Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bylaws And Outreach topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Taos MRA board begins drafting bylaws, emphasizes community outreach and cultural responsiveness
Summary
Board members discussed drafting bylaws to define roles, transparency and decision-making, and proposed proactive public outreach—roundtables, neighborhood sessions and a community benefit matrix demonstration—to ensure cultural responsiveness and community input into redevelopment priorities.
Board members devoted substantial time to planning bylaws that would codify how the Taos MRA advisory board operates, how it engages the public and how it balances cultural preservation, equity and local economic benefit when evaluating projects.
The chair said the group needs a document that clarifies chair and vice-chair responsibilities, board member expectations and a transparent decision process that embeds cultural responsiveness and equity. “We would create a document that is codified in how we interact with the community, how we're held accountable, how we do our best to be inclusive and equitable in the work that we’re doing,” the chair said.
Members recommended gathering sample bylaws from other MRAs (Lovington, Farmington) and holding a work-study session or scheduled meeting—compliant with the Open Meetings Act—to adapt templates rather than drafting from scratch. One member suggested roundtable outreach sessions with easels and sticky-note boards to collect community input; another urged outreach across neighborhoods (Pueblo, Ranchos) with proper noticing and presentation of informational materials rather than decision-making in those sessions.
The board also agreed to a public demonstration of a community benefit matrix developed by the consultant Antropoulos; the chair said Antropoulos will present the matrix at the May meeting using TioVivo as a use case to help the board prioritize projects and design a decision pipeline. Members emphasized multiple opportunities for public comment before any bylaw vote; the chair suggested targeting substantive discussion and possible vote in June after public review of draft templates.
The discussion produced no formal vote on bylaws; it produced direction to collect examples, hold an appropriately noticed work session or meeting, and present a draft template for public review at an upcoming meeting.
