By Natalie Bazinet
Staff Writer
CARIBOU — When member’s left their requested meeting with steering committee officials on Nov. 9 having received the requested presentation regarding reorganization efforts of the Caribou Chamber of Commerce and Industry, two thing were crystal clear: members expect to be better informed of reorganizational efforts in the continuing process and the Chamber will no longer be handling economic development once the new organization is established no later than Saturday, Jan. 1, 2011.
Aroostook Republican photo/Natalie Bazinet
Shawn Pelletier, Shawn Anderson and Joseph Sleeper, members of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry steering committee and the board of directors presented options identified by the steering committee for establishing the new chamber during the Nov. 9 business meeting at the Caribou Inn and Convention Center. The three listened as fellow chamber board member Richard Solman, far right, answered questions from chamber members during the meeting regarding the 2009 bylaws.
While Chamber members had petitioned for the Special Members Meeting, there were very few definitive answers available during the hour-long presentation, though it was informative as to where the steering committee was to-date regarding ideas and options.
While January first is fast approaching and the steering committee is still lacking a tangible course of action, committee officials assured chamber members that a plan will be completed within the next seven weeks “even if it means burning the midnight oil,” as put by steering committee member and president of the board of directors Joseph Sleeper.
There are three scenarios being developed by the steering committee, each at varied levels of progress, which according to the presentation were designed by examining cost efficiencies and economics scale, possible ways to reduce the city’s financial contribution to the Chamber and instead using existing capacities in finance and facilities, and by examining scenarios of independent stand- alone corporations versus city departments.
Option One focuses on a stand- alone chamber (one full-time, two part-time employees) and a stand-alone economic development organization (one full-time employee) comprised of non-city employees. Option Two promotes a chamber (one full-time, two part-time employees) and economic development corporation (one full-time employee) that would be directly employed by the city. While Scenario Three is very similar to Scenario Two, it focuses on moving the Chamber to the Wellness and Recreation Center and moving the Economic Development Corporation to City Hall. Option Three had the most data to go along with it, including a list of budget comparisons and projected cost savings.
Committee officials also presented information regarding the organization’s loan portfolio and the disposition of assets.
The hour-long presentation sparked an hour-long question-and- answer period, though some had fewer questions than differences of opinion. One member of the Chamber questioned whether the Chamber was needed at all and accused board members of trying to reinvent the wheel, while another defended the existing Chamber asking how the city or the board could be displeased with chamber staff considering that after the city contracted the Chamber for services, the city never listed its expectations, established solid goals or suggestions as to how they wanted the Chamber to move forward with economic development until last year.
Questions were abundant regarding the why’s and how’s of reorganization and steering committee members responded with the information they had.
“Everyone should reevaluate what they’re doing every once and a while,” said City Council member “Farmer” Mark Goughan regarding the Chamber board of directors’ decision to address cost savings by separating economic development from Chamber duties.
“Change just for the sake of changing isn’t necessarily good. It has to be analyzed and it has to be discussed,” he added, mentioning that Chamber members haven’t had an opportunity to voice their opinions on reorganization and subtly questioned how Chamber members might react should they not be allowed to vote on reorganization.
Goughan also expressed his concerns about how some of the ideas and options could potentially politicize the Chamber.
