Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Strategic Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Los Alamos utilities board reviews new mission, vision and values and asks staff to refine language
Summary
At a combined strategic-planning and regular meeting, the Los Alamos Board of Public Utilities reviewed staff-recommended mission, vision and values; board members asked staff to add economic language to the mission, reconsider the word "uninterrupted" in the vision and return a revised draft at the September work session.
The Los Alamos Board of Public Utilities spent the bulk of its Aug. 20 meeting reviewing a staff-drafted update to the department’s mission, vision and values. Management told the board the recommended vision — “to earn the highest level of community confidence through uninterrupted utility services” — grew from a half‑day staff workshop and an effort to align the code of ethics with an employee-facing values statement.
Board members praised the effort but pushed for small but meaningful edits. Chair Terry Gibson said the word “uninterrupted” is an aspirational standard that might be too prescriptive; Gibson recommended incorporating an explicit economic element into the mission so the department’s fiscal responsibilities are visible. One board member suggested changing the mission to include “economical” or a short phrase about balancing service quality and cost.
Management responded that staff had already considered adding a reference to economics and would incorporate that feedback. Kathy Darwin, a management facilitator at the meeting, said the intent of the proposed vision and values is to create a concise, memorable statement staff can use in daily decision-making and onboarding.
The board also discussed the relationship between the proposed values and the department’s existing code of ethics. Staff said the values are distilled from the code of ethics and are meant to be used as a practical, repeated cue for employees; the code remains the deeper, explanatory document used for training and disciplinary guidance.
Members proposed a handful of wording changes — including adding references to safety and clarifying “organizational responsibility” — and emphasized the need to keep the document employee-friendly, not just externally oriented. Staff agreed to revise the draft, adding the board’s suggested edits, and to return with a revised recommendation at the September work session before forwarding a final proposal to council.
The discussion was framed as iterative: Philo (utilities staff) told the board he and the management team will incorporate the changes and bring a polished version back for formal consideration in September.
