CC Minutes - 03/11/02 Work Session

Home Browse Search

the committee's intent to examine a different level of staff support and indicated support for that examination. Mr. Kelly recalled that previously, the committee's work plan included a review of proposals for shared decision making and collaborative input. He said that the council heard no further, and asked for more information. Mr. Hinkley believed that in the handoffbetween Planning and Neighborhood Services, the item was lost. Ms. Bridges did not concur. She said that while the item was on the work plan, the committee had insufficient time to process the item. When the responsibility for the committee was assigned to Neighborhood Services, she had done considerable outreach to the departments on the kinds of plans to be reviewed by the committee, so the process would be more proactive on the part of the departments. Mr. Kelly wanted to include the item in the work plan again because the council thought it valuable two years ago and he still thought it important. Ms. Bridges indicated she had provided background information on the item to the CIC during its work plan evaluation, and the CIC subsequently agreed that it had limited time to spend on special projects and had structured its work program accordingly. Mr. Kelly recalled that the item arose from the thought there were some models in use that brought a variety of participants together in a collaborative effort early in the process and prior to the formal public process, with the goal of being more efficient in the later adoption process. The work item for the CIC was to look into different processes and ideas. He asked for CIC comment on how to include the item in to the work plan, reiterating he "just hated to see it die." Mr. Meisner said he wished that next year, the CIC would look much more broadly at how the City could more effectively involve more people. He said that citizen involvement did not always mean a committee or a public hearing. He thought that overly rigid. He said that the City continued to appoint the same people to committees. He suggested Web surveys of other communities. He said that the Voters Pool was not working as it was intended because too often City departments used the pool as a way to get the same people involved. He asked the committee to also consider looking at the Voter Pool and if it was serving the function intended. Ms. Levis said that the committee had done much discussion of how to look at the bigger picture, and discussed its purpose and how to carry it out in the best way possible. She considered citizen involvement key to ensuring that people do not feel disenfranchised. Often people did not hear about a public hearing opportunity and she believed that they must be reached in many different ways. She commended the quality of both the committee members and staff support. She said that the CIC could come up with new ideas, but the implementation of those ideas was difficult without dedicated staff support. Ms. Donahue said that the committee had a very difficult meeting where it came to grips with what it believed its purpose to be and members agreed it was committed to following the council's direction; however, it had a resource issue in terms of staff support. She acknowledged the City's budgetary constraints and the need to be conscientious in the use of those resources. She agreed with everything that Ms. Levis said, and concurred regarding the level of staff support. The MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 2002 Page 4 Work Session