05/16/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- e e VII. NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP/PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAM REVIEW (memo distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Marjorie Beck, Director of Council-Community Services, presented the staff report, reviewing her May 11, 1984, memorandum to the City Manager which outlined the follow-up process to the Survey conducted in November 1983. She said staff was recom- mending that the council set up an ad hoc committee appointed by the Mayor to study citizen participation, with the committee using the survey and the City's related policies and programs as the basis for its works. She explained that the recruitment process for the committee would begin upon City Council adoption of the recommendation. Referring to the memorandum, Ms. Beck stated that staff was recommending option 3 for the review team appointment and composition, that option providing for a committee of two City Councilors, one representative from both neighborhood group survey audiences, one representa- tive from the Citizen Involvement Committee, and two representatives from the community at large. In response to a question on Review Team Charge 3, Ms. Beck said that the issue of broader representation to City boards and commissions could be addressed by the team, but she felt that other methods were also available to address that concern. She said the committee could be directed to study that issue if so directed by the council. Richard Guske, a member of the Whiteaker Community Council and the Citizen Involvement Committee, said he was concerned with the truncated nature of the CIC support from the City, one part being handled by the Planning Department and another by the City Manager1s Office. He said the planning charge for citizen involvement relied upon the network administered through the City Manager's Office, this being a reason for the CIC's recommendation that a Planning Commission representative be included as a member of the ad hoc committee. While a CIC member will be included as part of option 3, Mr. Guske said the CIC recommended option 1 so that the Planning Commission would be involved in discussions regarding any changes to networks used and depended upon to meet legislative functions. Regarding the CIC recommendation, Mr. Guske said the CIC did not feel it was appropriate to have staff on a committee which would be considering policy. He added that the additional views of the neighborhood groups were recommended to provide new perspectives to the process. Councilor Holmer said he had previously discussed the role of CIC with Mr. Guske, the focus of that discussion being whether the role of the CIC should be broadened beyond the planning process in addressing community concerns. He asked Mr. Guske whether it was necessary to have representation from both the CIC and the Planning Commission. Mr. Guske said the CIC felt it was appropriate to have representation from the Planning Commission; he believed that the CIC member could not be expected to entirely fulfill that responsibility. Councilor Schue said that Mr. Guske made a good point in that the Planning Department used the community involvement processes for part of its work. She agreed that having a Planning Commission representative on the committee was a good idea; she raised the question of an eight-member committee. Councilor Smith said she would support either option 3 or having an eight-member committee. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 16, 1984 Page 7