Agenda Packet 12-12-18 Work Session

Home Browse Search

78 Participant Evaluation from 11/Participant Evaluation from 11/Participant Evaluation from 11/Participant Evaluation from 11/28282828/18/18/18/18 MeetingMeetingMeetingMeeting At the conclusion of the Working Group meeting on November 28, 2018, participants completed a written evaluation. Their feedback has been synthesized here. Quantitative Evaluation Data Regarding the Process For each of the following process evaluation questions, participants marked a score of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agreed). Scores below are the averages for each question. 1. The Working Group followed the Ground Rules 4.18 2. The facilitator remained impartial. 4.58 3. The information presented (Strategic Economic and PPT) was understandable and useful to me. 3.48 4. The information in the handouts was understandable and useful to me. 4.00 5. I was able to share my ideas: 4.26 6. I felt like my ideas were respected p 4.30 Qualitative Evaluation Data In addition to the quantitative data, participants shared comments, questions or suggestions. The numbers that follow some points indicate that multiple people had similar ideas. Kudos • Mix of people in the room, Voices were included, committee selection process. (3) • Collaborative, respectful conversation. We worked well together. (2) • Small group deliberation (2) • Discussion of a lot of material. • Welcoming of sharing ideas. • Facilitation was very effective • Good ideas were presented • The first bits were fun. Suggestions for Improvement • Not enough time to understand all complex issues and to share ideas. Rushed, too many unanswered questions (6) • Put less on the table, more in depth, more pro/con. • Longer time but what we had was great. • Too long. 3.5 hours is the limit to my attention span. • As soon as the CET sheets [information handout] were handed out, I felt like the process was undermined. • The stats were hard to understand. • Not enough background/data on some topics. • More info on estimated cost and final time frame. • Information from consultant should have been available sooner to take into consideration. • Less paper waste. • Education/prep prior to first working group session. • Public comments are coming from the same people. One and done, then encourage more public input through listening sessions at grocery stores etc. GO TO THE PEOPLE. Quantitative Evaluation Data Regarding the Content and Next Steps 1. How satisfied are you with the final list of recommendations? 3.65 2. How confident do you feel that Council will act on the list of recommendations 2.7 December 12, 2018, Work Session - Item 2