Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-0606 Special Mtg Packet Cllrv OF ASHLAND AGENDA CITY COUNCIL -- SPECIAL MEETING June 6, 2005 - 5: 15 p.m. Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street I. ROLL CALL II. COUNCIL DISCUSSION I QUESTIONS REGARDING INTERVIEW PROCIESS III. 5:45 p.m. -INTERVIEW CANDIDATES IV. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35. 104 ADA Title I). ~~., CITY OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: TO: FROM: RE: June 2, 2005 Mayor and City COU~il City Recorder Appointment of vac nt Council Position #6 Enclosed you will find the agendas for the Special Meetings of June 6th and June 8th. Attached to these agendas are the answers from the applicants to the question regarding decision-making. The only applicant that I did not hear from was Michael Riedeman, although I did try and reach him before sending this out to you. I tried to set the schedule alphabetically by last name, but at the request of Andrew Ains'worth, I placed him in the time slot of Alan Sasha Lithman who removed himself from the process. The agenda schedule on June 6th allows time at the beginning of the meeting to discuss and determine the questions for the applicants. Also, the agenda schedule on June 8th allows time, if the council should desire, to make a decision on the vacancy. If a decision is not made at the June 8th meeting, this could be done at the Regular Meeting of the Council on June 21 st. Please let me know if you have questions, or if there is a need to make any changes. City Hall City Recorder's Office 20 E Main Ashland, Oregon 97520 wwwashland.orus Tel 541-488-5307 Fax 541-552-2059 TTY. 800-735-2900 ..~ ... '1 SPECIAL MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL Monday, June 6 , 2005 - 5: 15 p.m. Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street Interview Schedule for June 6 2005 5:45 Michael Riedeman 5:55 David Chapman 6:05 Tom Dimitre 6:15 John Gaffey 6:25 Steve Hauck 6:35 Don Laws 6:45 Greg Lemhouse Please wait in the lobby area until you are asked to corne into the Council Charrlbers for your interview. This is being asked mainly as a courtesy to those that are interviewing. Thank you. ~,-~~-~..~ -_._~_.-~-~ --"--.-.-." -----"-- " ,~.. --~~.- ~~.~~ .~~, ~--~.~''',~ ~~---_..~.~~.~~~.~~..............................~ From: To: Date: Subject: <michael@muzzybeat. net> "Barbara Christensen" <barbarac@ashland.or.us> 6/2/2005 6:52:53 PM Michael Riedeman's response to council question Barbara, Here's my sadly-belated response to Council's question: The question from Council: The decision-making process of Council is to discuss issues before us and try to reach consensus. Yet many decisions require a majority vote for approval. Please describe how you approach decision-making. My answer: I always strive to achieve decision-making by consensus although I am aware that full consensus is often not possible. My approach to decision-making begins with my own thorough review of the relevant information" by studying as many opinions and sources as possible in my allotted time. I show up at meetings prepared with ample knowledge of the background information and usually a list of questions and discussion points intended to clarify the matter and illuminate the various perspectives. When forming my questions and discussing my points, I remain conscious to keep my input concise, focused, and relevant to the matter at hand. I tend to be acutely alert to the time allotted each agenda item and aware of how many speakers are involved. Then I adjust my own input, if any, to succinct outline-form when necessary, or I expand my philosophy when time allows. When listening to the views of others I pay close attention to the facts as well as the feelings behind them. From my extensive experience with group decision-making and facilitation, I have come to believe that everyone's perspective has value when I query enough to understand the underlying concerns. So I listen for the wisdom in everyone's statements. In a group dynamic when there is strong disagreement on an issue, I work towards mitigating the degree of dissesion using the following tactics. I attempt to make sure that everyone's views get air-time. I directly, but diplomatically, steer conversations back on topic when they stray. I inject as much lightness, humor, and compassion into conversations as possible, without diverting the topic. I find the points of contention with which I personally disagree and ask for deeper explanations to explain the rationale or feelings beneath them. I recognize the distinction between beliefs and facts. I admit when I'm wrong about a fact. I allow myself to happily change my mind. I welcome new ideas for consideration. I often naturally think creatively "outside the box" while striving to understand the history and positive insights that helped build the various thought-boxes to begin with. I also try to maintain balance between passionate values and acknowledging my humble naivete. I respect that we humans come from diverse backgrounds and pursue very distinct missions and am grateful that we are so unique. So I recognize that we may all have positive intentions but hold very individual, and often opposing, views about which specific actions may achieve the greater good. Therefore I strive to see those whose beliefs I disagree with as merely being distinct from myself and to explore beyond one view of reality. . .-..-----.............~.-.~-.-. C. _.-...oo~.....d..._._____.................................._.__C....._u..__.u... _u__uu,.................__u. __ ..._....__uoouu............h...'_. .. -.... C........._..._uun._._._._.___._oo...._~...__h......u.......__.-'..........'_'__h"__. ..... u.. _moo.u.".h..oouu.u.___ ...uu._.......h...h.~ u..u_._~u.............____ Serving in group decision-making bodies striving towards consensus, but making decisions by majority-vote, I have always worked to be receptive to minority and majority opinions. Before any particularly divisive issue may end in a bitter split decision, I work to achieve win-win situations as much as possible. Depending on the issue, this could be achieved through broader critical review, compromising on the most palatable fine points of the issue, or postponing decisions for further research when necessary. Or through many other means we could invent together by putting our thoughtful heads together in critical thinking... and cooperative connection. Thank you for your consideration, Michael Riedeman "The decision-making process of the Council is to discuss issues before us and try to reach consensus. Yet many decisions require a majority vote for approval. Please describe how you approach decision- making. " David R. Chapman June 1, 2005 The key to a good informed decision is information and knowledge. The model that I tend to use for structuring a decision is an iterative process borrowed from design and planning. 1. Formulate goals and objectives. 2. IdentifY and design alternative solutions. 3. Predict the positive and negative consequences for each alternative. 4. Evaluate consequences in relationship to goals and objectives. 5. Decide based on the information obtained from above. 6. Implement the decision. 7. Assess the effectiveness of the result. The source of goals may be operational or strategic. Consensus begins in strategk goals with full Council participation in choosing important problems. But whether the goals are staff generated or Council generated, you must try to work together to understand the conditions and causes of the problem and to generate a set of possible solutions and alternatives. While identifYing alternative solutions, it is important fi)r each member to have a common understanding of the background and purpose of the action. History and expertise may come from city staff, residents, consultants and other members. Cooperation and trust, consideration and respect, and the ability to determine the strengths and expertise of other members are vital traits for developing this understanding. It is necessary to determine how much information is enough for a good decisio~ on what part of the information to place your focus, and to have a realistic timeline for gathering information. It is clear that it will be necessary to manage some conflict to get key decisions nmde. Negotiation to advance your interests, explaining issues or concerns, while monitoring your biases is required. The legal and fmancial constraints must be understood. The process must explore and communicate underlying concerns, identify potential areas of agreement and disagreement and, if possible, fmd some common ground for the majority. Some notions that I keep in mind during a decision pro(~ess are: 1. Seek the best advice. 2. Clearly state what you are trying to achieve. 3. Keep it simple and elegant, easy to understand and flX. 4. Consider all options and reasons for acceptance and rejection. 5. Capture your thoughts and ideas; organize your thinking. 6. Explore to understand key assumptions and areas of conflict. 7. Does a problem exist? Does it solve the problem (without negative consequenc;es)? (J. Morrison) 8. Does my decision reflect the community will? Do I feel their will is correct? ~~~Q '~r~ RECEIVED JUN 01 2005 [Ba~bara Christense~- Re: Council Position #6 --'--~._~.-~..~_.---'----~~..."..-.~...,.......",.~-,--.~.,--...,--c-~.-~,-~.,--~~~ _ ~:.-----'._~~~..", PageTI .~........:......~.~....."~~~ From: To: Date: Subject: tom dimitre <tdimitre@earthlink.net> "Barbara Christensen" <barbarac@ashland.or.us> 6/1/2005 10:15:35 PM Re: Council Position #6 Hi Barbara: Here is the answer to question #5, as you requested. Thanks. One last (hopefully) question for you. Will the questions on Monday come from the list that you provided, or will there be questions not on the list? Thanks again. Tom Dimitre 5. The decision-making process of the Council is to discuss issues before us and try to reach consensus. Yet many decisions require a majority vote for approval. Please describe how you approach decision-making. One of the primary duties of my current job is to listen to all sides of an issue and ask questions to ensure that I understand the issue as well as ensure that I have heard diverse opinions. I am a good listener. I also gather information and do research on issues to make sure that I am well informed. As a City Councilor I would endeavor to continue the good work of this Council and Mayor by encouraging public input and a large diversity of opinion. I want to hear what the citizens have to say. Gathering this information is the first part of my decision making process. There are many issues where I would make my decision by weighing the public input that is received. I also have personal values and beliefs on some key issues. For example, I believe that Ashland's downtown should be preserved and kept as unique. I strongly support the big box ordinance and would like to see it strengthened. It would be difficult to sway my value on this issue. I also strongly believe in equal rights for all human beings - no matter their gender, age, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, etc. This is a core value that cannot be compromised or swayed by public opinion to the contrary. Through any decision making process, I would feel free to be part of a consensus; however I would also feel free to be a lone dissenting vote. On May 31, 2005, at 7:56 AM, Barbara Christensen wrote: > Tom, also because you will be available for interviewing on Monday, > please just return the one question to me regarding decision-making on > June 1 st. Thank you. Barbara > > Barbara Christensen > City RecorderlTreasurer > City of Ashland > Ashland OR 97520 05/31/05 Submission for vacated Council Position #6 Council members, "The decision-making process of Council is to discuss issues before us and try to reach consensus. Yet many decisions require a majority vote for approval. Please describe how you approach decision-making." Interesting-- I don't know that I've ever considered the legislative body of a representative democracy to be a consensus-seeking organization. I would prefer that it come up \vith practical or just solutions. Consensus can be serendipitous or hammered-out, but not a necessary precondition to success. History is replete with disastrous consensus decisions. Consequently, in my own process I don't use consensus as an a priori for gauging the success or rightness of my decisions. For example, I don't see any value in pre-supposing a consensus is possible between a faith-based approach and a fact-based approach. As regards my own decision-making process, I start by determining just how useful my input might be. If it strikes me that I don't have anything useful to contribute, I'm perfectly happy to let those who have more interest in the 111atter run with it. Once involved, I like to use whatever resources are available to know what I can about the history, precedents, and personalities involved. I want to know what the social, economic, legal and physical constraints are bearing on the matter. Towards that, I seek out people VJith expertise in those areas. Additionally, for a city council the input of interested parties is vital. As the stakes rise in severity and impact on others for making a correct decision, I give more credence to input that can be examined, quantified, and tested. It should also be legal. As I gain more knowledge about the issue, I look to fit it into patterns or contexts to see if there are any guidelines to be had that way. The above lays the groundwork from which I seek new knowledge, insights, and solutions. I try to do some costlbenefit considerations, weigh the risks, and assess the chances for success and failure of various courses of action. Then, I rank the options in terms of their likelihood of bringing about the desired results. It's a pretty straightforward process to state but not always so straightforward to implement-and certainly not infallible as practiced by me. RECEIVED MAY 31 200~ From: To: Date: Subject: Steve Hauck <stephenhauck@yahoo.com> Barbara Christensen <barbarac@ashland.or.us> 6/1/2005 8:37:51 PM Interview question Here is my answer to the interview question. When it comes to decision-making, my approach has been to study all the pertinent facts and opinions on both sides of an issue, bring whatever background or experience I might personally have and then make my personal decision as to what the proper course of action appears to be. As the group deliberates and expresses their stands or questions about possible directions, I try to listen to those statements or questions and then do my best to help craft a solution that, most, if not all, of the group could support, without sacrificing my core beliefs of the right choice to make. If consensus or near-consensus is not possible, or I find myself as the sole opinion on the opposite side, I will remain with that decision if I am convinced by my research and listening that it remains the only course I can take. I also respect those that do the same when I am on the majority side. I've found that the key to good decision-making is not if consensus is always reached, but that all opinions are listened to and respected in the final outcome. That means that those other viewpoints are acknowledged, even if not accepted in the final decision. Steve Hauck The plain and simple truth is rarely plain and never simple. Oscar Wilde MEMO TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON LAWS SUBJECT: ANSWER TO WRITTEN QUESTION FOR COUNCIL CANDIDATES June 1, 2005 MY APPROACH TO COUNCIL DECISION-MAKING Consensus is a useful goal for Council decision-making. It implies neither unanimity nor simple majority rule. It does imply an effort to work together in ways that do not lead to decisions that will alienate n1embers of the Councilor significant numbers of the public. Even if unanimity were possible in this community it is frequently not desirable. We need a variety of ideas to promote a dialogue that Inay result in better decisions than any of the Councilors start with. Majority rule must be relied on with great care. If a majority constantly overrides a minority on issues that really matter to the minority, it can easily result in bitterness and even revolt. Members of the Council who may frequently be in the minority quite likely represent the views of a significant portion of our citizens. The Council wants to avoid making decisions in a manner that turns off large numbers of people. We need to make decisions that maintain at least a minimum level of cohesiveness in both the Council and the community. This requires that the Council look for possible concessions and compromises that may not be what the Council thinks is "perfect," but that will make policies that all members of the Council and public can live with. Finding solutions that may seem less than perfect, but which the whole Council can tolerate, is the road to real consensus. Obviously, reaching consensus requires careful listening to one another until we understand as well as hear what the others are saying. We also must understand how strongly they feel about it. To help with this it might be useful to do around-the-table comments from all Councilors both at the beginning and near the conclusion of all controversial questions. One last suggestion, aimed especially at myself, is the need for patience in letting issues evolve. I think patience will help considerably in listening to and understanding others. I have also had the opportunity to serve on several committees and chain~d others. In each case consensus building is key, but in the end the importance of making a decision, committing to it and being flexible in regards to the outcome are just as important. In an effort to build a consensus, I believe it is important to seek varied opinions and hear as many alternative arguments as possible. It is certain that everyone brings with them to the table a personal bias or opinion based on their life's experience. This often shapes our beliefs and opinions. In my experience, if my opinion can stand up logically to any and all alternative arguments, then I feel confident in my position. If it doesn't, then I have to consider the arguments and make the appropriate changes. Such is life when working with others in a committee or council setting. It is accepted that each will have a different view on the same subject, but each must be flexible and willing to listen to alternative views and change if necessary. Ultimately though, a decision must be made in a timely matter whether through consensus or majority vote. In any case, everyone's views and opinions must be respected and taken into account prior to the decision being made. I also strongly believe that a decision must be made that is best for all, even if it is in opposition to my own beliefs. There may be times when one must stand on hlS principle and his belief system, but the role of a council member is to represent the entire community and come to a decision, taking into account the information on hand and current situation, which has the best results for the most people. These decisions must be made simply because they are the right thing to do, not what is best for me or the small group which I feel I most directly represent. R~pectf~IlY,~ ( .r...--- _ G~e~:)ouse 285~e~ge)Vood Ln Ashland;-OR RECErv'ED May 30, 2005 MAY ~11 2005 Dear Ashland City Council, In response to the question posed of how I approach making decisions, I start out by pointing out the obvious steps. Before making any decision, it's always best to listen to all opinions, look at every angle, gather all possible information, contelnplate every outcome and debate all points prior coming to a conclusion. In such an environment, the decision n1ade is most often best possible and, in all likelihood, final. This, however, is the easy and most obvious answer. For anyone who has been involved in making critical and time s,ensitive decisions, it is certainly not reality. The reality of the decision making progress, however, is that the worst thing a person can do when faced with an important decision is to not make one. Many will continually analyze the situation refusing to move forward until the time to act has passed, rendering any positive effects of the decision minimal. This is "paralysis by over-analysis" and is seen all to often in such situations. The other fatal flaw is to make a decision and to let one's ego get involved. This keeps the decision maker from continually evaluating the outcome of the decision that was made and making the necessary changes. Most decisions are not final and can be adjusted if they result in unintended or unforeseeable consequences. Failing to.do so can be catastrophic and be linked directly to a person's inability to be flexible and ~<;adjust fire." F or the past 10 years, I have been placed daily in the position to make crucial and often life or death decisions. Police officers make dozens of decisions every day that directly affect the lives of those they come in contact with, whether it is solving a neighborhood dispute or the taking ofa human life. In many cases, the information that is used to make these decisions is incomplete at best. Decisions however must be made, often over the span of only a few seconds and the margin for error is minimal. Each of these deci:sions must be made with the level of seriousness appropriate for the situation and the decision maker must be willing to face the consequences or fall out from decisions1that result in unwanted outcomes. As a supervisor, I have been placed in many situations where the decisions I have made have not only affected the lives of an individual but those under my command. These decisions are never taken lightly. The information available to me at the time is processed and input is sought from others. Options are then pondered and -consequences are considered prior to my decisions being set forth and acted on. This can be a very streamlined and time sensitive process or one that may take several days. In each case, my decisions are made with confidence, knowing that I am making the best decision at the time, given the information for which I have to work and the course of action is committed to 100%. That being said, in each case I have also maintained flexibility and the ability to change course as the situation progresses, knowing that I never have the market cornered on the best decisions. I have had the opportunity to make many of these decisions, not only in times of crisis, but dealing with people that I supervise, which can be just as critical, as the wrong decision can drastically effect the morale, confidence and self-worth of the group and of the individual.