be in place if we hadn’t had Shelbyville 2000. They didn’t just happen. We have committees still working. Yes, there have been lots of frustrations. There are lots of things that are in the plan that we haven’t done yet. However, I’m confident that many things would not have been done if we hadn’t had the plan. So each time I drive down the street it just reaffirms my belief that it’s worth the trouble to have a community initiative to involve the broad-based citizen participation and to make the plan for the community. Thank you.
Ms. Lovely:
Thank you for mentioning Neil, too. He is a visionary in the office and it’s not bad to have an old mayor around, either, at the Kentucky League of Cities. Our final speaker is Steve Miller, who is the Executive Director of the Buffalo Trace Area Development District and does a tremendous job. He has shown a great deal of leadership in his work at the local level with city and county officials and citizen members of the ADD. It’s really the Area Development District level where you can bring people together and be a success story as Steve is in the Maysville area. Steve Miller, tell us a little about some of the projects you’ve worked on.
Mr. Miller:
Thank you, Sylvia. I may take a little different approach in looking at community initiatives. When first asked to speak on this subject, my first thoughts were to take a look at past initiatives that were successful, and what qualities those successful initiatives had in common. I have tried to define those and arrived at nine points. I would like to use a project-driven community initiative to help illustrate these points. The one I would like to use is the A-A Highway.
Of course, initiatives can be programs, processes, or projects. The A-A Highway was a regional project initiative that was undertaken in a 10- to 15-county area that did result in a success over a long period of time. It did take a lot of staying power to hold that initiative over the approximately 15 years between the time the idea was first being advocated locally and citizen involvement began until the actual project resulted.
First, I would note that a successful community initiative must be widely accepted. I think in the case of the A-A Highway, that certainly was a very widely accepted initiative. I think that the whole quadrant of northeastern Kentucky felt there was a need for an east-west connector and that it was not a difficult sale job to get broad-based support of the need.
Secondly, it was a very inclusive process. Meetings were held to organize the project. This was an initiative identified from a community process that quickly developed into a region-wide initiative. It was widely publicized, and from our past records I noted that in the initial meeting held in Maysville, 125 people from 10 counties attended. It was basically a pep rally and a stimulus to get this initiative underway.
Very important to this and other initiatives is the buy-in of key individuals and organizations. Local officials, organizations, community and business leaders, legislators, and other interested citizens must be interested and involved. Certainly those individuals on the local level that have influence with decisionmakers at the state and federal level need to be involved to make the local initiative successful.
I would add that leaders within the organization have to be widely accepted by the group. It has been mentioned before, but I believe it is very important that there be identifiable milestones within the process of the ultimate goal. It gives an opportunity to celebrate successes along the way. One example I recall in the example of the A-A Highway was after the organization first evolved, the state agreed to conduct a feasibility study for the project. That was an initial accomplishment made toward their goal and was widely viewed as a success.
My next point is accomplishments provide recognition for all. It is very important that all are able to share in the credit that comes from successes. It should not be limited only to one or two that might be the spokespersons. That was accomplished in the project I am using as an illustration.
Organization for continuing efforts and facilitation is important. I think Mary Helen spoke to that issue very concisely. In the case of the A-A Highway project, it was a multicounty, multiADD, area involving 10 to 15 counties. The Area Development Districts provided logistical support and organization to the group, but there were leaders from each of the subareas that became a steering committee to bring about guidance to the effort.
The two additional points that I believe are overriding factors to the success of any community initiative are that those involved believe that it can be achieved. Positive attitudes rub off. Secondly, that individual and organizational differences be put aside for the common good of the initiative that is underway.
The example I am using is not the every day small project or program. Of course, the A-A Highway was a massive undertaking and very expensive, but at the same time the project afforded an opportunity to avoid organizational or individual conflicts because it was such a widely accepted initiative. From my personal experience, I do not recall any negative comments voiced against the project. There were some differences as to exact locations when it came to actual construction, but not for the corridor itself.
Thank you for allowing me to share these thoughts.
Ms. Lovely:
And now, we’ve been talking a lot. You all are patient to wait out there. Any comments, questions before I call on someone? Yes? Please tell us who you are and speak up. I don’t know if we have a microphone here.
Bill Richardson:
There’s no reason to reinvent the wheel. Ms. Miller, you know about the report on Shelbyville. Some of these projects are very delicate initiatives easily frustrating and maybe it’s a nuts and bolts issue of just taking an earlier report and working it out. We’re available at State Archives and we have many of these reports. Local Area Development Districts have copies of community reports and if they don’t have them there, they can forward them to the Archives, so I would suggest that what we have is available in records.
Ms. Lovely:
Great. For those who didn’t hear, that was Bill Richardson. He is very important in working in State Archives and is encouraging. They have all the transcripts and work that has been done in the State Archives if anybody wants to look at a case study which might be an important thing to pick up. I hope you do pick up on some of the studies that you’ve heard about today. They’ll be helpers for you. Any quick observations, questions?
Bill Wells:
I am Bill Wells from Louisville. I’m also the President of a nonprofit group for individuals who have experienced mental illness and are also trying to develop a business, develop some economies for people with physical or psychiatric disabilities. My question evolves around the comment that was made earlier that the state is a big thing to move. How would you have included people who might be in Welcome House, which is in Shelbyville? How did you get them to participate in your planning process, or have you?
Ms. Lovely:
Mary Helen talked about Shelbyville.
Male Voice:
A lot of times people who have experienced mental illness create these little cities that we know as mental health hospitals and they extracted that group, you’ve put them outside of a town, but we’ve never been afforded the bridge back in.
Ms. Miller:
We did not probably seek the input of those people, however, we had a number of public meetings at which they would be welcome, but we didn’t actually go to the facility and seek their input during that process.
Ms. Lovely:
Thank you. Any other final comments, questions? I think we are just about out of time, but to just quickly sum up here. Some of the things we heard about included breaking down that wall of citizen apathy, anger, or distrust. How do you keep people engaged and how do you engage them to begin with? And then how do you keep them engaged in the process? How do you make it inclusive of all the people that need, who want to have their voices heard? How do you deal with the issue of lack of resources? Are peoples’ expectations being developed in a way? I think this morning of the woman who asked the question about higher education in this part of the state, perhaps as Mary Helen reported on the creek around the city and thinking outside the box. Maybe we need more thinking about the goals that, while every city can’t have a state university in it, it can have world class educational facilities and that’s a different kind of goal and more attainable than having a university in every community. So, maybe that’s part of sustainability.
Steve Beshear mentioned structural issues. You have structural things in place or we have to bring about change to bring down structural barriers at the state level certainly. Mary Helen and John mentioned staff, how important staff are in establishing something, and how important that identifiable structure was, having all of our processes be people-friendly and having good listeners. I think even hearing things sometimes that leaders don’t like to hear has to be done. There has to be some good with what they may perceive as also being bad. I think that’s important. Or as the woman from Franklin-Simpson County mentioned, you have to feed people sometimes just to get them interested. You’d have to define the scope and maybe redefine the scope of what it is that people are looking for.
Neil, did you want to make a comment? You were mentioned prominently about Shelbyville and I know the downtown revitalization project came out of that, and we’re all talking about downtown revitalization a lot these days. You might want to comment on that just a tad and close this up.
Mr. Hackworth:
Nobody’s results are going to be the same. So you’ve got the process of the plan as what you really need to focus on. There are ways. These communities were able to get where they needed to get. In our case, we looked at downtown primarily because this happened in conjunction with our Main Street Program and I think that communities have other ways that they may want to approach these kinds of processes through other groups as John did, through an economic development process. I think another thing is that with these plans, as Mary Helen mentioned, you always have to be adjusting things as you go forward and we’ve had to do that. With any plan you put in place, things change over time. Technology has changed over time. All these things change and so you can’t just put a plan in place, put it on the shelf, and say we’re going to follow it exactly. Some of the visions and goals stay the same, but the implementation process has to be changed before you can move forward.
Ms. Lovely:
In addition to making changes in goals, you have to change along the way too and adapt.
Mr. Hackworth:
Identifying those community values Mary Helen talked about is important. Every community has different values that are important to them, so if you set benchmarks you’ve got to be sure that your community’s culture will accept those benchmarks and make them work. Not every benchmark will work in every community.
Ed Yager:
I’m a Professor of Government at Western Kentucky University. I think one area that deserves some exploration is university participation in these visioning efforts. I came across an article in The Wall Street Journal not long ago where Colgate University in New York was providing an awful lot of technical assistance to small rural communities there in New York. I recently completed a project in which I surveyed university centers across the country and found that close to half of them provided technical assistance for these visioning efforts within their particular regions and faculty are very much involved in identifying trends, doing demographic analysis, and conducting surveys to get community input. Some were even involved in facilitating group discussion and consensus building. I did find a major deficiency, which is follow-up. Not one of the universities surveyed provided any technical assistance for evaluation and monitoring.
Ms. Lovely:
Excellent point. That may be one of our hidden resources out there, the community involvement that our universities do. I know you are very involved in that. Ed and I talk frequently about these kinds of projects. Any other comments, questions? All right, thank you. Yes, John?
Mr. Bowling:
Sylvia, I would just like to say one other thing. I just mentioned one issue that came out of our visioning process. There’s probably another, I could name at least four or five, but I don’t want to bore you with those, but they came out of the same process. There were many, many of them.
Ms. Lovely:
And I would say these panelists are available if you want to chat with them about something specific that they talked about. I really urge you if you want to find out what’s going on out there, contact people who are doing it and have done it successfully. I think that’s a lot of it and it’s sometimes a lot easier not to reinvent the wheel. Thank you very much. I appreciate your being here today and staying until the end.
To view a list of all chapters in this book, click here. To read the chapters in sequential order, please follow the arrows below.
