HomeMy WebLinkAboutCompass Kitchener - 2001-05-17MINUTES
COMPASS KITCHENER STEERING COMMITTEE
Thursday, May 17, 2001
5:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
nd
HR Learning Rm, 2 Floor
Attendees:
Carla Ladd, Tina Malone-Wright, Brock Stanley, Mike Sully, Marie Morrison, George
Zador, Mary Louise McAllister, Pat Doherty, Grace Bermingham, Wendy MacIntosh,
Don Bourgeois, Mike Follet, Carl Zehr, Trudy Beaulne, Tammy Schertzer
1.AGENDA / MINUTES
ØAgenda was approved as submitted
ØMary Louise made the motion that the minutes from the last meeting be approved. The
group agreed.
2.MUNICIPAL PLAN UPDATE – Carla Ladd / Tina Malone-Wright
ØCarla explained that following last Compass Kitchener Committee meeting Marie met
with Carla and Tina to discuss what role the Committee might take with the Municipal
Plan. Coming back to Committee now to ask if group is interested in drafting the
Vision for the Plan. What is the Compass Kitchener vision for land use and how do we
see present and future land use?
ØPlanning staff will draft an introduction and vision as well and then the two can be
brought together and discussed
ØPrimary Objectives handout prepared by Planning staff was circulated. It gives an idea
of what the Planners feel are the objectives.
Discussion:
ØThe plan continues to evolve. Policy sections will be separated in the Plan which
implement guiding principles and leads to a vision. It is important that these statements
are not ambiguous.
ØAs part of the Municipal Plan, planning will be looking at developing a benchmarking
and monitoring to ensure we have met and achieved the measures set out.
ØWho is the plan intended for? It is mostly for professionals to use be it does need to be
user friendly for the public. Need to be careful though as it is a legal document.
Action:
ØAd-hoc working group formed to draft vision and preamble for the Plan (Don, Trudy,
George, Wendy and Mike). Marie to set up meeting and invite Trudi as well.
ØNext step is participating in Benchmarking on a consultative basis.
1
4.ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEW
ØCouncil has appointed group to undertake a review of Advisory Committees and make
recommendations to Council. Group includes Mayor Zehr, Berry Vrbanovic, Christina
Weylie, Brock Stanley, Frank Pizzuto, Gary Sosnoski and Marie Morrison
ØThis group is meeting with all Advisory Committees to get their feedback. This issue is
being brought forward to the Compass Kitchener Committee for their input
Why is review being undertaken?
ØSome Committees go back to the 80’s. Comprehensive review has not been done
before. Are we making the best use of volunteers and the limited time of Council, staff
and resources. Is their duplication?
ØAssess how can integrate healthy communities
Discussion:
On Review Process:
ØNeed to tease out problems – ask the question, why do we have committees in the first
place? – reply was they serve as bridge between city and community
ØWhole process of reviewing committees rather than giving them the problems and
asking them to deal with them could leave people feeling unvalued and may be
intimidating to new people to committees.
ØGive current committees new mandates and let them figure out how to solve the
problem – give them the vision and ask them to make changes to incorporate it.
ØCouncil time and staff resources is a valid reason for review
ØNeed to know genesis of committees and why proposed in first place – for example
safety and social issues are not one-off issues so need an on-going committee
ØPerhaps social issues seem repetitive because of their complexity and that they are not a
direct City mandate
ØDuplication of people on committees is an indication of leadership
What is Needed for Committees to Be Effective:
ØCommittees need a clear mandate and to feel they have a purpose
ØCommittees need strong leadership and staff support
ØIt was suggested that we should use the Pennysaver brochure first to build the
committees from there (starting over) not trying to fit the committees into Compass,
reverse the role.
ØCouncil and Staff did not use the committee when making decisions – realize that
Council are the ones to make decisions but committee needed appropriate opportunities
for input
ØIf people feel they have a legitimate, credible voice on committees then they stick
around
Structure and Integrating Healthy Communities:
ØACAC lacked a business voice that would have been valuable
ØPat said Community Services Committee felt their input was isolated to Parks and
Recreation even though it may have been applicable to other areas
ØPerhaps too much under No-Name A – some people may not have interest or expertise
in all those issues.
ØRepresentation from all sectors needed on each committee
2
ØCircle chart makes sense to some and not to others
ØIdea to not start with existing committees but look to Directions of Compass Kitchener
and reform committees in this way – criteria for committees should be priorities
identified by Compass Kitchener
ØForm should follow function
ØWould like to see youth representation on A,B,C – not to discuss youth issues in a void
ØWe should have Environmental representation on A,B and C.
ØCurrent models leave the three healthy communities sectors separate – 3 silos of ABC
where you are trying to force interaction between them
Other:
ØInteresting to note that Advisory Committees do not cover all issues in the City’s budget
ØAnother approach all together – instead of having on-going committees define problem,
ask who wants to get involved and form a team – right now people may be spending a
lot of time dealing with problems they don’t have an strong interest in – We need to
define the problem, ask who wants to get involved and get to work on the problem -
adhocracy approach – concern with this approach is how do you keep people engaged in
the mean time so that you can draw on them when needed. This approach could be used
in way if integrated into a larger system so that it is on-going
In talking with Community Member following meeting – his observations:
·
Need some person or group to oversee or coordinate the efforts of the various advisory
committees – could the Compass Kitchener Committee do this?
·
Perhaps need to assess results from current committees – how have they actually made an
impact – could do exit interviews for Committee members who are leaving.
Action:
One time meeting for group to further review and make recommendations on behalf of the
Committee. The following expressed interest: Wendy, Mike, Trudy, Mary Louise, Mike Follet.
Marie to set up meeting and invite Trudi Bunting
5.EVALUATION CRITERIA
ØMike drafted evaluation criteria for the group to discuss
Discussion:
ØThe group needs to have evaluation criteria, need to assess and list. Have we addressed
the social and economic issues, etc.
ØWe need to have a well-defined mandate and know why this group exists.
ØWe need to define “effectively well”.
ØWhen evaluating we need to figure out what we said we were going to do and ask if we
did accomplish the goal.
ØWe need to be the watchdog community and be vocal for the community and fall into a
healthy communities model.
ØAdd relation to all directions. These questions will relate well to make sure that
Direction #1 has been fulfilled.
ØBreakdown the four steps so everyone knows what they are. Define the problem,
analyze, develop a solution and evaluate.
ØWe should make up a template for checkbox method.
3
6.KITCHEN TABLE TALKS UPDATE – Grace Bermingham (handout given)
ØGrace shared highlights of the draft report and asked for the Committee’s feedback.
th
ØThe report goes to Council as an informational item on June 11.
ØThe report will be referred to the Direction #1 working group to assist in developing
further recommendations.
7.COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULE
ØGeorge feels we do not meet often enough.
ØWendy cannot make the June meeting.
ØNew agenda items keep coming up and it is impossible to get through everything.
Adjourn at 7:30 p.m.
4