HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/03/1991 Meeting
e
M I NUT E S
Eugene City Council
Eugene Hilton--Studio B/C
Conference Center--Joplin Room
June 3, 1991
5:30 p.m.
e
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Shawn Boles, Ruth Bascom, Bobby Green, Randy MacDonald,
Paul Nicholson, Kaye Robinette.
COUNCILORS ABSENT: Roger Rutan, Debra Ehrman.
ALSO PRESENT: Executive managers Abe Farkas, Warren Wong, Dave
Whitlow, Jim Meeks, Christine Andersen, Sandra Franklin,
Bob Schutz; City Manager Mike Gleason; Acting Assistant
City Manager Linda Norris; Ken Tollenaar, Planning
Commission; Cheryle Hawkins, Budget Committee; Anne
Morrow, Citizen Involvement Committee; Randy Kolb, John
O'Connor, and Sharon Thorne, facilitators; Jim Carlson,
Lane Council of Governments; Barb Bellamy and Jenny
Carmichael, Eugene Decisions staff.
The special meeting of the Eugene City Council was called to order by His
Honor Mayor Jeff Miller.
I. lEADERSHIP SWOT ANALYSIS
Sharon Thorne outlined the process for the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportuni-
ties, and Threats (SWOT) analysis. She explained that the evening's task was
to focus not on City services but on the service category of leadership as
participants assessed the City's leadership policy and operations in light of'
Ballot Measure 5 and trends and issues affecting the City.
~s. Thorne described leadership as providing vision and direction, setting
priorities, allocating resources, looking at long-range goals and policies,
planning for the future, and representing the community to the organization
and the organization to the community. She said that the SWOT would assess
the organization's internal environment in relation to the external condi-
tions it faces.
Participants were divided into two groups. Group A consisted of Mayor Mill-
er, Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Boles, Mr. Green, Mr. Tollenaar, Ms. Norris, Mr. Wong,
Mr. Whitlow, Ms. Franklin, and Mr. Farkas, with Mr. Kolb as facilitator. In
Group B were Mr. Robinette, Mr. Nicholson, Ms. Bascom, Ms. Hawkins, Ms.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City ,Council
June 3, 1991
Page 1
Morrow, Mr. Gleason, Ms. Andersen, Mr. Schutz, and Mr. Meeks, with Mr.
4It O'Connor acting as facilitator.
Using a snow card brainstorming technique, the groups considered the external
conditions facing the City. Group A generated a list of opportunities and
grouped them under the following general categories:
Quality of life and environment
Citizen involvement and commitment
Cultural diversity
Partnerships
Social services
Community and council leadership
Miscellaneous
Group B developed the following general categories of threats:
Economy
Making decisions
Capital and infrastructure
Quality of life
Population changes
Public attitude
State and Federal issues
4It
Next, the groups used the same technique to generate lists of the organiza-
tion's internal strengths and weaknesses. Group A listed the following cate-
gories of weaknesses:
Time constraints
lack of diversity
Complexity
Resource issues
Communications
Institutional constraints
Decision-making
Miscellaneous
Group B listed the following categories of strengths:
Talent
Integrity
Processes
Relationship to other organizations
Commitment
Facil ities
Economy
Communication
Each group identified what it considered key issues made apparent during the
SWOT process.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
June 3, 1991
Page 2
~ The following issues were identified by Group A:
1. Our existing communications systems (internal and external) are
not very effective when we deal with complex or controversial issues.
2. The community's leadership has not reached agreement about how
limited our physical, fiscal, and personnel resources are.
3. Promoting and responding to cultural diversity will require change
in the organization and the way we do business.
4. How do we promote the long-term needs of the community while rec-
ognizing the short-term needs of special interests?
5. How do we respond to the tension between exerting leadership and
reacting to public input?
6. Financial and staff resource constraints provide opportunities for
stronger intergovernmental relationships.
e
The following issues were identified by Group B:
1. The City should enable the private/nonprofit sector to address
social service needs rather than attempt to address these needs with
limited financial capacity.
2. In public issues, disagreement (minority viewpoint) is seen as
"losing" and not valued as part of the process.
3. There is community perception about participation and citizen
involvement--creates confusion about "lack of decisiveness" and
"closed, results-oriented" leadership. The assumption that complex
issues can be processed quickly causes cynicism.
4. Participative process is accepted but not defined. Plans tend to
be separate and represent competing interests. There are not adequate
funds to accomplish all of the plans.
5. The City has climate, ambiance, and cultural capacity to establish
a cultural, recreational, thematic focus. Eugene is a fun, interest-
ing, choice destination.
.
6. Unmet high expectations or intangible, complex situations (like
Eugene Decisions) spawn apathy or cynicism. It is difficult to get
interest in some issues requiring public process.
7. To relieve cynicism and build public trust, scrupulous process and
time and patience are required.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
June 3, 1991
Page 3
e
8. The City has a history of considering nothing short of a vote of
the citizens as adequate process on important issues. This is espe-
cially significant to the Eugene Decisions process.
9. We underestimate how universal the economic condition of communi-
ties is. It is tied to Federal deficits--and we can expect ten years
of hard fiscal times.
10. There is a lack of clear community agreement as to the goals of
economic development. Who is served?
Participants regrouped and shared observations about the SWOT process and the
information it produced. They seemed to generally agree that the leadership
group needs to understand the community's expectations, the organization
needs to be open to change, different jurisdictions need to work together to
meet needs, and it is valuable to bring people together to work on ideas.
Councilors and executive managers agreed to discuss and prioritize the issues
identified during the evening in separate settings and then meet again as a
group.
The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. to June 5, 1991.
Respectfully submitted,
tt ~~~~~~;
Micheal Gleason,
City Manager
(Recorded by Mary Feldman)
mnccswot 060391
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
June 3, 1991
Page 4