Loading...
MEETING MINUTES (7) / ~ I , ~ MINUTES COMMUNITY CONSENSUS STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING FEBRUARY 3, 1994 The final meeting of the Community Consensus Steering Committee was held at 9:30 am on February 3, 1994 in the Large Conference Room, City Manager's Office, City Hall. PRESENT: Bill Schwob, Committee Chairperson Naomi Williams Commissioner Art Deegan Janice Case Bob Bickerstaffe Elizabeth Mannion Tony Salmon Stephen Bils ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Peter Graves Ruth Ann Bramson Kathy Rice, Deputy City Manager Jeff Harper, Director of Administrative Services Melissa Ellis The meeting began with Ruth Ann Bramson asking the group for feedback on the overall project. Tony Salmon emphasized the need for more initial planning time. Janice Case mentioned the difficulties of working around the holidays. Tony Salmon also thought it would be a good exercise if the Steering Committee could have gone through the brainstorming process as a group before the public in-put meetings. The group discussed other time frames that possibly would have been better. Bob Bickerstaffe thought that the quick time frame of the project helped make the project successful, because people did not have too much time to analyze it. He believed that a little more time, maybe about 30 days, would have been helpful. Tony Salmon mentioned he was disappointed in the "Wordsmithing" process, because it was not properly planned or executed. Naomi Williams said that in the Greenwood neighborhood more time for promotion would have been better for her. Bob Bickerstaffe mentioned that it would have helped if the major newspapers would have been more supportive. Jeff Harper stated that from the perspective of the staff, the package they had to work with was not complete, and that the staff had to make up the whole project as things progressed. He went on to say that for the future users of Dr. Graves's consensus methods, more marketing procedure needs to be included in the package. Dr. Graves joined the meeting at about 9:55 am. He distributed copies of the final results to the group. He explained that this report was very similar to the preliminary report, but included additional sub-groups analyses. He also brought one copy of the complete statistical report, which included "Confidence Interval Reports" on each sub-group analysis. He cautioned the I I group not to make any major decisions based upon the neighborhood of Harbor Oaks/North and South Ft. Harrison since the total respondents were only 26, especially in regard to the services list. The last two pages of the report shows the demographic breakdown for the representative sample. Tony Salmon stated that as difficult as the questionnaire was to complete, the results are self- validating. He pointed out the example of the seasonal residents rating "opportunity to earn a good living" at 25th vs the Total Consensus of the rating at 7th. Dr. Graves projected several new transparencies showing the issues grouped according to ways in which they seem to logically fall together by topics. For example under "Quality of Life" issues the topics in ranking were: 1) Public Safety, 2) Caring for Body/Mind, 3) Leadership, 4) Economic Vitality, 5) Special Programs for Special Groups, 6) A Home-Town Feeling, 7) Environment for Living, 8) Activities, and 9) Community Character. Dr. Graves said that within this format it is easier to draw the kinds of conclusions the press were looking for during the presentation of the preliminary results. Stephen Bils pointed out that one of the main criticisms he had heard was that the number one issue under the services list, "drug-free community", was not even a service. He also questioned if this skewed the results. Dr. Graves agreed this item was overly broad, and probably would have been more appropriate listed under the quality of life issues. However, because of its close scoring to the other issues that followed it in ranking, this proximity would not allow for a skew in the results. Stephen Bils also questioned the budgetary conclusions the City Commissioners might make from the "drug-free community" being the top priority. He stated that the Commissioner could justify funding almost any program in support of achieving a "drug-free community". Kathy Rice explained that the Commission is committed to a "results-oriented budget". Dr. Graves went on to explain that none of the issues on the questionnaire were technically budget items. He said that he was more comfortable with the categories of issues being used as a guide for budgetary means, than addressing single issues. Bill Schwob asked if the city will send the report to the school board? Kathy Rice responded that they would receive a report. The miscellaneous educational issues on the questionnaire were briefly discussed. The category of 'tourism' fell at the bottom of the list in groupings of the issues under revenue. Commissioner Deegan mentioned that after the preliminary results meetings with the public, people might have left with the impression that the citizens are not interested in tourism, our number one industry. He doesn't interpret the tourism placement indicating that the community is not interested in tourism, because many people here make their living in the tourism industry, and if the city doesn't promote it half the community could suffer. Tony Salmon reiterated his conclusion that the community needs to understand the contribution of tourism to the city. Commissioner Deegan commented on the difference between the scoring or ranking of the issues vs the percentile. Dr. Graves elaborated on the statistical procedures and analyses of the report. -~. I I Bill Schwob said that he liked the new set of transparency (groupings of the topics), and they would be best for someone not wanting to look at numbers. Commissioner Deegan asked about the recommendations of Dr. Graves and Ruth Ann to the Commission. Kathy Rice said that she had heard the concern - "What is the Commission going to do with the data?" and talked briefly about the follow- through strategic planning sessions to be led by Ruth Ann Bramson on February 17 and 18. Ruth Ann talked about using the consensus results as a tool to reconnect citizens on a neighborhood level or using the analytical data as a starting point to tackle concrete neighborhood problems. Dr. Graves encouraged the Steering Committee to use the report as a "working document" and not to rely on the elected officials to be solely responsible for implementation by "putting the ball in their court". The application of the results to be used during town meetings so there would be more two-way conversation between officials and citizens was pointed out by Commissioner Deegan. Jeff Harper added that he would like to see the excitement generated during the brainstorming meetings to keep going. The future involvement of the Steering Committee in the project was discussed. Ruth Ann Bramson said she would like to leave an option to call the group back together sometime in the future. Kathy Rice thanked the Steering Committee and the staff for their efforts. The meeting concluded at approximately 12: 15.