APPROVED 6/28/95

March 29, 1995
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' REGULAR MEETING
Commissioners' Conference Room - following HACSA

Vice Chair Cindy Weeldreyer presided with Steve Cornacchia, Bobby Green, Sr. and Jerry Rust present. Ellie Dumdi excused. Sharon Giles, Recording Secretary.

1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA

It was announced that Item 13.c.8. would be moved to become Item 12.c.; that Item 6.a. (from the March 28 meeting) would be heard at Item 12.a.; that there was one item of Emergency Business and Cornacchia asked that Item 13.b.3. be pulled from the Consent Calendar and be heard during the Public Works portion of the meeting.

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS

None.

3. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS

To be held at approximately 10:40 a.m.

4. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS

a. DISCUSSION/Overview of Computer Systems in Lane County (RIS-Downsizing).

David Suchart, Performance Auditor, asked the commissioners what they would like to learn from this presentation. Rust indicated that he would like to hear the progress on downsizing and would like a discussion of the uncoordinated computer resources within the county and how they can be unified. Cornacchia remarked that he would 1) like to get a basic understanding of the current system and the needs within the county, 2) get staff-generated direction on how to get a coordinated, well-managed and efficient computer system, and 3) begin working on removing the image of RIS as the "bad guy" and develop common ground. Weeldreyer stated that she was looking for a plan to determine how to develop a system that will meet the needs of the county into the future. She indicated she would like to look at other counties' systems and then modify a plan for Lane County. Green remarked that he would like to see how Lane County can improve its work force and increase the quality of work produced. He stated that he would like to see an organizational assessment of staff computer literacy and establishment of training seminars. Green also commented on the need for benchmarks. Cornacchia remarked that Lane County's partners outside of the organization need to know where Lane County is going. Bill Van Vactor, County Administrator, stated that REG is searching for that direction.

Suchart reviewed Attachment A, a County organizational chart detailing Lane County's informational systems and then referred the Board to detailed information provided in the packet by each department (see material on file). During this presentation, Rust noted that Eugene has a central data processing center and that he would like to see Lane County have a central system. Cornacchia agreed that he does not want to see a computer manager in every division. He indicated that he would like ideas on how to attain coordinated management. Suchart also reviewed information detailing departmental staffing levels, budgets, an overview of services provided and recent migration implementation (included in material on file). Weeldreyer commented that Finance and Audit is in the process of looking at a better, more efficient way to charge indirect. Cornacchia asked that the Board eventually be given the discretionary general fund costs.

Suchart provided a brief overview of the charge and membership of the various committees dealing with computer systems, including the Technology Management Team, the Regional Executive Group, the Regional Management Team, the Technical Executive Group, the AIRS Management Team, the Public Data Access Group and the Common Mapping Steering Committee (see material on file).

Suchart and Dara Boush, Sheriff's Office, gave a brief presentation on AIRS (Area Information Records System) (see Page 19), followed by information on the Geographic Information System (GIS) (see page 20), and definitions on LANs, WANs, Internet and client/servers. Responding to Weeldreyer, Suchart indicated that there would need to be a cost/benefit analysis eventually on the need to keep the mainframe.

The presentation was concluded at this point, to be continued later in the meeting.

3. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS

Cornacchia presented a brief rundown on current legislative events surrounding video poker, real estate transfer tax, room tax, video lottery and collective bargaining.

Green referred to the recent City Club report regarding Lane County, with Van Vactor indicating that the Board could discuss the report following the City Club's presentation to their own membership.

Weeldreyer referred to her memorandum regarding a demonstration project entitled Reduction of Intoxicated Drivers put together by Terry McGuirk, which McGuirk is hoping to expand to Lane County. She indicated that McGuirk had applied to be certified in Lane County and that the Mental Health Advisory Committee had denied his application. Weeldreyer reported that Judge Darryl Larson and the local legislative delegation have asked the Board to review the MHAC decision.

Judge Larson indicated that two of the key things about McGuirk's project is that the offenders pay the cost, allowing them to be invested in the process, and McGuirk will pay for the outcome evaluation process. He expressed support for the demonstration project for a limited period of time. Responding to Weeldreyer, Larson indicated that Lane County Mental Health does a good job with evaluations, but there are delays getting people into treatment. He stated that McGuirk's program would cut out as much delay as possible. Cornacchia remarked that he needs to know that the County's overall system would be enhanced by McGuirk's project. He observed that McGuirk's proposal does not specify random selection. Larson stressed that a process that does not include input from judges and only input from treatment providers is a system that doesn't make sense. Rob Rockstroh, Director of Health and Human Services, reported that McGuirk's system is random for Level I clients, people who have more minor problems and have the most ability to pay. He remarked that an outcome study for Level I offenders would be easy. Rockstroh stated that Yamhill, Union or Klamath counties is where the study should be done. Responding to Cornacchia, Rockstroh indicated there would probably be a different response to McGuirk's application if it dealt randomly with clients from all levels. Larson stated that McGuirk would get a random l/6 of all clients, but that he would treat the Level I clients and assign the Level II's and III's, noting that Level I is educational and Level II and III are treatment-based. Rockstroh emphasized that he does not want a subcontractor to do subcontracting. Cornacchia suggested that the Board direct Rockstroh to work with the judges to move McGuirk's system into Lane County next year, under the same rules as all other providers. Following a brief discussion, Weeldreyer observed consensus not to overturn the decision at this time, but to look at this project, with possible modifications, for next year.

This meeting recessed at 11:33 a.m. to reconvene at 11:38 a.m.

 4. a. (continued)

Suchart continued by reviewing section E of the handout, dealing with a discussion on current issues, how technology questions are now handled, centralization/decentralization, duplication of services/effort, ownership of data and time sensitive system/software issues. Suchart took detailed notes on areas to report further on during the next session with the Board. Other issues brought forward included the need for information on what other similar big players are doing, such as similar-sized counties. Gangle suggested the need for a discussion regarding cost allocation from RIS to Lane County and from Lane County to departments and for a better understanding of partnerships with Eugene and Springfield, particularly regarding RIS and LCOG.

Suchart indicated that there would be at least two more sessions, where these topics would be explored further.

There being no further business, this meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

 Sharon Giles, Board Secretary