Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Pryor suggested the question was whether information drove policy or if policy drove information. He <br />suggested the former was preferable. He said that perspective and perception also drove policy. Mr. Pryor said the <br />community had opinions, regardless of their factual basis, and the City needed to acknowledge those perceptions if <br />it was to have a meaningful discussion about land use and growth. He anticipated both a "fact" discussion and a <br />"Perception" discussion would occur, and believed the council would need to consider both in its decision- making. <br />Mr. Clark agreed the community had many opinions, and finding a common vision would be a Herculean task. <br />However, he continued to be interested in a process that focused on shared principles and values and believed that <br />could be accomplished. He expressed concern that the legislature could step in if the process took too long to <br />complete. <br />D, WORK SESSION: City Council Process Session <br />The council discussed carry -over items 9 -12 from its recent process session. Assistant City Manager Sarah <br />Medary clarified that not all the items were generated by councilors; some were generated by staff. <br />IL MayorlCity Council e -mail list <br />Ms. Medary briefly described the scope of the list and recalled that a concern had been expressed by a councilor <br />that too many people were on the list. Councilors indicated they had no concerns in this area. <br />12. Inclusion of ordinances showing legislative /grammatical changes in agenda packets. <br />Mr. Klein outlined a proposal to more clearly show councilors legislative changes in ordinances. The council had <br />no objections to the proposal. <br />10. New toolsltechnology for agenda materials, meeting records and minutes, goals and issue tracking <br />Ms. Medary reported that the City was working with SharePoint, an online collaboration tool and suggested that <br />councilors who wished to employ the tool could do so. Councilors were very supportive of the use of new <br />technology, with cautions of the need to be aware of the limits imposed by the Public Meeting Law on council <br />discussion using SharePoint. <br />Ms. Ortiz asked that staff keep in mind some people were more conversant with technology than others. She also <br />asked that the council assignments list be updated on the website. Mr. Clark observed that the City's home page <br />still included pictures of former councilors. <br />9. City Council meeting minutes —detailed versus summary versus video. <br />Ms. Medary sought council direction on the level of detail needed in minutes or whether video would be <br />appropriate as a substitute for minutes. Councilors were not unified in regard to the subject. Mr. Zelenka <br />supported the use of webcasts due to their accuracy, and suggested annotated summary minutes with the time noted <br />to allow people to refer to the webcast. He suggested that the City could hire a resource person to assist those <br />without computer skills. Mr. Clark suggested that minutes provided a valuable level of access for many residents <br />and provided an accurate record of what occurred. He thought it was prudent to make any needed transitions <br />slowly. Mr. Brown found minutes useful on some, but not all occasions. He had been quite interested to see the <br />archived minutes related to urban renewal and thought the detail provided had been useful. He determined from <br />Ms. Medary that the webcasts as well as written minutes were archived. <br />Mr. Poling commended the summaries prepared by Council Coordinator Beth Forrest, to which he frequently <br />MINUTES --City Council October 12, 2009 Page 5 <br />