November 22, 1999


United States Basketball Academy - 8:30 a.m.


Consultants: Gerry Brodsky, Jay Smith and David Howe, Public Knowledge, Inc.

Executive Committee Members: Bobby Green, Anna Morrison, Peter Sorenson, Cindy Weeldreyer, Steve Carmichael, Jan Clements, Chuck Forster, Jim Gangle, Mike Gleason, John Goodson, Gary Ingram, Rob Rockstroh, Pat Rogers, David Suchart, Teresa Wilson, Paul White, Bill Van Vactor, Judy Fitzerald, Brad Rusow, Chris Henry, Mary Ann Holser, Marie Bell, Verna Brown, Tanya Heaton, Bob Keefer, Arlene Marshall

Also present: Dean Stephens, Charlie Van Deusen, Mike Moskovitz and Recording Secretary Zoe Gilstrap


Green opened the meeting.

Review of where we are in the process; report on interim assignments; plan for the day

Smith gave of brief overview of the progress so far. He reviewed the focus group report and the report of the first reading of the interim committees (see material on file). Smith stated that they now will need to work on the details and get closure on the principles and priorities. He explained the structure of the strategic plan as a pyramid structure with the base being the mission and vision statements on up to the principles, goals, strategies, measures and actions.

Smith noted that the principles so far have not been changed and probably won’t unless someone comes up with a compelling reason. He stated, however, that the goals need to be detailed enough to formulate performance measures.

Smith commented that it will be necessary to hold another SPEC meeting in January.

Results of focus groups

Smith reviewed the Lane County Strategic Planning Report on Focus Groups (see material on file). He noted that several strong themes came out of the report: credibility and trust with efficiency before any new tax measures; communication; a stronger business focus; accountability; increased analytical capacity; community goals; consolidation; and increased visibility in rural areas.

Smith noted that this report will be available on the Internet and that a copy would be provided to the focus groups.

Resource allocation/role breakout groups

Smith stated that resource allocation is how to decide what business Lane County should be in and what services to provide. Smith noted that there has been agreement in favor of collaboration/consolidation to eliminate duplications. The group broke into four smaller groups to discuss this issue.

Resource allocation/role group reports and next steps

Smith briefly reviewed the group reports. He noted that there was discussion about using the Oregon benchmarks to determine goals and high priorities as well as exploring entrepreneurship. The outcome of the groups consisted of a broad discussion on core and non-core services. The importance to proceed with a set of principles and guidelines that can be followed when cuts need to be made was stressed. There were some that did not believe that this plan would happen unless it was a compelling document that all five commissioners could agree on. They felt the likelihood of proceeding with resource allocation principles and applying them were slim. There was a low level of confidence that the Board of Commissioners would adhere to a strategic plan.

Smith noted there was the question of how to get more analytical support. He said this is a key issue and will be important to think about further. Smith said analytical support is necessary for this whole process to work. He remarked that the more data driven Lane County can be and the more it can demonstrate that to the public, the more credible Lane County will be to the public.

A subcommittee was formed to further fine-tune the allocation definitions.

EEQ block breakout groups and group reports

Breakout groups discussed consolidation efforts; flexible staffing; electronic access to public services; continuous quality improvement and inter-organizational plans to better target certain services.

The feedback from the group will be provided to SPEC for review and discussion at the next meeting.

Revenue block breakout groups

Several groups discussed revenue issues. The consultants will summarize the results of the breakout groups.

Revenue group reports

Key issues that were discussed included a report back on tax revenues with agreement that it would not be wise to go out for a measure before November 2000. Smith emphasized the need to improve credibility with citizens and that any measures should be small and very clear.

Other strategies included citizen-led initiatives; alternative budget authority such as special service or law districts and examination of different ways to go to public such as single issues or a menu approach. A levy that includes public safety components could be considered for November. User fees and charges with a sliding fee based on income for essential services such as public health were also discussed.

Public participation process; getting to the plan product

Smith noted that the Strategic Planning Steering Committee met and decided that a draft plan would be available on the Internet. He said the group would like to send out a short survey in the local newspapers where people can react broadly through a check-off list. He said the purpose includes public education; demonstration that this is an open and fair process; a high level check and balance process; and a way to get new ideas. He indicated that this would probably occur in early January.

Smith stated that the Steering Committee agreed that a summary of focus groups results would be sent to everyone who participated. He said it is important to keep the focus groups involved. There was agreement that there would be three open meetings for public involvement as well.

Moskovitz stated that he is developing a strategic planning Internet site. Weeldreyer said she will work with the Oregon Public Network to get information out to the public.

Discuss next steps

Smith stated that as a result of today’s meeting, a subcommittee was formed to work on resource allocation and will meet soon. He also noted that two other subcommittees would be formed: one to work on the implications of a strategic plan on the budget process; and another to improve credibility and trust. Smith asked that members interested in helping should contact Tanya Heaton as soon as possible. It was noted that the resource allocation principles would need to get back to the Board before the next SPEC meeting.

Public comment

Kappy Eaton, League of Women Voters, stated that they are concerned about media coverage in rural areas. She asked if the newspaper survey was going into any other local newspapers or just the Register Guard and Springfield News. Van Vactor replied that they would make every effort to put in all local newspapers.

Eaton questioned how people get enough background information to answer intelligently. Smith stated that if people want more information, they can request it or look on the Internet. Eaton commented that the League is looking for credibility and stated that the public needs the opportunity to ask questions. She suggested that they hold three public hearings. Eaton stated that this is a good opportunity to provide public education. She stressed the need to be more proactive and inform the public about all the good things Lane County does.

There being no further business, this meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.

Zoe Gilstrap, Recording Secretary
Recording Secretary

go_to.gif (1155 bytes)Back to Board Notices

Contact the Read the Lane County Liability Disclaimer and User Agreement
Updated: 11/03/05 URL:
Copyright 1997 Lane County Information Services.  All rights reserved.