As I'm newer to the area, I don't have anything to compare the last "official" meeting with other than the few small meetings that were held earlier in the year in order to discuss reviving the neighborhood watch. In these meetings, we moved through a concise agenda and answered many of the questions from those of us who are new to the area. We also got together to distribute flyers for the FRI meeting held a few months ago. I hadn't heard any other offers to participate in our community and didn't hear anything in the last meeting (the first "official" I've been to) that would convince me we are moving forward as a group.
At the very least, there needs to be some semblance of organization in order to delegate duties and keep everyone on the same page. I have requested to be put on the "official" e-mail list, and other than one email I have not been included. Things like that are crucial; if someone in our area wants to be involved in the neighborhood watch and gives their information in order to be included, we should welcome their inclusion. While we should be working towards community-building, things seem to be devolving into an us vs. them mentality. If that mentality is going to be of any use, it had better be Us (as a neighborhood watch) vs. Them (crime in our area), and not pitting neighbors against each other.
Moving forward, here are my answers to the questions:
1. I think Jerri Shevlin would serve well as crime watch chairperson and would be my nomination.;
2. I think nominations and elections should be made in an open meeting devoted wholly to organizational and leadership structure. This meeting should be convened as soon as possible. Nominations should be open to anybody residing in our crime watch area.;
3. 2 years seems like a reasonable chairperson term. I don't see any problem with a chairperson serving multiple terms, but leadership need to be ratified by the crime watch as a group, which moves me on to question 4;
4. There needs to be formalized By-laws and Officers. These By-laws can be fairly simple and to the point in order to set standards and processes on what we do as a group. We also need some sort of master list of all those active in the crime watch in order to ensure we are making decisions based on a reasonable quorum of the members.;
5. As in my previous responses, I prefer a formal group. There needs to be some sort of chain of command and clear communication within the group and a formal set of procedures on how we conduct business. The structure I've heard floated is a Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, Secretary, Treasurer, and Webmaster, with Area and/or Block Captains.
Whatever we do going forward needs to be inclusive, transparent, and well-organized. There shouldn't be any long periods of inactivity between meetings, and that is why it is so crucial to have a multi-leader structure instead of putting all of the burden on one person's shoulders.
Matt Mahaffey
