01/24/1979 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e the Commission does feel an urgency about improving citizen involvement at a policy level, as opposed to the implementation level. There is citizen involvement at all levels now, but citizen input at the policy level appears to be less than adequate. Ms. McGriff said the ClAC's work program was outlined in materials given to Council, with a time line for the various activities. One of the first items was to look into the first part of the planning process. The Commit- tee feels there are areas within the citizen involvement program that do need to be improved. The Committee also felt the entire process needs to be looked at. The conflict seems to be that because CrAC is looking at many areas including the policy level, that perhaps the Commission does not feel that to be proper. Regarding the Planning Commission's memo- randum and its reference to two separate planning bodies, she said that simply would not be so. The ClAC was not established to evaluate what the planning process is, but is interested in evaluating where the citizen involvement access points are in that process. Once evaluated, the recommendations for improvement would be made. Dr. MacKinnon noted for Council the Planning Commission would be very willing to work with the Council on alternatives to the program as it now exists. e Adrienne Lannom said she had served on both groups, and therefore was giving a IImiddlell report. She noted the Planning Commission had expressed interest and concern with the CrAC through appointing four members to the Committee, by meeting with the ClAC in February, and by scheduling infor- mal reports with her before June 26. She said the Planning Commission members were free at any time to come to any of the Committee meetings, but noted only Jim Bernhard attended. Except for a requested report on work programs June 26, no specific concerns of the Planning Commission had been transmitted to the Committee before June 26. She reviewed the actions which have resulted in the stalemate between the Committee and the Planning Commission. She felt those actions and reactions obscured the central issue. She said from public hearings and information gathered in April by the Committee, it appeared the reasons citizens were not in- volved at a policy making level was because of their perceptions of how they were allowed to be involved, and also how that involvement was responded to at the implementation level. The ClAC felt reviewing the implementation level processes might add to their evaluation and recom- mendations for involvement at the policy level. She said limiting ClAC's capability to gather information would not help produce solutions to increasing citizen involvement. On June 26, the Planning Commission action said it did not want the crAC to continue to look for that informa- tion. This is the issue that needs to be resolved. She had voted for the ClAC's recommendations and did not agree with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Regarding points raised in the Planning Commission memo, she said the fact that the CrAC was asking for information on the planning process does not lead to the conclusion that the Committee wanted to be a planning body. She said the dire predictions of what might'occur with the CrAC reporting directly to the Council probably would not come true. She said the Council presently has other commissions and boards reporting directly to it who are involved in some way to implement LCDC goals. That does not make them planning bodies, even though they are involved with planning. - 51 1/24/79 - 7