My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2010-03-23_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2010
>
2010-03-23_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/13/2010 8:41:21 AM
Creation date
5/13/2010 8:41:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Grass Lake WMO
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
3/23/2010
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.
/
9
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
the rebid process for this contract expiring year-end, the Commission had yet to <br />be charged by the City Council in actually participating in that process. <br />9. Organized Collection Focus Group Discussion <br />Mr. Pratt provided, as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part thereof, <br />an overview of the proposed focus groups and the process to implement them. <br />Discussion included proposed implementation in April of 2010; geographical <br />areas of the City for random selection within those areas for a representative <br />sample; process for that selection; anticipated response rate of approximately <br />twenty percent (20%); and proposed membership of the focus group at ten (10) or <br />fewer residents. <br />Further discussion included the make up of the focus group(s) to ensure across- <br />section of the community is represented and not participating only to dominate <br />and/or advocate specifically for their cause without fair consideration given to the <br />broader issues; benefits or disadvantages of hearing from those having an <br />established opinion; using the PWET Commission as a forum rather than <br />specifically at the focus group level; rules of engagement outlined in advance by <br />participants and facilitated accordingly; and pending development of questions for <br />the focus group, based on the 2001 focus groups. <br />Chair DeBenedet, with consensus of members, requested that the Commission be <br />provided with the questions and detailed nature of the proposed focus group <br />discussion prior to a meeting being scheduled, even if that meant another month's <br />delay in forming the focus groups. <br />Further discussion included the merits of the focus group having access to the <br />same extensive research and information studied by the PWET Commission; <br />knowledge base of the focus group based on that information or their general <br />public knowledge and personal experience; whether more than one focus group <br />was indicated; effectiveness of the focus groups based on perception, education <br />needs, and determining the base level of knowledge. <br />Members concurred that this item be tabled until the May 2010 PWET <br />Commission meeting to continue discussion on what education materials should <br />be developed; and a more specific plan developed and proposed for the focus <br />group(s); and suggested individual members submit potential questions to staff, <br />with no individual ownership on which questions made the final cut. <br />Mr. Schwartz noted the need to tailor the questions to achieve the objective of the <br />Commission, by determining their goal, whether to understand baseline <br />information needs of the general Roseville population, or to educate the public. <br />Mr. Schwartz suggested that additional discussion was needed to determine that <br />actual goal before deciding on the process to achieve the goal, at which time <br />questioned can then be developed by Mr. Pratt and returned to the Commission. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.