CC Minutes - 11/12/02 Work Session

Home Browse Search

the City. He endorsed the many ideas the CIC put forth in the memorandum accompanying the packet materials. Mr. Pap8 indicated support for Option 3 and asked that it be highlighted to the Budget Committee. Mr. Meisner said that the City dedicated far more than four hours monthly to citizen involvement. He distinguished between staff support for the CIC and the City's support for citizen involvement. He noted the research project the CIC undertook and expressed dismay that it did not result in a higher response rate. He indicated tentative support for the motion if it was to refer the funding issue to the Budget Committee but was not satisfied it was justified. Mr. Meisner spoke to the representation of the NLC, and said that was a small group. He wanted to see more effective ways of citizen involvement. He said that the increased staff support was an eight-fold increase and he was unsure it was justified. Ms. Bettman thought there was a great deal of benefit to be realized from the CIC when departments were planning public outreach efforts. That was the purpose of the CIC, and she thought it had done some really good work. Ms. Bettman said the CIC could take a broader perspective than the departments could. However, the CIC was limited in what it could do because of limited staff assistance. She contrasted unfavorably the CIC's level of staff support with that enjoyed by other committees. Ms. Bettman suggested that the City should aspire to Option 5. However, she thought Option 3 was realistic and reasonable. She thanked the members of the CIC. Ms. Bettman confirmed with Ms. Bridges that the recommended option would not affect the CIC's level of staff support until fiscal year 2004. Ms. Nathanson suggested that there were three types of citizen involvement: 1) that of facilitating citizens' daily interactions with the City; 2) that of oversight on how citizens provided input to the City; and 3) that of oversight of volunteers. When she considered who should be responsible for those activities, she was not sure because she was not sure what the City could afford. She asked how the recommendation would be presented to the Budget Committee. Mr. Carlson said that the service level change would be highlighted to the Budget Committee. It could be either mentioned in the proposed budget with accompanying reductions or it could be shown as a possible "add" and not included in the proposed baseline budget. Either way, it would be obvious to the committee a change was being contemplated. Mayor Torrey recalled that he e-mailed a message to the council soliciting committee membership suggestions and no councilor had volunteered to serve on the CIC at that time. He said Ms. Taylor had agreed to serve in the absence of another volunteer. His concern was that he did not think the City's citizen involvement efforts were effective. When he sat on the committee, it discussed reaching out to faith-based and school groups, and that had not occurred. Mayor Torrey was supportive of the Neighborhood Matching Grants Program. He was not opposed to the recommendation if it accomplished when the City was trying to accomplish, which he hoped was a broader representation of citizen input. He asked how the City could get people like those who worked on Measure 20-67 in City affairs, noting that he had never seen many of the people involved in any other City activity. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 12, 2002 Page 5 Work Session