METRO COMMITTEE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT

RETREAT NOTES

Saturday, September 28, 2002

Room 270

Members Present: Dennis Ganoe (Chair), Norm Andreen, Kay Durtschi, Jane Gillespie, Kathy Henton, Darren Pennington, Scott Seibert, Elizabeth Tucker.

Members Absent: Dick Jones, Jim Kimball, Ted Kyle, Christine Roth, Ray Sherwood, Lori Waldo.

Also Present: Rex Burkholder, Metro Councilor; John Donovan, Council Communications Officer; Pam Peck, Senior Public Affairs Specialist; Cary Stacey, MCCI Staff.

WELCOME AND INTRODUCE FACILITATOR

Chair Ganoe welcomed the group and introduced Ms. Peck as the retreat facilitator.

INTRODUCTIONS

Ms. Peck asked each group member to list the following information:

•  Name

•  Profession/job

•  Reason for MCCI involvement

•  Slogan or phrase that describes you

GROUND RULES

Ms. Peck outlined the following ground rules:

•  Stick to the time allotted on each agenda item so we can end on time

•  Wait to speak until you are recognized so everyone gets a chance to speak

•  Listen when others speak and respect their response even if you disagree

•  Be careful not to interrupt others when they are speaking

•  Remember not to hold side conversations while others are speaking

•  Stay focused on the subject at hand, according to the agenda, so we can accomplish our goals

MEETING OBJECTIVES/AGENDA REVIEW

Chair Ganoe reviewed the meeting objectives as listed in the retreat agenda.

MEETING EXPECTATIONS

Group members listed their expectations for the retreat as follows:

•  To learn and grow

•  Better understanding of budget process in relation to MCCI’s work

•  How to address subcommittee workplans

•  4 achievable goals

•  Chair’s goal(s) for upcoming year

•  Understanding of big picture

•  Involving citizens in Transition

•  How to capitalize on Transition’s momentum

BUDGET PROCESS REVIEW/UPDATE

Mr. Donovan distributed a document outlining the proposed MCCI Budget Public Involvement Review/Recommendation Process; a document outlining the Metro Budget Process Overview; a memo from John Houser, Senior Council Analyst regarding the FY 03-04 Budget Process; the FY 02-03 Budget Message Transmittal Letter; and the FY 02-03 Budget Summary, copies of which are included as part of this record.

Mr. Donovan spoke to the proposed MCCI Budget Public Involvement Review/Recommendation Process and the Metro Budget Process Overview. He said that the committee had already done some work in reviewing the current public involvement opportunities on Metro’s budget advisory committees and proposed that a subcommittee or task force be created to work specifically on assessing those public involvement opportunities. He said he would like to see the task force review and discuss other public agencies’ efforts to involve the public in their budgeting processes, assess the effectiveness of communications tools in relation to those processes and make recommendations to the full committee to improve budgetary public involvement efforts. He proposed that those recommendations be presented the Metro Council in May or June of 2003. He said that the FY 03-04 budget process was already underway.

Chair Ganoe said that he would like to see another retreat in early 2003 to get ahead of the FY 04-05 budget process. He recommended that MCCI ensure that citizens were represented on budget advisory committees.

Group members raised the following concerns and comments:

•  REM is an umbrella – citizen needs to approach jurisdictions.

•  Do citizens look at the MERC budget?

•  Zoo Foundation looks at the Zoo budget – don’t they have a vested interest?

•  Concern with only donors involved in the process.

•  Holdover from when agency was private.

•  Conduct Zoo outreach through volunteers.

•  Can a “pure citizen” offer more value when looking at a budget?

•  Special interests now trump citizens in the budget process.

•  Get citizens involved in marketing.

•  Citizen interest/expertise should be stimulated.

•  Look at priorities that feed into Metro and how citizens can get involved.

•  Provide adequate notice for public hearing and review time for documents.

•  Assumptions are based on history – how to know about red flags?

•  Focus on budget process outside of Transition year.

•  Agency-wide priority setting – help design a process.

MORNING BREAK AND M&M’S MIXER

Ms. Peck distributed an M&M’s Mixer Discussion Guide, a copy of which is included as part of this record. Group members spoke to questions in the discussion guide according to the M&M colors they had chosen.

ADDRESS SUBCOMMITTEE ISSUES

Group members raised the following issues regarding subcommittees:

Approval of PIPS

•  Full committee should have ability to send PIP back to subcommittee.

•  Full committee should have oversight by exception.

•  Create an appeals loop.

•  Have PIP be process similar to minutes approval.

•  Full committee member should address concerns after Subcommittee Report.

•  Does lack of full committee involvement dilute its relevance?

•  Two processes:

1.  Subcommittee approves a plan.

2.  Subcommittee evaluates a plan and presents a subcommittee report with motion for full committee to approve.

•  Subcommittee report (on approval) then goes to Council.

•  Logistics – examine subcommittee and staff responsibilities in evaluating plans.

•  Have Council involved earlier in the process.

Other

•  Budget process.

•  Committed membership to address the issues.

•  Understaffed & inexperienced.

SUBCOMMITTEES MEET TO REVIEW LAST YEAR’S GOALS AND TO DETERMINE GOALS AND PRIOIRTIES FOR CURRENT YEAR

Subcommittees broke out into workgroups to identify accomplishments in reaching the last year’s goals and reach agreement on goals and priorities for the current year.

Regional Environmental Management (REM)

Last year’s accomplishments

Strengthened relationship with liaison

Set standard for cultural shift

•  Helped establish usable PIPs

•  Got a foot in the budget door

•  Subcommittee member on budget advisory committee

•  Through budget review

•  Designated areas for potential PIPs

•  Designated future speakers vis-à-vis priorities

Improved communications with citizens through a PIP for the underserved

Work to be carried forward

5 current PIPs

Work through process for potential PIPs

Find ways to work with other subcommittees when common interests and related projects overlap

•  How will other department or subcommittee work affect this subcommittee (i.e. Green Ribbon Committee recommendations led to tip fee increase)?

Goals

Review sunset dates on 3 PIPs with liaison

•  Ascertain status.

Budget review is completed – list for potential PIPs if forthcoming

Time schedule of new PIPs

If PIPs are sunseted, complete review process

Create new communication lines between subcommittees to find common interests and related projects that overlap

Parks

Last year’s goals

100% -- 1. Get more people involved in subcommittee

Get a handle on parks department using PIPs

Tracked Green Ribbon Committee

Trolley Trail

On hold: Blue Lake Master Planning

Current year goals

Trolley Trail Plan

•  Follow up on PIPO recommendations

•  Dick Jones to follow MTIP process

Encourage parks public involvement with end goal of stable funding for parks. Track budget process.

•  Public education: publicizing what parks has done

•  Public education: communicating problems to the public

•  Foundation?

•  Corporate support

Increase public awareness of parks

Assist in any way possible with securing stable funding for parks

•  Help connect active citizens to parks funding efforts.

On hold: Green Ribbon projects and Blue Lake Master Planning

Rex’s suggestion: look at public involvement of parks operating/projects

Community Planning Committee

Last Year’s Accomplishments

Blended Transportation and Growth Management Committees

Growth Management

1. Title 8 Review Process Fact Sheet (almost done?)

2.  Mar-Apr ’03 – Goal 5

3.  Nov-Dec ’02 – Periodic Review (ongoing) Task 3

4.  Title 3 (done)

Transportation

1.  MTIP – next spring ’03

2.  South Corridor Transportation Study (ongoing)

•  Outreach Dec ‘02

•  Finished by June ‘03

Hwy 217 grant (ongoing)

3.  Foster/Powell (ongoing) 03-04

Commuter Rail? Role? Just starting, need info.

Additional Considerations

Role on commuter rail? Hwy 217? For Metro? For others

Should we involve outside organizations in this work?

 CIC’s

 Local jurisdictions

Q: Should we add to committee membership by assigning more MCCI committees?

Q: Role discussion at October meeting?

Priorities – Chronological/Importance

1^st – Title 8 Fact Sheet Completion. MTIP & RTP funding discussion

2^nd – Goal 5. South Corridor Project.

3^rd – Periodic Review. Foster/Powell.

CREATE WORK PLAN FOR THE CURRENT YEAR

The group proposed priorities for the current year, considering priority-setting questions as outlined in the agenda. Members then voted on priorities that applied to the Regular Committee or Steering Committee. Each member was allowed four votes.

Subcommittees

Community Planning

Title 8 Fact Sheet review (winding down).

MTIP Process (links to parks funding).

Goal 5 process – Fish & Wildlife Habitat Protection.

South Corridor project (winding down).

UGB/Periodic Review (winding down).

Foster/Powell Corridor.

Hwy 217 – process needs PIP.

Role for commuter rail? Hwy 217? Metro role & MCCI role.

Regional Environmental Management (REM)

Review REM PIPs status.

Review new REM PIPs.

Review sunseted PIPs – evaluation.

Parks

Trolley Trail PIPs.

Encourage public involvement in parks funding with goal of stable funding for parks, track budget process.

Green Ribbon, Blue Lake Master Planning (on hold – review if re-opened).

Look at public involvement for operating parks.

Membership

Lack of applicants.

Explore using MCCI as a launching pad for membership to other committees

•  Grooming for future involvement on other committees

•  Would require a cultural change.

•  Chair could use MCCI to recruit members.

•  Use Membership Committee as a clearinghouse for recruiting members for other Metro advisory committees.

•  Fill open seats on MCCI & citizen advisory committees.

New membership orientation – includes regular meetings with councilor.

Other

Track committee budget evaluations, support subcommittee efforts on budget.

Create central calendar of PIPs.

Full Committee/Steering Committee

Nine votes – Create task force to focus on structure of Office of Citizen Involvement (OCI), funding and transition

•  Would look at membership issues for all Metro citizen advisory committees and other issues

Eight votes – Fill open seats on MCCI and other advisory committees

Five votes – Develop best practices for citizen involvement – link to PSU Citizen Involvement Institute

Four votes – Create better relationship between MCCI members and Council members

Four votes – Create new links between subcommittees to find common interests and related projects that overlap

Two votes – Explore how to comment on projects where Metro is not the lead but writes the check (link to parks, other committees)

No votes – Recommend public involvement opportunities for budget process.

No votes – Citizen involvement awards for groups that have met certain standards.

WRAP UP

Group members offered the following comments regarding the retreat:

•  Exceeded expectations – produced 4 to 5 measurable goals that were eminently accomplishable.

•  Good to review last year’s accomplishments.

•  Learned a lot more about big picture.

•  Helpful to know that other subcommittees going in same vein.

•  Concerned bout those who don’t attend retreat – this is an incredibly dynamic and fun group!

•  Exceeded expectations.

•  Process quite different from last year’s, which was wildly successful in changing the culture – because of that process, the group can now be refined in identifying goals.

•  Excellent facilitator, quality members.

•  Profitable – hope to continue to focus – would like subcommittees held accountable to their goals.

•  Pleased with objectives. Good facilitator.

•  Bad time of year.

•  Productive, establishes good structure for upcoming year.

•  Group is a lot of fun!

•  Hopeful in marking progress, influence and effectiveness and setting the bar higher for citizen involvement.