Proposed Council Mtg. Re-structuring
I have received a few questions on the proposed council meeting re-structuring on this cycle's agenda. I genuinely believe the new proposed format will allow for more effective and efficient processes for citizens, our council, and staff. I realize change is always difficult. I have outlined my position in a one-page summary, to read click here. To view the detailed six-page overview, click here and go to pgs. 8-14 of the PDF. I truly believe this new direction will free up some time for staff and the council to work on more long-term initiatives for the city, 57% of respondents to my January survey (on this blog) agreed. At COW, citizens will be able to have dialogue with aldermen on agenda items (which will all be "discussion" not "consent" items) and will have an opportunity to comment in the Open Comment section of the agenda. At CC, the meeting will function in the same format as present. Please let me know of any questions and I'll do my best to address them here. Thanks, Ian
*** Added 3/1: Related link (Sample COW Agenda, proposed version) - click here
posted by Ian Frink @ 10:37 PM
16 comments
16 Comments:
If you believe so strongly about these change, then why is this proposed subject coming back to the table so soon after it was defeated? Wouldn't it be wise to wait a few months? I, myself, get the fealing that this change is being ramrodded through for some underhanded reason (given the past of the current council dealings) and I'm sure so do others. Can you explain why this needs to be push so urgent?
Thanks for the post.
The resolution has been brought forward this week, not in an attempt to ram something through, but in an attempt to continue discussions we had last week. Revisions have been made on this cycle’s version that were a direct result of public input last cycle. It seemed to make sense to bring this right back around, while top of mind awareness still existed.
This entire process, of the meeting re-structuring, has been discussed a number of times during the past few months. It wouldn’t seem prudent to engage in planning, formulate a resolution, and then revise a resolution much farther down the path (later this year).
I do not have any underhanded reason of brining this forward. We are currently duplicating processes and this is an effort to streamline that process, pretty cut and dry.
Ian
Ian,
The proposal says the committees will not have regular meetings. Why would they meet at all if the reason for changing council rules is to make the process more efficient? What business will they conduct and what decisions will be made by committees having irregular meetings? What notification requirements will be in place for committee meetings? How often will committees meet?
I am foreseeing the chairs cutting off dialog and public comment at COW to control how long the meeting goes. Obviously the business that now occurs at the four committee meetings will be moved to COW. That's the point isn't it? Is the council prepared to have a four hour COW meeting?
Anon. 5:08,
The committees will meet within the COW and notification will take place through the COW. I don't see the committees meeting separate from this session. If they did, for some reason, proper procedures would be followed for notification.
I have been in committee meetings that have ranged from five minutes to 75 minutes. The average is usually 30-45 minutes. I expect the new version of COW to be in the 3-4 hour range. I'm sure a break of some sort would be initiated mid-way through. I, honestly, believe this council would dedicate the needed time to work through given issues. I have received a number of questions about the COW format and placed a sample "draft agenda" on my post in this blog. This format will still be a better alternative in the long run. It does work for numerous other cities. In my opinion, the pros out weigh the cons. Let me know of any other questions, thanks - Ian
Ian: YOu were elected to represent the people and follow their direction, I can pretty much conclude that the people do not want this. YOu need to support them and quit it.
Anon. 3:02 pm,
Fifty-seven percent of my survey respondents, in January on this blog, thought this was a good direction to go. I think most who understand the newly proposed process are in favor of it. Unfortunately, a fair amount of misinformation exists. It is important to offer an efficient, logical, process, while still enabling public to express their views. That is what this new process achieves.
A process is not efficient when we have three meetings (Committee, COW, and a formal CC meeting) on the same line item (with half the aldermen hearing the initial discussion)in a 6-day span.
Not to mention the fact that the gap between COW and CC expands by five days.
Thanks, Ian
Ian, Not everyone took your survey, not everyone has the ability to go online, You need to look abit deeper than your own survey. Go to the people at these ward meetings and listen to them at council meetings. We are saying "no" to it!
Ian - please, you had like 30 answer of even less didn't you?
YOu aren't really basing you decisionon that survey are you?
Why are you puching this so hard? Tell us the truth please. No more smoke and mirrors. What is really behind this.
I think you are doing okay actually (except for Pedcor), but this may sink you. People are smarter then you think.
7:57,
There are no smoke and mirrors; it just makes sense. My one pager on the front of this blog lays out my position. Plain and simple - this allows us to be more efficient. Also, having the 7-days between COW and Council is a big advantage.
This process has changed in many other cities, because it makes sense.
All of the criticism that this change received in the last cycle has been addressed in this cycle. I guess I would like to hear some specific comments about why this new/revised version is such a terrible direction to head.
I have talked to plenty of citizens, when this is explained properly, that support this direction.
Ian
Ian - Something is wrong here in this plan and in your lack of interest in representing the wishes of the people of Davenport. I say this with constructive criticism in mind.
Let me ask you this about the survey results.
If 50% were in favor and 50% were opposed. Why don't you side with the 50% who are opposed?
Ian, you have made a good decision and I was glad to see this come back quickly for action. Our current system is embarrasingly cumbersome and inefficient. There have been changes made in the idea since the last vote that have made it definitely the way to go to move Davenport forward effectively.
I have been following Davenport city government faithfully on the public access channel for a couple years now and if public speaking was so important to all of these people complaining about the changes, then where were they during all the big issues that the city has dealt with in just the last year? It continues to be the same small group of people that have nothing to do and really aren't affected by many of the topics that speak at the meetings. City Hall is more like a club that these people meet at and give a performance. IE ... do we really need to hear about Don Stevens' bowel movements?
If a citizen feels that he or she has an issue that they want to give an opinion on, there are still plenty of legitimate opportunities to make your feelings known. There is absolutely no plan to take away citizen rights here as I see it. Read the link with the exact breakdown of how this will work. It is a great idea.
Thanks for your perserverance and discounting of the handful of noisy louts that have been recruited and serve blindly.
Good job!
8:50,
Thanks for the post; technically the survey had 57% in favor of change and 39% in favor of keeping the current process. The rest had no opinion. I understand this isn't a highly technical means of gathering data. I have had two phone calls on this issue. The last QCT story had zero comments and the e-mails I have received have been split.
The folks in favor of keeping the system the way it is, often times, stated in-correct information in their support of the idea. At tonight's meeting I counted eight comments, from the public, that stated in-correct information. This is why I have attempted to set the record straight with my supporting documents and the draft agenda. At the end of the day, we need to move from Point A to Point B.
I believe this new method will allow us to do it more efficiently and productively. This will also free aldermen to work on side projects or other initiatives away from the day-to-day business of the council, which I believe is a good step. I think most aldermen believe if we go down this path and it isn't working 3-4 months into, then we can switch back. I'm fine with that. Feel free to call or email with additional questions or concerns.
Thanks, Ian
Ian - do you think that we need to raise the code standards for housing in Davenport? Meaning, what is our problem with bad looking properties. Is it the lack of code enforcement or do we actually need to revamp and raise the standards for the condition of our houses. I drive around the central city and elsewhere an wonder why these properties are allowed to look so bad. I take care of my property, why don't others?
8:37,
I believe our codes are in line with most other cities. The key is enforcement, hopefully with council support and some additional tools the new NEO will be able to help us turn a corner on this front.
In addition to this, we need to concurrently: succeed with neighborhood re-investment; focus NETS officers in these areas, support NEO inspectors, and better support our neighborhoods. Fortunately, many of these ideas are incorporated into our new budget (which begins on 7/1). This will be a start, but we need to stay focused for a number of years.
Ian
Ian, How soon will it be before the new and improved NEO gets started. For ever day that the fire department stands idol, iy will take a week to catch up. We need these guys heading out the door, like yesterday!
9:40,
The NEO department is doing the best it can right now. The new positions, approved in last night's budget, will begin on 7/1. We have already begun to push toward new measures to hold landlords and tenants more accountable - licensing, landlord classes, and a central registry database. Thanks for the post, Ian
Post a Comment
<< Home