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
<br /> <br /> <br />Level of <br />At this point, Hal surveyed the group to determine their support for using consensus <br />Count <br />Support <br />building to make decisions. The results are shown on the right. <br />5 9 <br /> <br />4 6 <br /> <br />3 1 <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />Immediately following this survey, several clarifying questions were asked. <br />? <br /> <br />Question: Who are the voting members? <br /> <br />Response: The whole committee including City staff. <br />o <br />? <br /> <br />Question: Can the decision making process be changed later on? <br /> <br />Response: Yes, if the group makes this decision using a consensus process <br />o <br />? <br /> <br />Question: Please succinctly describe/explain consensus? <br /> <br />Response: “We build decisions, we don’t decide them.” <br />o <br /> <br />Response: Consensus means if someone disagrees, they come forward to the next <br />o <br />meeting with an alternate proposal. <br />? <br /> <br />Question: What if the City doesn’t agree? <br /> <br />Response: The City cannot override adopted mandates. These boundaries will be <br />o <br />discussed in the next meeting. <br /> <br />Following these clarifying questions, the group was surveyed with a show of thumbs-up, thumbs-down <br />to indicate support for using the consensus model for decision-making. The results were: 20 thumbs-up <br />and 0 down, indicating strong support for the consensus model. <br /> <br />Meetings and Communication <br /> <br />Participants discussed meeting agendas, duration, scheduling, start and end times, and the potential for <br />including allotted public comment time into agendas. Notes from the discussion follow: <br />? <br /> <br />Several participants were concerned that 1 ½ hours was an inadequate amount of time for <br />meetings <br />? <br /> <br />Some suggested that 2 hours would be more appropriate and productive <br />? <br /> <br />Several participants were concerned about meetings going beyond 2 hours <br />? <br /> <br />Some were also concerned that bi-weekly meetings would be too frequent; monthly meetings or <br />a more flexible schedule was suggested <br />? <br /> <br />Participants preferred a regular day for meetings and most agreed that Thursdays would work <br />best <br /> <br />After the discussion, participants were surveyed on meeting duration, schedule, and agenda. The results <br />follow: <br /> <br />Level of <br />Count <br /> 1) “Regularly scheduled meeting shall be 2 hours in duration.” <br />Support <br /> <br />5 20 <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />3 <br />2 <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />Page 9 of 27 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.