My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2018_0919_HRIEC Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Human Rights, Inclusion and Engagement Commission
>
Packets
>
2018
>
2018_0919_HRIEC Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/13/2018 4:44:03 PM
Creation date
9/13/2018 4:40:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Human Rights Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
9/19/2018
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
69
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Human Rights, Inclusion and Engagement Commission Minutes <br /> August 15, 2018 —Draft Minutes <br /> Page 7 of 13 <br /> 269 Commissioner Djevi thought this was a good plan. He stated if they go to the <br /> 270 Department rather than staff then there will not be the possibility of a staff person <br /> 271 leaving and the survey not being useful. <br /> 272 <br /> 273 Commissioner Holub stated when she has had people fill out surveys, they like to <br /> 274 have a few multiple-choice questions in the beginning which gets them some good <br /> 275 qualitative data they can use. She noted a lot of people do not like short answer <br /> 276 questions because some thought goes into those. She wondered if they could add <br /> 277 some multiple-choice questions. She suggested a multiple-choice question asking, <br /> 278 "On a scale of 1-10 how would you rate your department in engagement", <br /> 279 <br /> 280 Ms. Olson thought question 5 could become a multiple-choice question rather than an <br /> 281 essay type of question. <br /> 282 <br /> 283 The Commission discussed possible multiple-choice questions, below are some <br /> 284 brainstorming questions submitted: <br /> 285 <br /> 286 • What percent of time is spent on engagement <br /> 287 • How many people do you reach <br /> 288 • What percentage of staff does engagement <br /> 289 • What does community engagement mean to your department and how does it <br /> 290 look <br /> 291 <br /> 292 Ms. Olson thought the Commission should have a landing page which will help <br /> 293 define what"Community Engagement" could be. <br /> 294 <br /> 295 Chair Beltmann stated they could ask a question regarding what community <br /> 296 engagement looks like in their department, what does it mean to their department. <br /> 297 <br /> 298 Commissioner Eichenlaub asked if agree and strongly disagree questions would be <br /> 299 included, or should they be excluded in the multiple-choice section. <br /> 300 <br /> 301 Commissioner Holub thought they could be included if there was a specific question <br /> 302 in mind to use it for. <br /> 303 <br /> 304 Chair Beltmann thought one of the benefits of keeping this more open ended is it <br /> 305 gives them the qualitative data, which is what they are looking for in this process. <br /> 306 <br /> 307 Commissioner Bolinger stated if the survey is going to be directed per Department <br /> 308 then staff can take more time on the survey. <br /> 309 <br /> 310 Commissioner Djevi thought the goal of the survey is to figure out what has been <br /> 311 done and propose best practices. If that is the case, he thought it would make more <br /> 312 sense to find out the departments definition of engagement as they see it. <br /> 313 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.