09/11/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

priority list, that procedural or judgemental errors were made by ETAC, two processes would assure a fair result. The first would be for the applicant agencies to file an appeal with ETAC and the Commissioners to -- re-examine their initial decision. An alternative process that should assure the same standard of fair play would be to defer specific allocation concerns back to ETAC for comment, or conduct a joint discussion with ETAC while adopting the balance of the recommended project list to ensure timely program implementation. Manager noted two actions were requested by Council this evening: One to approve the staff's recommendation in letter form to the Lane County Commissioner's, and two, to approve the Mayor's recommen- ded appointments for the ETAC Committee. Ms. Smith endorsed the letter as presented by staff. She said ETAC had met today at noon, and also were going to indicate support for the orginal priority list with the opportunity for discussion if there are any changes. Mr. Haws had received a call today indicating perhaps certain arts groups had not been properly funded. He wondered if the arts groups were getting their fair share. Gary Long, Personnel Director, said that by federal regulations, non-profit organizations should receive 30 percent of the total funds. He noted the arts groups are receiving approximately 41 per- cent. Ms. Smith noted for Mr. Haws, also, that last year there were $12 million to be distributed from CETA funds as compared to $4 to $5 million this year. The arts group did receive a sizable sum last year and it seems they are being recommended to receive a good share again this year. - Mr. Delay wondered, regarding the scoring system, whether each individual project's scores were normalized or if raw scores were used. Mr. Long - said raw scores were given a rated average as indicated on the list. There was some concern expressed in that some committee members might tend to score low or high depending on how they favored individual projects. He hoped in next year's process there would be a normalization process used. He indicated the Commissioners may even use it this year. He said if there were some abuse by the Comittee members, that could be dealt with through the grievance process. He also noted it was in the arts area that those concerns had been raised. In answering a question from Councilor Delay, Mr. Long said each project had a score sheet which indicated various things such as location and meaningfulness of employment. Those scores were totalled in each category and a rated average was developed. From each category that was evaluted, the highest scores were kept until the full list was developed. Ms. Smith noted the CETA staff will be eliminating the highest and lowest scores to see what differences that might make in the priority listing. Mr. Lieuallen requested clarification regarding priority list number 166 in which Mr. Long had indicated a problem existed. Mr. Long said under the City's agreement with Lane County, the City may raise questions about any project. He said in going through that applicatioD, the City could not determine the location nor what kind of employment would occur, nor whether or not it would be representing other projects that were vetoed. He said it was also difficult to determine if this were a continuation of an existing project, which would be in violation of federal regulations. Therefore, he had written a memo indicating those concerns. e 9/12/78--6 "8