Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> - -- ----- <br /> conduct a "selling" campaign, it indicated that the proper people were not <br /> e involved in the process. Mr. Rutan said ideally the solution would be to <br /> create an in-depth public involvement process so that the public information <br /> process was truly informational, and not a sales pitch. Mr. Nicholson said <br /> that a test of such information was that it embraced all well-developed, <br /> valid points of view and could still sustain the result desired. Mr. Rutan <br /> agreed. <br /> Ms. Rich said that the disillusionment referred to by Mr. Nicholson was fos- <br /> tered by the community goals conferences. There is an enormous gap between <br /> goals and realizations at times. She said if the committee could avoid that <br /> gap in the process, it would be useful to its ultimate success. Goals by <br /> themselves are nothing, and she wished to focus on financial issues in order <br /> to let people know that without money, no special interest group or single <br /> individual will get what they want. <br /> Mr. Gleason discussed the process that the committee might follow. He said <br /> were the committee to gain consensus among the Budget Committee and City <br /> Council regarding what the issue is, it could serve as a steering group to <br /> identify other groups to check with to ensure that those groups recognized <br /> the issue in the same way. Mr. Gleason said that after that is done, the <br /> committee could start another consensus ring. He said the process is both <br /> iterative and interactive: The committee will continue to need to keep test- <br /> ing reality with the community to ensure that the policymakers and community <br /> move forward together. He cited the library as a successful example of such <br /> a process. The council has gone to the community and asked it what it want- <br /> e ed, and then returned to the community with the results of that discussion to <br /> confirm its perception. If the committee has a good testing system and <br /> reaches a point where it could agree on what the desired goal was, it could <br /> either act or return to the people for a vote. Mr. Gleason encouraged the <br /> committee to keep an open mind regarding downsizing the organization, but <br /> cautioned against downsizing by "watering the soup." He said the outcome of <br /> such an action could result in public anger and disillusionment, as it will <br /> mean the closure of facilities and the public will believe such action was <br /> punitive. He predicated some incident would bring home the lack of public <br /> resources to the.community, and that incident will result in public anger. <br /> Any downsizing decision should be rational, logical, and complete, and should <br /> not shred the relationship between the City and community. <br /> Mr. McLoud said everyone at the table recognized that there was a problem, <br /> although not all people would have the same solution. He believed that the <br /> first thing the committee needed to do was to get the community to agree that <br /> there was a problem. This meant that the committee needed to share informa- <br /> tion with the community. Mr. McLoud said all Budget Committee members could <br /> carry the message to the community that there is a problem, and then the <br /> committee could focus on what to do next. A variety of methods could be used <br /> to collect input from the community, and the committee would then have agree- <br /> ment among the stakeholders that there is a problem. Mr. McLoud said once <br /> the community agrees there is a problem, solutions would "stumble over them- <br /> selves." Strategic planning in an abbreviated format could follow the commu- <br /> e MINUTES--Strategic Plan Committee November 1, 1990 Page 8 <br />