10/24/1979 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. structure but to repl ace the management team wi th a management super'vi SOt' who is responsible for the Tri-Agency director. The third possible tit structure is to change the organization to create a new single-purpose intergovernmental agency, like LRAPA, with a separate policy board composed of representatives from the two councils and board of commissionel's who would supervise the Agency and its director, and the last option is to have an existing general purpose government provide this service and have the other two agencies contract with them for the service. Assistant Manager said that, no matter which alternative is selected, essential characteristics include clear role definition for each agency, clear accountability and definition of service delivery, coordinated and joint policy formulation by elected officials, agreed-upon frequent information exchange, and a single mechanism for handling service com- plaints and conflict resolution. He added that the Agency.s past problems have been resolved quite positively. He feels that the best approach from an accountability and service delivery standpoint would be to adopt the fourth option. Council feedback is requested at this time, and the Policy Board will return with a proposal at a later time. Mr. Lieuallen, who serves on the Policy Advisory Committee, said that, generally speaking, the direction of the Tri-Agency Authority has been pretty well accepted by all three jurisdictions. They are in agreement that strong educational and enforcement programs are necessary. He said that it is the day-to-day administration that needs streamlining so that the Agency does not have to continuously deal with three jurisdictions. He said that he also favors the fourth proposal. e Ms. Smith said that she supports Proposal 4 and wondered how Lane County and Springfield would feel about Eugene being the coordinating body. Assistant Manager said that the City of Eugene would be open to the proposal only if asked by the other two jurisdictions. Mr. Hamel agreed that Eugene should be the operational managing body only if the others ag reed. Otherwise, he felt the responsibility lies with the County. Mr. Delay pointed to the current problem of financial commitments as an illustration of unclear expectations. He feels that the door should be kept open to what other jurisdictions think and that there is a need for clarity with regard to the responsibilities between the partners. Ms. Miller felt that Proposal 4 seems the most reasonable because it provides what appears to be a single line of authority, which the Agency has lacked. She feels that the decision of which body will provide the service needs to be made jointly. She appreciates the manner in which this item has been presented. There is time for discussion since the item is being considered without the pressure of a crisis decision. It is a better method than acting by crisis management. Ms. Schue agreed that Proposal 4 would probably be the best alternative provided all jurisdictions are comfortable with it. She would suggest Proposal 3 as the first alternate. Mayor Keller and Mr. Obie both agreed that Proposal 3 would be the most likely alternate, should Proposal 4 not be acceptable. Mr. Lieuallen added that reorganization is not expected to result in increased costs. He also mentioned that each jurisdiction would then be able to tailor its contract delivery to meet its own needs. e S8Z 10/24/79--4