For greatest transparency, below we share the process by which the Stakeholder board was selected.  Grand River Voices took great care to ensure access and eliminate unnecessary bias in creating this advisory board.

We followed a three-step process:  NOMINATE, RECOMMEND, SELECT

NOMINATE.  Beginning May 1st, any stakeholder was eligible to may nominate up to three individuals, including themselves, for consideration as an SAB member.  There were no barriers to nomination.  A simple form was all that was required, available in English and Spanish, and in digital and paper formats.  The nomination process was broadly publicized in the Grand Rapids community including in direct email solicitations, outreach to local community groups and neighborhood associations, posters and flyers, digital marketing via Facebook, and other means.  The nominations window was open for over three weeks and closed on May 23rd.  At the end of that period, we were proud to have received 36 diverse and strong nominations.

RECOMMEND.  The nominee pool then went to a review team composed of three firms, each with an equal say in making recommendations.  That team included:  (1) Andy Guy representing DGRI, the sponsor of the Equity Framework process; (2)  Candy Isabel representing Khamai Strategies, the community engagement lead on the Grand River Voices effort; and (3) Daniel Tellalian representing Angel City Advisors, a national consultant with expertise in river revitalization and community-led investment, who leads the equity framework development.  Primary considerations for candidate selection included:

• Demographics (diversity and representation of marginalized communities)

• Geography (diversity and representation of marginalized communities)

• Community Connection (authenticity and connection to diverse river stakeholders)

• Role within the Grand River or River Restoration Process (some expertise, formal or informal, regarding the Grand River)

• Understanding of Racial Equity & Social Justice Issues (some expertise, formal or informal, regarding an Equity agenda)

• Organizational Representation (connection to institutions that can or will be working along the river over the next decade)

All nominations were reviewed by the independent team, who will proposed a Board composition of 15 individuals and another potential six alternates.  After significant discussion, the recommendation of the consulting team was unanimous.  Recommended nominees were then contacted to confirm their interest and commitment to the SAB and its responsibilities, prior to moving to a final stage.

SELECTION:  The recommended list of SAB members were brought to a Committee of the Board of a new river nonprofit, name TBD, for confirmation.  These Committee members govern the Outreach and Engagement functions of the new nonprofit, which intends to adopt and implement the Grand River Equity Framework. The role of the committee is to review the recommendations and identify any members that they deem unqualified, unacceptable, or conflicted.  The Committee members can confirm or reject recommended SAB slate, or members within it.  However, they are limited to the consultant-identified alternates in making any replacements.  The Committee may not nominate new members from the at-large community, nor extend beyond those already nominated by the community itself and recommended by the consulting team.  The Committee convened on June 2nd and approved the full list of recommended SAM members.  A first meeting of the Stakeholder Advisory Board was scheduled for June 9th.

We believe this three-step process accomplished the following goals:

1.     It allowed anyone interested to access the process, nominating themselves or another with a low barrier to entry;

2.     It allowed the equity framework consultant team to weigh in on the process for qualifications and diversity of perspective, but not define the field nor have the final say; and

3.     It allowed the implementing nonprofit that will be the key adopter of the framework and “own it” to have a final veto over candidates without selecting any persons directly.

In this process, no single person or organization was present at all phases to influence selection.  We believe the process, while a bit time-consuming, has limited bias and individual influence.  We also believe it has yielded and excellent field of advisors.