Agenda - 05-15-2014 - 5 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Attachment B Prepared 050814 6. need to get everybody at table to figure out what is best 7. do a simple format and action plan and later do something more elaborate 8. there are 2 different plans; an overriding vision of what the Board wants, but then information that different departments are sharing with citizens — "I don't want to be involved in that" 9. how departments operationalize their information should be part of the overall plan 10. "we need a plan, we really do, but maybe not as big and wide as some of the other sample plans we looked at" 11. we have not had clear discussion about the role of the Board — what communication reflects the Board as a whole vs. what represents staff communicating with the public? 12. concerned about unrealistic expectation that a Plan will solve all of our framing problems; no matter what we do, some people out there will emotionally have a different frame and will react negatively BOCC ROLES: There was clear consensus among Commissioners interviewed that the Board should have a role in the development, approval, and ongoing oversight of the Plan. There was strong sentiment broadly expressed that evaluation of what is working and not working in the Plan should be the subject of regular, formal review and that Board and staff must be willing to amend the Plan repeatedly to encompass new technologies and tools and to address demonstrated shortcomings of the Plan. There was universal agreement that there should be a communications team approach, without unanimity about the precise composition of that team. There was support among some for the concept of including 2 Commissioners on the team, but also some ambivalence among both Board members and staff about how Commissioners should best contribute to the development and oversight aspects of the Plan. Several Commissioners and staff expressed the importance of Commissioner participation not intimidating staff. There was no significant interest in having outside entities involved in developing or evaluating a Plan, except perhaps upon invitation on an occasional, ad hoc basis. 1. team could include 2 Commissioners - perhaps one who lives in town, and one who doesn't 2. importance of getting all folks who currently fulfill an outreach function in departments and get them involved 3. don't want only departments that currently have outreach resources represented on the communications team - want other departments involved to bring "fresh ideas" 4. OK to have a strategic communication plan, but be aware it's going to change so rapidly 5. should be quarterly updates to the Plan 6. consider the first year a pilot project with the intent to bring back for evaluation; after a while, oversight might be less often 7. Commissioners are out there in community so much and get hit with many different types of issues - we may have insights or sensitivity to community that staff people won't necessarily have 8. after a Plan is adopted, would keep the working group for ongoing meeting; when talking about quarterly updates, we need to know what worked and what didn't work 9. we're in charge of the messaging, and we need to be ahead of the information and get it out 10. the Board should be involved in development and approval; not in implementation, departments need to do that 11. "we need a working group that sometimes invites other experts" 12. communication team needs staff because of their knowledge of day to day operations - need their input regarding protocol and equipment 13. use staff and Commissioners on the team, then have a review process when it is almost in final form (e.g. run it by any advisory board linked to a department) 14. recommend rotating commissioners on team so same commissioner is not on year after year