My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1998/05/26
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1998
>
Agenda Packets - 1998/05/26
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:48:07 PM
Creation date
6/18/2018 6:25:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
5/26/1998
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
5/26/1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
93
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
accomplished in the next few hours and see some positive results come from the session. <br /> IR DISCUSSION <br /> Chuck began the discussion with the following statement: <br /> "Goals and objectives are great when working from a position of credibility. They are <br /> perceived cynically when worked on with little credibility. Change is much harder to <br /> accommodate when the group's credibility is questionable." <br /> Is the organization viewed as credible? <br /> There were a range of responses varying from very credible to not credible at all. Through the <br /> discussions it became clear that credibility is based on a range of factors varying from issue to <br /> issue. If Council decides an issue that the citizenry agrees with, they will be viewed as very <br /> credible. If they disagree, credibility will be questioned. The group agreed that credibility is often <br /> based on getting what you want. <br /> Credibility may also be based on longevity. Many of the members of our Council and staff have <br /> been involved with the City for years, gaining valuable insight and knowledge about the City and <br /> its residents. This may also factor into credibility. <br /> Credibility is also influenced by information--where did it come from--who brought it forward-- <br /> and what/if any are the motives behind the information?Facts or statements taken out of context <br /> can lead to credibility issues as well. <br /> Does Council view the staff as credible? <br /> There were a range of responses to this question. It was pointed out that we have a very <br /> professional staff with a wide range of experience and expertise on which to draw. Credibility <br /> becomes an issue when it appears that staff may have an agenda in the information that is brought <br /> forward. Some of the questions raised were: How should the Council respond when residents <br /> bring forth conflicting information than what staff has presented? How much information does <br /> the staff need to bring forward to be seen by Council as credible? Should the staff present <br /> professional recommendations, or simply lay out the options for the Council to choose from? <br /> It was suggested that the credibility of the staff is damaged when residents are allowed to give <br /> incorrect information during public hearings. The question becomes then, how to distribute the <br /> right information? Should a time limit be set/enforced for those citizens speaking at the public <br /> hearings? Should staff or Council step in when an incorrect statement/or facts taken out of <br /> context are made? <br /> There was some concern that there are"behind the scenes" negotiations being made. This may <br /> contribute to the opinion that staff/and or Council is not credible. How do we improve <br /> communication to ensure that this is not how business is being conducted? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.