Martha’s Vineyard Commission (MVC) executive director Mark London announced last week that he plans to retire after 12 years at the helm of the Island’s powerful regional permitting and planning agency. The commissioners have yet to decide whether the commission will direct the search for his successor, or rely on the services of a professional search firm.
To his credit, Mr. London has provided ample time, almost a full year, for the commission to search for a new executive director. This presents an opportunity for commission members to meet with selectmen and discuss what qualities the Island’s elected leaders would like to see in the next person chosen to take the MVC helm.
The towns have a considerable stake in the administrative leadership of the MVC, an agency that has considerable influence over Island development and planning.
The MVC operating budget is $1.5 million. The bulk of the MVC’s income comes from Dukes County taxpayers through town assessments based on property tax valuation. All seven towns in Dukes County, which includes Gosnold, share the cost of planning, according to their relative property valuation.
In fiscal year 2015, Edgartown once again paid the lion’s share, $384,043. Chilmark paid $176,600; Aquinnah paid $40,840; Oak Bluffs shelled out $149,526; Tisbury fell just short of Oak Bluffs at $148,604; West Tisbury came in at $138,250. Gosnold chipped in $9,615.
Putting aside the cost, the MVC exercises, through its permitting authority, considerable influence over projects small and large designated as developments of regional impact (DRIs). It is a definition that is as elastic as the mood of the individual commissioners, and capable of encompassing a Girl Scout camp off Middle Road in Chilmark, a pizza place, and a major renovation of an Island supermarket in Tisbury.
Mr. London was a longtime seasonal Island visitor and city planner in Montreal, Canada, when he was hired. Immediately after he started in October 2002, he reviewed MVC operations, interviewing past and present commissioners, town officials, board representatives, and MVC applicants.
In March 2003, he released a 43-page report, “Looking at the Commission, Review of the Operations of the Martha’s Vineyard Commission and Recommendations for Improvement,” in which he proposed numerous recommendations designed to revitalize the commission and significantly change the way the regional land use planning agency operates and interacts with the public, elected officials, and Island towns.
The report contained 11 general recommendations, 38 specific recommendations, and 131 concrete actions to achieve them. More than 11 years later, the report makes interesting reading. Many of his observations continue to ring true.
Among the key recommendations Mr. London made was that the commission must be more selective in accepting projects as DRIs, and streamline the process to make more effective use of time; refocus the MVC so more time is spent on planning; create a better working partnership with Island towns; and create smaller working committees where the commissioners can make better use of their time.
Among his findings he said, “There is a perception that the MVC improvises the process as it moves along, that it micro-manages projects, and that its decisions are inconsistent.”
Looking at recent DRI hearings, and a discussion of the type of shrubbery that must be used to screen the new bowling alley in Oak Bluffs, and the dimensions of green space in front of a proposed affordable housing apartment building in Tisbury, it would be difficult to make the case that much has changed.
Back then, Mr. London recommended that the DRI process be “thoroughly renewed” to become more clear and predictable — and also to make better use of everyone’s time, including the applicants’, publics’, and commissioners’.”
It would be hard to argue that the year-long review of the Tisbury Stop & Shop proposal, which ended with nothing to show for it, was anything but.
Mr. London said that “with respect to the way meetings were conducted, many interviewees criticized what they felt was excessive repetition, speechifying, lack of self-discipline (‘not everyone has to weigh in on every issue’), disorganization, getting side-tracked and getting bogged down in detail that is not of real regional impact.”
Sound familiar?
Mr. London also recommended that commissioners should read the material provided to them before the meeting, and “they should exercise self-discipline — speaking less often, ‘not thinking out loud’ and not repeating what has already been said by others.
“They should attempt to choose their words carefully,” he continued, “knowing that their words may be repeated in newspapers or in court.”
If he could have foreseen the future and a toss-off remark made by a veteran commissioner at a bowling alley public hearing, he would have added, “or caught on a microphone.”
The MVC commissioners might benefit by rereading Mr. London’s assessment of the commission, made when he was fresh on the job.
With almost ten months to go before he departs, and the benefit of 12 years experience under his belt, Mr. London might also consider revisiting his review. An exit assessment of MVC operations would make for equally interesting reading.