Laserfiche WebLink
committee had tried hard to meet the council's goals, but still felt that it was in a difficult situation <br />because it would like to create more opportunities for citizens, but was limited in its ability to do <br />SO. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman thanked the committee and staff. She said that the committee members were very <br />committed. The work program reflected reality. The CIC wanted to put together a realistic work <br />plan. She said that it was astounding to her the difference in the support the committee received <br />compared to other City committees. Regarding the recommendations of Mr. Kelly and Mr. <br />Meisner, she said that in the past the CIC had worked on both of those issues and developed its <br />matrix of high controversy/low controversy and where and how it was appropriate to get people <br />involved, and that last revisions to that work were lost following the passage of ballot measures <br />47/50 and the accompanying budget reductions. She said that it was important the committee <br />reviewed new department advisory committees. She said that it was up to the council to insist that <br />CIC was used and consider resource allocation decisions. <br /> <br />Mr. Hinkley said that the CIC looked at how to widen public participation, and it "fell on the <br />cutting room floor" when it came to keeping up with ongoing processes and proposals and fitting it <br />in with the other committee work. The service level change recommendation was to allow the sort <br />of thing Mr. Meisner spoke of to happen. He agreed that the public hearing process was not useful <br />in that it often was not timely. He noted that currently, the CIC had no tool to assess the public's <br />evaluation of a department committee's process. He thought that a vital missing piece. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor thanked the CIC for the work that it did. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, <br />Ms. Bridges clarified that there was a process in place for the review of new City committees. She <br />said that the CIC currently lacked the staffing needed for research and evaluation of other public <br />input approaches. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said that he never had felt the City was able to reach out to what he termed "the <br />folks." He had seen every CIC member present at numerous City meetings, and wondered where <br />the people were who lived down the street and then complained they did not know of a decision or <br />process. He also hoped the CIC could have a discussion about the neighborhood organizations, <br />many of which did not do anything. He hoped the CIC would limit the focus of its activities to <br />finding one or two outreach ways that legitimately worked. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Bridges' assessment of the staff support the committee received. He <br />said that the committee would need funding if it was to have its direction carried out. He <br />considered the service level change recommended in that spirit. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly reiterated his interest in the collaborative decision-making process and asked the <br />committee to consider adding it as the year progressed or as time permits. If it got a chance to <br />look at broader public input, he suggested it consider a citizens jury approach, which involved <br />getting about 16 citizens together to learn about a topic in depth and deliberate an alternative. The <br />press publicizes what the committee decided. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 2002 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />