2010-04-27_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

the rebid process for this contract expiring year-end, the Commission had yet to be charged by the City Council in actually participating in that process. 9. Organized Collection Focus Group Discussion Mr. Pratt provided, as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part thereof, an overview of the proposed focus groups and the process to implement them. Discussion included proposed implementation in April of 2010; geographical areas of the City for random selection within those areas for a representative sample; process for that selection; anticipated response rate of approximately twenty percent (20%); and proposed membership of the focus group at ten (10) or fewer residents. Further discussion included the make up of the focus group(s) to ensure across- section of the community is represented and not participating only to dominate and/or advocate specifically for their cause without fair consideration given to the broader issues; benefits or disadvantages of hearing from those having a established opinion; using the PWET Commission as a forum rather than specifically at the focus group level; rules of engagement outlined in advance by participants and facilitated accordingly; and pending development of questions for the focus group, based on the 2001 focus groups. Chair DeBenedet, with consensus of members, requested that the Commission be provided with the questions and detailed nature of the proposed focus group discussion prior to a meeting being scheduled, even if that meant another month's delay in forming the focus groups. Further discussion included the merits of the focus group having access to the same extensive research and information studied by the PWET Commission; knowledge-base of the focus group based on that information or their general public knowledge and personal experience; whether more than one focus group was. indicated; effectiveness of the focus groups based on perception, education needs, and determining the base level of knowledge. Members concurred that this item be tabled until the May 2010 PWET Commission meeting to continue discussion on what education materials should be developed; and a more specific plan developed and proposed for the focus group(s); and suggested individual members submit potential questions to staff, with no individual ownership on which questions made the final cut. Mr. Schwartz noted the need to tailor the questions to achieve the objective of the Commission, by determining their goal, whether to understand baseline information needs of the general Roseville population, or to educate the public. Mr. Schwartz suggested that additional discussion was needed to determine that actual goal before deciding on the process to achieve the goal, at which time questioned can then be developed by Mr. Pratt and returned to the Commission.