My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item C: Crest Drive Neighborhood Context Sensitive Solutions Process
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2006
>
CC Agenda - 05/08/06 Work Session
>
Item C: Crest Drive Neighborhood Context Sensitive Solutions Process
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 1:18:32 PM
Creation date
5/4/2006 8:30:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
5/8/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Decision Making Group <br />This group discussed how decisions would be made. Options included majority vote, super <br />majority, sufficient consensus, or consensus models. They discussed the process of consensus <br />building and also discussed what roles would be assumed during the decision making process. <br /> <br />1.Consensus Decision Making Model <br /> <br />a.Consensus does not mean unanimity. It does not mean everyone gets his/her first <br />choice. Rather, it means that everyone is sufficiently in favor of an idea that no <br />one will be an obstacle in carrying it out (no one will sabotage the decision) <br /> <br />b.Everyone understands the issues and can paraphrase it <br /> <br />c.Everyone contributes resources and shares info <br /> <br />d.Everyone can “go along” with an idea (if not for perpetuity- at least for a trial <br />period of time) <br /> <br />e.If consensus cannot be reached. The discussion is automatically recycled for <br />more information <br /> <br />f.Note: Each person can say: “I believe I have been heard and understood” <br /> <br />g.Note: The essential vehicle for testing for consensus is the survey- a non-binding <br />opportunity for participants to speak and be heard and to share information <br /> <br />Breakout Group Presentations <br />After the breakout sessions finished, the group rejoined to listen to brief presentations made by <br />representatives of each breakout group. The entire committee was then surveyed on their level of <br />support for the content of their proposals. Results follow: <br /> <br /> <br />1.Consensus Decision Making <br /> <br />a.Group was surveyed about their level of support for the consensus decision <br />making model <br /> <br />Level of <br /> <br />Count <br />Support:1a <br /> <br />5 19 <br /> <br />4 4 <br /> <br />3 2 <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />2.Meeting Mechanics <br /> <br />a.Meeting Time and Schedule <br /> <br />b.Agenda Setting <br />Level of Level of <br />Support: Count Support: Count <br />2a 2b <br />5 11 5 16 <br />4 9 4 <br />3 3 3 5 <br />2 2 <br />1 1 3 <br />Page 4 of 27 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.