Gullixson: Our editorial goals for the year

'The greater danger for most of us isn't that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it.'

— Michelangelo

Of course, we still worry about publicly declaring our ambitions and being called out for falling short of them.

Which is why one has to feel for Harper Lee. My family and I were as elated as anyone at last week's announcement that Lee is going to publish a sequel to her treasured 'To Kill a Mockingbird.' (As it happens, my daughter and I are reading it together, as her brother and I did back when he was in sixth grade.)

But given that 55 years have passed since Atticus Finch, Scout and Jem first came into our literature, it's difficult to imagine how this new novel could sustain the weight of expectations. But even if it falls flat, could the disappointment be any greater than if she had never made the attempt?

I mention this only as a prelude to announcing our own goals for the year, something that comes with some measure of risk if not clamor.

A year ago at this time, we announced the debut of our new Editorial Board Community Member program. As we explained, the program was the result of our goal to broaden the diversity — in terms of age, gender, geographic and otherwise — of our editorial board. Two members of the community, from various sectors, geographic areas and demographic groups are invited to sit on the editorial board for staggered six-month terms.

All four of our community members this year have taken part in weekly editorial board meetings, interviews with local leaders and election candidates and assisted in the development of editorial positions. And, more recently, they've also had a hand in setting our editorial board goals for the year. This was the result of a discussion about how easy it can be, as overseers of the opinion pages, to simply react to the news that is happening as opposed to advocate for the programs and services that aren't.

As a result, here are our goals for the year. Most are not subjects that are new to our section. But these represent the primary issues in Sonoma County that we believe require regular attention and discussion on our pages:

Maintaining our commitment to push for adoption of a Sunshine Law in Santa Rosa.

We're pleased to see that the Santa Rosa City Council, after meeting for two days to talk about its goals last week, also made this a priority for the next 18 months. But will this council just cherry-pick from the many recommendations made by the Open Government Task Force late last year or will embrace the panel's recommendations in full? We plan to follow this closely.

Tracking and responding in a timely fashion to the recommendations of the county's Community and Local Law Enforcement Task Force set up in the aftermath of the shooting of Andy Lopez.

Similar officer-involved shootings in other parts of the nation have only elevated the importance of this discussion and set Sonoma County up as a potential model for how a community can work through these difficult issues without violence.

Tracking and encouraging the annexation of Roseland.

As noted in our Feb. 1 editorial ('Adding Roseland is no math problem'), this latest attempt at annexation represents the most promising yet. But it's still a long-term plan, one that could fall victim to economic downturns and changes among those in elected office. This is a marathon, not a sprint.

Maintaining public awareness and encouraging solutions to the growing crisis of rental housing in Sonoma County.

With rents having soared 30 percent on average over the past three years — faster than almost anywhere in the nation — and housing starts having hit a 45-year low, this problem is going to get worse before it gets better. With the loss of redevelopment agencies, cities also lack the tools they once had to encourage the construction of affordable housing. It's a bad combination.

Being a focal point for community discussion on what will happen with the former Sutter Hospital site on Chanate Road.

More than three months have passed since Sutter vacated its old campus for its new $292 million hospital off Highway 101. But it's still not clear what's going to happen with the old site. Many ideas are floating around, and the county is doing some analysis, but we believe it's imperative that the public be included in these discussions as early and as much as possible.

There are certainly many other issues that will continue to be the focus of our attention including the drought, unfunded liabilities, the progress of SMART and the growing challenges facing health care and education at all levels. One of our two-year goals is tracking and offering regular commentary on the potential legalization of marijuana, an issue that's likely to be on the 2016 ballot in California. Some readers may disagree with these goals while others, no doubt, will point out where we have fallen short. But, as greater minds have observed, I would rather be accused of missing a high target than not having one.