Stutsman: OK. Discussion regarding change in computer technology approval process. Recommendations from the What/When Committee. Jonathan you put this on the agenda.
Jordahl: Yes. At the What/When Committee meeting on Friday, we discussed the process of approval. These things that we've been getting on our desks through the computer committee. Right now we've got a process where Jean Schultz and Steve and Joe serve on the Information Services Committee. They review requests for technology purchases and sign off on them and then they circulate to the rest of the Board and not until all the Board has seen these requests and have signed off on them are things considered approved. Can they then go on to be purchased? People have complained about these requests taking longer than may be necessary for items that may be uncontroversial, that people feel should have been automatic. Yet they have to go through the process. So we had a fairly wide ranging discussion about a variety of concerns related to this. One being the idea of bringing up to speed departments that may not have requested computer equipment in the past, wanted to do networking. So how does this approval process relate to the fact that we now have an overall networking plan in place. If a purchase that is proposed is consistent with the networking plan, ought that approval process be a little easier than it has been? So what was suggested was that the people, and in fact moved and voted on and approved by the What/When committee for recommendation by the Supervisors, was that the approval process be somewhat simplified in that a request would go initially to Jean Schultz. If Jean determined that they were consistent with the networking plan as it existed, then a purchase could go ahead and be made at that level. Only if Jean did not think that it was consistent with the networking plan would it go through the same process that we've got now. So it would have to be made clear to the Supervisors that in the future as we see these requests go through, that it's not the same approval process that we had before. The only reason that we're seeing them is because there was a problem with them. We would want to review what the problem was and see if we wanted to intervene in some way. Jean's judgment might vary on this to be more cautious about what the Supervisors might be in favor of, and send more things forward, but basically that's the... The proposal as we voted was that we just have requests go to Information Services; if there's a problem, then there's an appeal process. Basically the appeals process would be this, that if the proposal is not approved and the person wishes to appeal, they would bring that forward to the 3 person Information Services Committee. Or they could just give up and say, OK, it's not approved.
Stutsman: Who are the 3 people on that, what we currently have Jean...
Jordahl: It's Jean and Steve and Joe.
Stutsman: OK.
Bolkcom: The other caveat with Jean would provide a monthly or something... Jean would report to the Board on a regular basis what was requested by who and at what cost. So we would, because that's kind of what we get now. We kind of get to see what equipment's being bought, how much are we spending, on a case by case basis. She would provide that monthly or quarterly in kind of a summary format.
Stutsman: So Jean would have this review privilege regardless of the cost of the request.
Bolkcom: Right. The question I guess is do we want the kind of checks and balances that are currently in the system in a real time kind of capacity, so that departments that request stuff realize that it will be going before the Board. Most of the stuff is already... The other issue, so that's one issue, the one with the checks and balances. The other issue is a question that came up is do department heads want some discretion in their own budgets to buy equipment and software? The process so far, we've kind of moved to this more centralized fund. Whether we want to give them some limited discretion to propose and buy new equipment and still have a fund that as Jean talked about it, more of a maintenance and replacement fund. We know we have existing equipment. We have a central fund and according to some schedule to replace things. That would be replacement. Then allow departments in the context of presenting a budget to the Board each year, say that we've got a new staff person coming on, we're going to need a new computer, therefore we want to budget in our budget for a new computer and a new printer and they present that to the Board and then during the course of the year, they'd have the autonomy to go out and do that. Providing it was compatible. It would still go to Jean for compatibility, but they'd have that flexibility.
Jordahl: Now that's not, that is not part of the proposal, however, that was voted on on Friday. This is a question that the Board needs to address.
Bolkcom: Yes, it's a broader question.
Stutsman: Yes.
Jordahl: In terms of what we want to do with the technology budget. I pointed out during that discussion that if we gave each department say $8,000 worth of autonomy, we would not have a central computer budget.
Stutsman: Right.
Jordahl: So I think, the question that comes out of that discussion is that of compatibility, a notion that I introduced to try to bring these things into focus. I think with, is that we have a 5 year plan for Secondary Roads. We have a 5 year plan for networking implementation. There is no reason that we could not elaborate the outcome of the Document Management Committee, the Geographical Information Systems Committee, the Web Committee and so forth to articulate what the networking plan to have a 5 year technology implementation plan. So that as Jean is in the process of approving purchases, it can be shown exactly how those purchases are consistent with a 5 year plan which could then be reviewed on an annual basis. Again, that's not part of the motion that was made by the What/When committee. That was sort of the background of the discussion. So the idea that every purchase would go through Jean has as it's kernel the idea of compatibility.
Stutsman: Uh-huh. Steve, did you have any comments about what's being proposed or... because you're on that committee right now and...
Lacina: Originally the committee that I serve on served the purpose of both committees. We proposed the computer technology committee, put that together, tried to set up a plan and get us moving and then suddenly the What/When Committee was created and now the What/When Committee has decided to do away with us. Joe is still on that and I guess I see it as a consolidation of power to move me off that.
Jordahl: Oh.
Stutsman: Yes, I guess...
Bolkcom: I don't think that's the conversation at all that's going...
Lacina: The other side of it is that if there's a problem with timeliness, get it off your desks. There's no reason why a document can't come in here and within 2 days be signed off and deal with it. Now other than timeliness, I guess I don't see that it really does hurt to have a checks and balances, but whatever you want to do. I mean...
Jordahl: Well Steve, I don't think there was any element in the discussion that had any, there was no form of criticism of you personally or anything that you have to do with this system. I don't think that has any part of the intention here in anybody's mind.
Lacina: I just find it interesting that one committee suddenly decides to do away with another without even talking to them about it or addressing that they think that there is a problem. Again if there is a problem with timeliness, it's not the committee, the reports come over here and I think the hang-up probably is on our desks. It doesn't get passed along. Well, deal with the problem.
Bolkcom: Well the conversation really was generated from our department heads. Not from members of the Board and it's not a personal thing at all. It's unfortunate you feel that way, but the people want some more autonomy is really one of the questions. They want to be able to go to Jean and work through it. The process I believe that was suggested by the technology, Computer Needs Committee was really focused on a broader group decision-making process that would have the entire What/When Committee, which is really the department heads, making kind of a collaborative decision on what should be bought and what shouldn't be bought. They are now saying they are comfortable with Jean making those decisions. It's not, I don't know that it's always a hang-up in the Board's Office. The timeliness of requests. I mean there's probably a little bit of a delay in Jean's office, a little bit of delay over here. I kind of like the checks and balances piece. Those things coming across our desks.
Lacina: Well, and you're correct. It isn't rubber stamped. For example, in the event that the file server is provided with for the Health Department, the old one will roll to the County Attorney's Office. So sometimes when a request comes in from a particular department, it is balanced against what we have in inventory, what the plan is, and right, it's not just a rubber stamp, boom, go ahead, it is reviewed again based upon what the What/When Committee has worked up.
Bolkcom: Right.
Lacina: I'll tell you what, I'll support doing away with the committee and letting Jean do it.
Stutsman: But the committee's still in place...
Jordahl: That's not the proposal.
Stutsman: ...with the appeal process. You still... I guess I know I served on that committee. I always deferred to Jean and said, is this compatible, is this in the right direction or what not and...
Lacina: That's fine.
Bolkcom: I don't really have a problem with the way we're doing it now. Maybe rather than have a committee of 3, have a committee of 6. Because really what happens is we all...
Stutsman: That would slow it down even more.
Bolkcom: Well, but nothing really happens until all 5 supervisors check off on that memo.
Lacina: We're approving it with that check-off. We're just indicating that we saw it and if there's a question...
Bolkcom: Well I think it implies that we're saying it's OK.
Lacina: I don't want that to go across. When we stamp that document it merely means, we're not checking off that we're approving it...
Bolkcom: What does it mean then?
Lacina: It means we have seen it.
Bolkcom: But what does that mean?
Peters: I think there is a confusion here between the check-offs. There are 2 check-offs.
Lacina: If there is a yes/no, then it is, but if it's...
Peters: One is by the committee.
Stutsman: Right and that's when they initial it.
Peters: Then when it's stamped then that's when it goes...
Bolkcom: Right.
Peters: All 5 Board members have a review of it.
Bolkcom: But that's approval, that's not...
Peters: Yes.
Stutsman: Yes, I took it as...
Lacina: Not unless we've got that yes/no there.
Duffy: No that's not approval.
Peters: Well that's what I'm saying.
Jordahl: That's when we do have it.
Lacina: OK, if it has the yes/no on it, then absolutely.
Bolkcom: But it doesn't have the yes/no frequently it's just the checks.
Lacina: If it's the other one then that goes through like a document, like we get the Springstein letter and a bunch of stuff, merely meaning that we saw it.
Bolkcom: Well we need to clarify that with Jean then, because my impression has always been yes we saw it, but it implies that we've approved it.
Stutsman: I thought I was approving it.
Lacina: No, not unless somebody commented on it because there is nothing indicating...
Bolkcom: It doesn't make sense.
Lacina: There has been times that staff has brought back a document to me wanting me to initial that I saw it, not for approval. We do need to clarify that.
Bolkcom: When do you approve it?
Lacina: If you have a concern you bring it up.
Stutsman: I guess I always used to write yes on it.
Bolkcom: Looking just at the committee's thing, when do we approve it? When we initial it?
Lacina: When it's in the budget we don't. How do you disapprove it? If technically a department head says I'm going to buy this piece of machinery and in the past you said no you're not and they go and expend it, you have no power over that budget for an elected official to say oh, you can't spend that.
Jordahl: Plus another thing that needs to be clarified is that budget. There was a discussion during our budget process in January, as I recalled, of centralizing these budgets into one technology fund. So that a department would not have, this is a central part of what we're talking about here as I was saying with regard to the $8,000 in everybody's budget. If you did that then you don't have a central technology fund.
Stutsman: Doesn't that defeat our whole purpose of coordinating this so that we're not duplicating and we're recycling. I thought that was the reason why we were having a centralized fund, so that we could do a little bit more coordinating of this whole technology thing.
Lacina: Right, use the money more efficient. But we're off the budget or off the agenda, the item; and I will support making this change.
Stutsman: OK, are there 3...
Duffy: Well, I don't have to support it, because we made that change when we had 3 people handle this, before that there was how many Carol? I'm talking about Informational Services on the whole there's...
Peters: Any elected official and department heads?
Duffy: Yes. That didn't work our very good and that's the reason why we cut this back to 3 people. The expertise that Steve has, I'm not going to change it at all.
Stutsman: OK, Joe how do you feel?
Bolkcom: I'm mixed about it.
Stutsman: Jonathan?
Jordahl: The Board has, the Board certainly... I mean this is here for discussion right. The Board has the right to do this however they want to do it. One alternative that was discussed during the meeting was that I believe Jean said that she now brings these requests to Jo.
Stutsman: Jo?
Jordahl: Hogarty. And that Jo hands them to people rather than putting them in baskets and so that the process is guaranteed to move more expeditiously, but that's a change that's only just occurring rather than something that's really been given a chance to...
Peters: It's just since the last request. Just since that last request.
Lacina: Which puts more work on her, I'll support going with Jean. Jean has...
Stutsman: Jonathan how do you feel? What's your... I guess I support going with Jean, just because she's the Information Services person. She has the expertise. She knows what all of the other County departments have and whenever I had these requests I always deferred to her for her recommendation and what not...
Jordahl: I think the key...
Stutsman: Jonathan how do you feel?
Jordahl: I'm in favor of it because of the way that it's keyed to a 5 year plan and that it's not simply whom do we favor or something? It's how does this fit into the overall networking plan?
Stutsman: But we still have in place an appeal process.
Jordahl: Right.
Stutsman: You know if somebody wants to...
Bolkcom: Which is important I think.
Stutsman: Yes, and that would still be the 3 people so there would still be that checks and balance in that respect. So I guess there's 3 people to go ahead with these...
Duffy: Well when you say it now I'm confused. 3 people in case of a problem, what are you saying?
Stutsman: Right. In case Jean voted against something or didn't say something was appropriate, then...
Bolkcom: She would forward it on to the Board...
Stutsman: If somebody said no I still...
Duffy: On the... Are we getting rid of the 3 person panel.
Bolkcom: No.
Stutsman: We're changing their focus.
Lacina: Why don't you just get rid of it and if there's a concern have her address the Board?
Bolkcom: I would think so too. I mean, the confusion about what the role of the...
Lacina: It's a powerless Board and ultimately what are they going to do?
Bolkcom: What checking off means. We're just checking off stuff. You know 99% of the stuff Jean presents is approved and... But the reason to have us in the process is that as departments request equipment, if they know the Board is going to be reviewing it before it's approved, I think they're going to be quite clear about what they need and the time frame in which they need it. I think that would be... That's the value of having us in the pipeline. Is that they will know that the Board of Supervisors is reviewing it and they're taking a look at it. They're concerned about money and spending, where just having Jean... Because 99% of the stuff that's requested is going to be approved by Jean and we're going to learn about it later, having us in the process I think makes people a little bit more conservative about things I would argue.
Stutsman: Or does it make us more micro-managing?
Duffy: Yes.
Bolkcom: It let's us know what's going on. So that would be the case for keeping it like it is. In my judgment.
Stutsman: Well, I'm still going to support it being with Jean. Is there still 3 people to do that or have you changed your mind?
Lacina: That's fine. I'll go with the proposal.
Stutsman: OK and then have it bring before the entire Board for the appeal process or the 3 member committee.
Jordahl: Another possible way of...
Stutsman: But for the entire Board?
Lacina: Right.
Jordahl: Another possible way of doing this would be instead of passing a memo around to the whole Board, just as we would defer the decision to Jean we could defer the decision to the 3 person committee, not pass the memo among the Board members, except for a monthly summary of what's going on. Unless there was a recommendation or a problem on the part of the 3 person committee at which point the whole Board would see it.
Duffy: Who's on the committee?
Lacina: Joe and Jean and (inaudible).
Lacina: So Steve if you wanted to continue to be involved in the...
Lacina: Before we get it so confusing that the department heads have no idea of what the hell is going on, let's just go with the proposal that was on the table and just stay with it.
Stutsman: Yes, but maybe just try it for 6 months and see how it goes and then review it, you know if there are some problems or we feel that we don't have any control or whatever. But I agree with Jean submitting a report on a monthly basis as to what's been approved and what not.
Lacina: Uh-huh, which is a good idea to know where we stand on the technology fund anyway.
Stutsman: Yes. Yes. OK. So Carol is that clear?
Peters: Got you.
Stutsman: OK, so if... Do we need to have formal action on that? Do we need to put that on Thursday?
Lacina: It's not a policy, well doing away with the committee? Maybe.
Bolkcom: Probably.
Stutsman: OK.
Jordahl: Well the committee continues to exist though.
Lacina: No. It will not. It will go to the Board of Supervisors if there is concern.
Jordahl: Oh, OK.
Lacina: For example, in the past we did have... The requests were not necessarily compatible with the system.
Stutsman: Right.
Lacina: I had an Apple on my desk, which was not compatible; if I logged that on to the network, we were going to crash. We've had other equipment. We looked at Gateway, which was only about 85% compatible at the time with our system. We've tried different components that have not worked. We're now down to where we do have a better understanding and the department heads go to Jean for that help. But if there's a concern or it there's an appeal, it needs to come back to this Board because the other Board is powerless anyway.
Stutsman: Right.
Lacina: I mean it's ultimately going to come back to us anyway, so let's just eliminate a step and go direct.
Stutsman: OK. So do we need formal action on Thursday?
Peters: Well, I have a question, by changing the technology approval process, are you saying the you are also in effect wanting to do away with the Information Services Committee?
Bolkcom: That's what we're saying.
Jordahl: That's what Steve was saying.
Peters: Well I just wanted a clarification on that.
Lacina: That's what I heard in the proposal.
Peters: OK, so then yes you are going to have to have formal action and it will have to be by resolution.
Duffy: What is the reason why we're going to do away with this committee? It would have to a good reason. I don't see any good reason.
Lacina: Requests take too long.
Bolkcom: Streamlining.
Stutsman: Streamlining. More coordination from...
Duffy: Well that's what they said when we formed the committee and now we're streamlining it back.
Bolkcom: Yes, my recollection of the history of the committee was to kind of referee disagreements and that's why members of the Board were on it. There's a feeling that things are going pretty good right now and things are a lot smoother and maybe a more streamlined process might work.
Duffy: In other words the committee worked, what you're saying.
Stutsman: The what?
Duffy: The committee has worked.
Bolkcom: The committee worked in resolving issues and people feel like a lot of those issues are now behind us and there's...
Duffy: It's more than issues though Joe.
Bolkcom: There's more cooperation now.
Duffy: The committee has worked, now why get rid of a viable committee?
Jordahl: Because there has been an additional process to address the question of compatibility and resolving conflicts in the form of the What-When Committee and it's various sub committees. So there has been a lot of involvement as you frequently suggest that we have, that the department heads have been involved in the process of how do we resolve these conflicts? So now we have more of a sense of an overall, as the Computer Needs Committee suggested, an enterprise focus on how on the whole County is computerizing and how we can all have access to the technology. As an outcome of that, the What-When Committee is recommending a streamlined process taking into account that we have an implementation plan in place. To, at least with regard to networking, and I hope shortly we'll have the flushed out to include the work of all the subcommittees. That's the additional feature of the context. It's not just like time has passed and the committee has worked, but other things have happened as well. That's...
Stutsman: So can we put this on then Thursday for resolution Carol?
Peters: Yes.
Stutsman: OK. All right.
Jordahl: One more question about this. In terms of the process of appeal, would appeal be by memo or would this be an agenda item?
Stutsman: An agenda item.
Peters: It would have to be an agenda item, because you don't have a Board in place anymore.
Jordahl: Would not have a committee to handle it and that's kind of the problem, is do we want to have. We're talking about micro-management, is it appropriate for the Board of Supervisors to have on it's agenda the purchase of a monitor?
Lacina: It sounds like you didn't think this out very well when we put it on.
Peters: The item on the agenda says discussion regarding change in computers.
Stutsman: Oh, I think it was well thought out Steve. These are just some things that...
Lacina: OK, news to me. Whatever you say.
Duffy: I don't think so.
Jordahl: Well, I wasn't the one who proposed doing away with the committee Steve.
Stutsman: Steve, we're not done with the meeting.
Lacina: (Inaudible).
Jordahl: The proposal to do away with the committee was yours.
Lacina left at 11:51a.m.
Duffy: He got fired, I know that.
Bolkcom: This was on the agenda from last Friday. It was well described on the agenda that we were going to discuss this. The impetus for it came from the department heads and it's not a personal thing at all. It's unfortunate it's being taken that way. I think in terms of the process, I would argue that the review process or appeal process would be essentially a memo like we receive now that would basically require 3 checkmarks to overturn it and it wouldn't be I say it, but I approve or I disapprove and it would be a yes/no kind of stamp and each Board member could seek out information from Jean about that and that we not clutter our agenda with having a department head come in and say I need a monitor and we debate it.
Jordahl: How does that fit in terms of open meetings?
Stutsman: Is that OK, what we can do?
Bolkcom: We do it now.
Peters: If you're going to keep the other appeal process in place, then you're still going to have need for the Information Services Review Committee, because you do other things other than just approve technology.
Bolkcom: What else do we do?
Peters: I don't remember all of the verbiage in that resolution, but I tell you what, why don't I take that resolution out and share it with you folks?
Stutsman: All right.
Bolkcom: Well there is a great deal of confusion about it. I mean today do we approve it? Are we approving that we see it? You know, I've been totally under the impression that checking off on that and initialing it was I agree with this purchase. I think generally that's what other people thought too.
Duffy: No.
Peters: On the yes/no stamp.
Bolkcom: Yes, but on these memos there's rarely a yes/no stamp on them. It's just the typical stamp with Steve and I signing off above our names on the memo. It's not a yes/no. They're not getting stamped with yes/no stamps.
Peters: Not for the first pass around. Basically what it's doing is it's taking the place of a meeting. It's facilitating the process through an administrative process.
Bolkcom: Right and I think we could do the same thing in a review capacity. Instead of having 2 people, have 5 people.
Duffy: OK, then when we redo the resolution it needs to state that.
Bolkcom: What do others think on that point?
Duffy: Carol, could you drag up on the computer information about the reason why we went to the 3 in the old committee? There should be a lot of information there because they certainly didn't get along.
Bolkcom: Again, there is hardly any controversy around these purchasing decisions. We don't need to make more out of this than we absolutely have to.
Duffy: Well I think it's so the public knows why this 3 person committee was formed.
Bolkcom: Why was it?
Stutsman: But I think the reason why it was formed, the scenario has changed and I think there was a lot of...
Duffy: I don't think so. I think there's too many...
Stutsman: Anyway so where are we at on this? Do we want to have the resolution on Thursday? We will clarify whether we will still have a committee. You'll put together information for us to revisit and then we'll go from there.
Peters: I think it might be well to review the whole resolution.
Stutsman: OK.
Bolkcom: OK. There's no rush on this.
Stutsman: No. Yes, maybe we...
Bolkcom: If you want to wait, if you want more time to think about it.
Stutsman: OK, why don't we wait Carol and get that information.
Bolkcom: It gives Carol a little more time.
Stutsman: All right. OK, unless anybody has any reports why don't we just not deal with that.
Duffy: I can wait.
Bolkcom: I can wait.
Stutsman: Carol do you have some?
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT CAROL PETERS: PRESS RELEASES FOR VACANCIES ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Peters: I have an item under other. This time of the year and I apologize (inaudible) to review the press releases. But is once again time to send out press releases for vacancies on your boards and commissions. They're ready to go as we speak, the only input I need is completed applications must returned to this office by November, and I'm suggesting the 21st, because that would give the press time to get the announcements made.
Stutsman: That sounds good.
Bolkcom: That's not enough time. Is it? 2 weeks?
Peters: We can always advertise again.
Bolkcom: I don't think that's enough time.
Peters: Actually, what's happening with a lot of these that I find is that when you give them a lot of lead time it's just like applications for positions. People think I have a lot of time to do that and then they forget it and then the deadline passes.
Jordahl: Uh-huh.
Peters: Where if you have a shorter lead time people seem to think, oh gosh, I better get my application in there immediately.
Stutsman: I guess I would go with the 21st too on that and see what happens.
Bolkcom: I'd argue for the 28th, a week later.
Stutsman: That's Thanksgiving weekend.
Bolkcom: Well it's just a deadline. We're not open. Are we open the 28th?
Peters: No.
Bolkcom: So how about the 26th? I think more time, I mean we advertise for open positions of employment for a month and I think it makes sense to do the same here. I don't think it's any different. People procrastinate. Everybody procrastinates right? We still have time. We're not going to make appointments until late in December, mid to late December. I just think sending out a couple notices over a 2 or 3 week period is a good idea. We're not in a rush are we?
Stutsman: No. I would say for the 21st, but whatever the Board. Jonathan do you have any... 21st or the 26th? Charlie?
Duffy: I'm going to have to check on some of these meetings with my fellow Supervisors and probably Carol.
Stutsman: We're talking about when applications are due for the 21st or the 26th. Oh, gosh, make a decision you know it's time for lunch.
Bolkcom: Jonathan what do you want to do?
Jordahl: Well, I guess I like the 26th the best.
Stutsman: Charlie?
Duffy: You could put me down for the 26th.
Stutsman: OK, Carol do you want to advertise until the 26th? Any other reports or discussion. OK reports from the public?
Welsh: In the interest of time, I'll put some of my comments down in black and white and give them.
Stutsman: OK.
Bolkcom: Thank you.
Stutsman: Ruth? Anything?
Ruth Bonfiglio: It was an interesting meeting.
Stutsman: It always is, isn't it?
Recessed at 11:59 a.m.; reconvened on November 6th at 10:00 a.m.
Stutsman: We've already taken action on the GIS System. So we won't need to talk about that further. Discussion regarding agenda for site visits and this 2 parts clarification of the open meetings law and what constitutes deliberation. Jonathan, I think that you put this on the agenda.
Jordahl: Yes. This has been a question, I guess would be a fair way to say that, recently. I would like... I did meet with the County Attorney a week or so ago, Joe and I both did, to request some clarification on this issue and I thought in view of public discussion of this matter, whether it might not be valuable to have that same clarification occur in the context of a Board meeting. Basically that's why this is here. I would like to ask County Attorney Pat White to help us out on this. If in fact we intend to continue the process of conducting site visits with a majority of the Board present, then clearly there need to be an agenda and the agenda needs to be sufficiently clear so as to invite public participation and comply with the spirit of the open meetings law and the letter of it. So perhaps we don't want to continue with these site visits in any thing like the form they have been conducted in, but I thought it would be useful to have this topic aired a little bit.
County Attorney Pat White: So the question is what constitutes deliberation?
Jordahl: Well, the bottom line is what constitutes deliberation, but maybe the top line is if we want to continue this, what does the agenda need to look like and what kind of invitation do we need to extend to the public?
White: If you were going to have deliberations, which I would define as any discussion among Board members, you need to make your meeting open to the public. The agenda needs to give reasonable notice with regard to what's going to occur and public access. To put it in the context of the one meeting that I complained to you about, or chastised you about, that particular discussion, again there is nothing inherently wrong with site visits and there certainly is nothing inherently wrong with the Board discussing things that are before it. But what was wrong with that meeting was 2 of your own members didn't know what you were doing, the citizens, Ted or Bob, have a right to be present for that discussion. They didn't know it was going to occur. You violated the applicant's rights. He has a right to hear whatever objections there are to his proposal. He didn't know what you were doing, didn't have an opportunity to be present. What you need to do literally is structure a meeting that every citizen can be present for and that every citizen knows what's going to take place so they can determine whether to be present.
Jordahl: Uh-huh.
Stutsman: So if we said that we were going to go out to a site visit at Bill Jones and then Al Smith and delineate which sites we were going to, would that be enough? Or do we need to put times down too?
White: It depends. I won't go so far as to say the statute requires that you put specific times because your meeting today, what the agenda says is when it's going to start. It doesn't say precisely when you're going to get to item 9a. I mean there is a certain burden on the citizen who wants to avail themselves of your meeting to track it. There are, in fact I've participated many years ago in a City Council Meeting where we took a City Bus. We put on the agenda that we were going to look at, I don't remember now what we were looking at, but got a transportation vehicle that was big enough to allow anybody who showed up. We actually discussed what we would do if more than one bus load showed up and we decided we'd dispatch a second bus. There are problems that are always inherent in a majority of the Board being together in settings other than this room. If you're going to travel together, you've got to make sure you're not discussing anything unless the public has access to that discussion. So there's actually a question beyond the agenda. The purpose of the agenda is to give the public notification of what you're going to do, but you also need to make certain that they have the ability to hear what you're doing. So if you're doing a site visit that is more than what I described to Jonathan and Joe as the Board member as tree stump, you go, you don't talk to each other, you look and absorb individually, you've got to tell the public that you're going to do that and you have to give them access to it. One scenario is if you're going to meet with people at the site, that's one thing, but while you're in the car unless they're with you, you need to assume your tree stump status. You cannot talk to each other in a meeting outside of the public's presence. Whether you continue to do site visits or what they consist of is strictly a policy discussion decision. I've indicated before there is certainly nothing inherently improper about site visits. They are difficult to manage because it takes enormous self-discipline just to visit and look at a site and not to enter into the deliberative process, which I define as the collection of information pro and con. The collection of information that you're going to use to make a decision and then as soon as you combine that with a meeting, meaning a gathering of 3 or more of you, you've got to have an agenda that explains that that's going to take place.
Bolkcom: How does the Zoning Commission deal with that?
White: Well, I don't know, I've not...
Bolkcom: Is the same set of...
White: Certainly the same set of rules. My hope is they deal with it by going and looking and not deliberating.
Bolkcom: Not talking to each other.
White: But they've not asked me on that.
Bolkcom: But they like us have to have questions for the staff as they view a site. I mean we frequently go out and say what's going on here? What's the access? How many acres? Where does the parcel begin? Those kind of questions. That seems to me that's more than being a tree stump. That's eliciting responses from our staff that we individually form judgments about and what I'm hearing is that probably...
White: I think the line gets crossed where members of a Board begin to communicate with each other.
Bolkcom: I see.
White: That's a very fine line to identify. If 3 of you are in the same place at the same time and one of you asks a question and the other 2 hear the answer, I don't believe that's deliberation. But as soon as one of you turns to the other in the presence of a 3rd and begins to react or say well, maybe we should ask this question. Or what do think about that? Or gee, that looks hilly to me.
Jordahl: I say this is an impossibly fine line Pat, because...
White: It's very difficult.
Jordahl: ...in the instance in which the public attends, which is after all the point of open meetings law, that the public can attend.
White: Right.
Jordahl: In the case of the sand pit visit, first of all let me say I did not know in advance either. This was not a planned meeting with these, as far as I know, with the members of the public that came to that meeting. There was one person that knew that the Supervisors were coming down there and sort of told the neighbors and they wound up being there at the same time we were. In so far as those neighbors spoke to us about their concerns, then we were receiving information pro or con about the application. In so far as we may have chosen individually to give information to or ask questions of those neighbors, we were again discussing the pros and cons of the situation, but not necessarily with one another, but with those members of the public who chose to attend. So we were not deliberating as long as we didn't talk to each other about these things. Is that the line you're drawing?
White: Yes. It is. In my judgment in that case, based on the minutes, was that you did have an interchange among yourselves. That that was part of what took place that day. I'll give you a, let's take a context of this room. In your today's agenda you've got an item that is labeled inquiries and reports from the public, which is an invitation to anybody who wants to come to tell you or ask you anything they want to ask. I mean it's a very broad, user friendly agenda item. But, if a member of the public asked you a question or gave you a report and you started to do more than absorb the report or listen to it, you start to talk to each other or collect information in a meeting about something you're going to act on, then you don't have an agenda item that describes that. Periodically, I would interrupt. That sort of appearance by a member of the public also requires some difficult line drawing because human nature is when Jane Doe comes here and says I'm upset about x, that you'd like to react to it and begin to discuss it. There is a line there where you would cross over from receiving a report or inquiry from a member of the public and you would begin your deliberative process and you should stop whenever you begin the deliberative process. Unless it's been put on the agenda and the public is notified that that may occur. One of the other things that I said to a couple people, including a couple reporters surrounding that last question that I would acknowledge is absolutely true, I believe that this Board in general and overall adheres more closely to the open meeting statute than most if not all other agencies that I know. One of the reasons is because I'm here and I see what you're doing and other city or county attorneys may not be as dedicated or persistent about that statute than I am, to be honest. Nobody has really asked me about the Zoning Commission in a good many years.
Welsh: We won't.
White: Not since Rick or R.J. have been here. Rick understands because he and I have discussed it. I won't put him on the spot to identify any of the specifics, but I know he's had some concerns about situations he's been in with the Board prior to this particular one and where the discussion was going and the scope of it. He knows that you're not supposed to deliberate in the car, unless it's on the agenda.
Bolkcom: The logistics of this brings a real serious question. I think that it's all of our intentions to follow the letter of the law, we're not...
White: The goal of giving people access to you at the site is inherently of value. There's nothing wrong with that at all.
Bolkcom: My judgment on it at this point is that the logistical issue of, because I think it really is going to require that we have a vehicle that can accommodate the Board, I would argue the entire Board, that being a separate issue. If we look at the agenda for next week, which we have, and we've looked at 3 or 4 sites we want to go visit. It's easy enough to publish an agenda with those sites and go out and look at them. It seems to me we need to make room for members of the public that might want to join us at those sites and be a lot more open about how we do that. That's going to require, I think, more than going out in an 8-person vehicle. The other thing that I think it's going to require is that if we continue with this policy, that we have the entire Board be supportive of it.
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Bolkcom: There's been a difference of opinion about that when we decided to do it this summer. I just don't... I think because of the logistical issues and the sensitive nature of this and the intent and the wish to be as open as possible and not break the open meetings law, we need to have the full Board's support or I don't think this is going to work. I think it's going to require, again, probably some vehicle that would accommodate us, members of the press, members of the public, and then this posting of an agenda that would be very much more specific.
Stutsman: I guess I was supportive of this just because of the efficiency involved. It was just much more efficient to have the Zoning Department go out one time with as many supervisors as possible rather than making multiple trips. But I agree with Joe, I think after it's been explained and the problems that not intentionally, but just inadvertently that would come up I guess it probably is not worth it to continue the policy. I agree too that I think all of the Board has to be supportive of it and we certainly haven't gotten that. Too bad guys. It looks like...
Lacina: Well, I can't be supportive because I really don't feel that the public has access to a moving vehicle. As Pat has illustrated, there's a very sensitive line. Maybe it's not even a violation of the law, but there's a perception that the public does not have access. A quick example in the S and G case, site review probably pointed out boundaries. As we discovered at the public hearing, the north boundary from the original plat was in error. That took place and so the applicant was not able to point out that error. I think when things are brought forward there should be a chance for perhaps facts to be given and then some way of verifying it. So it's really a difficult situation and I also do suggest, Charlie and I when we came on the Board, very simple little book, open meeting law and I think Carol if we could order some of these for newer members. Obviously we've been on longer and have seen some problems. We can get in the van and go to Linn County without a problem as long as all 5 of us don't discuss business, but as Pat alluded to, the key is when all of the sudden we turn to County policies or issues and then suddenly we're deliberating and the public doesn't have access to it.
Stutsman: Well and I think this points us an interesting thing too, everybody is always criticizing government for not being efficient and this and that. This is the kinds of things that you have to work around. I really agree with the purpose of the law and why it's there and what not, but this is the consequences too of having an open meetings law.
Lacina: (Inaudible)
Stutsman: Yes.
Jordahl: Well and let me hasten to say that we, before these site visits were ever begun, we conferred with the County Attorney about this very issue and had approval for going on these site visits within the framework of the open meetings law. So it's not that the issue was ignored or overlooked or something or the Board wasn't informed about it, but rather there was an aspect of the County Attorney's understanding of the situation which was not clear to me at the beginning of this thing. I don't know how to say that. That is now much clearer. It is very difficult to understand how we could keep within the constraints of the law and do a site visit if asking questions for information is OK, but talking to one another about those questions isn't. It's too fine a line for us to ever keep ourselves on the right side of.
White: Jonathan, talking to one another is OK if the public has access to it. If they have notice and the ability to attend the talking.
Jordahl: So the problem really with the S and G site visit then was less the deliberation than the agenda.
White: Yes, well it's both. I don't think you can separate them. You can't deliberate without notice that you're going to.
Stutsman: But if we had had an agenda that said we will meet with neighbors and publish that...
White: Fine.
Lacina: And Karen Kubby at 9:00 to discuss this, then we would all have been aware, the public would have been given notice in advance, everyone was there. Basically, what it almost would have been would have been like adjourning a meeting and going there and continuing it, but again they would have the opportunity to be present.
Jordahl: See I think it's very desirable to have the public at these. We've talked here about have you seen it? Have you been out to this site? If you go there, you can see. I think decisions made at the site would have a potential for being better decisions. All of the Board and any members of the public that chose to attend could see it, but I think the logistics of this are extremely problematic.
Duffy: I wouldn't agree with that. In the past I don't think I've been out with Rick and RJ over 2 or 3 times. I donate my own car and my own gasoline. That way I can kind of stay out of trouble. We do get good information from the P and Z. We have tapes. Say were these meetings taped?
Stutsman: Sure, sure. The Auditor's Office always went along. You mean the site visits that we went on?
Duffy: But they have a tape? That's a tape of the meeting?
Stutsman: Yes.
Jordahl: I think that it's possible in this instance that we had that manual notes were taken. I'm not sure that there's a tape of that.
Duffy: I didn't think there was a tape.
Jordahl: There usually is, but I think that for some reason there wasn't.
Stutsman: I think that that visit I don't think there was a tape, but I think there has been.
Moore: You had a new employee at the Auditor's Office and he forgot to tape, but he took handwritten notes.
Stutsman: Yes, but usually they are taped, or there always was a tape.
Duffy: But there might be times that difficult decisions that I thought were coming up that I would go out, but getting into 3 Supervisors, I just don't want to do that.
Stutsman: Well we need to move along. So are there any other comments?
White: Can I just take another to minute to mention one other thing that you need to keep in mind and just another illustration. It's not improper for 3 of you to be together either, as long as we're discussing this. I need to be sure that we don't leave the misimpression that you can never be together. You just can't be together and discuss your business. You may travel together to an ISAC meeting or you may travel together to meet with the Linn County Board of Supervisors. When you do though, you're on your honor to exercise self-discipline not to discuss County business. You should talk about high school sports or the weather or things other than...
Bolkcom: Well that's been a question in my mind, that issue, because I know there's been a time when Supervisors would regularly go to lunch, 3 Supervisors would go to lunch together 2 or 3 times a week and that wasn't part of...
Lacina: Everyday 5 of us sit back here, but again, as you said, self discipline. You can't conduct County business. You have to know the difference.
White: No your office setting requires enormous self discipline. It's part of the reason I advocated, and there was never space to do it, individual offices for the 5 of you. The other point I wanted to make is whatever you do relative to site visits, whether it's individual, or 2 Board members, or a meeting with 3 or more of you, on these zonings where there is a public hearing keep in mind that we also need to be sure to get into the record of the public hearing anything that you're basing a vote on. So again, whether it's an individual site visit, or a collective site visit, if you take into your mind a piece of information or a fact that influences your vote, make sure to say that during your public hearing. So that we don't close a public hearing without a relevant fact to one or more of you not being in the record of the public hearing. You've got a slightly different concern about site visits, but its one that's easily addressed by each of you just articulating anything that is significant to you at the public hearing. You should not do a site visit, say gee these slopes are too steep and have that never be mentioned in the public hearing. Because your site visits come in front of the public hearing, you need to be sure to incorporate anything that you're basing your judgment on in that public hearing by just stating well, I've been there and I see the steep slope.
Jordahl: Which is again an issue whether or not we conduct site visits with a majority of the Board. I mean however, Charlie may go out by himself. That's still a factor.
White: If Charlie goes by himself and sees something, he should state on the record if it's something that's not already in the public hearing record what it is.
Stutsman: Thank you Pat for your clarification, I think we're...
Duffy: Just one other thing, Jonathan I don't think decision should be made at the site. What are we going to do at the night meetings? We have night meetings for zonings and plattings so public can comment evidently, but to go out and things can change. I don't know.
Jordahl: I think it's a good point Charlie. I think I could maybe amend my understanding of that to say that it would be nice if everybody could go out and see the site and talk about it and then come back into the room and have people make presentations, documents, maps, whatever, so we'd have kind of 2 sets of understanding. We'd have a physical understanding at the spot, which is much what we like to attain by going out there ourselves and seeing it, and then we could have sort of a technical understanding provided by staff that might be easier to obtain in this room with computer projections and so forth. So I think a 2-pronged approach and I think you raise a good point there.
Lacina: Which is what we do. We just do it independently so... But again, Carol can we get these booklets because that's helped me over the years.
Peters: Yes. I'll order some.
Lacina: It's very short and a good book.
Jordahl: I think actually I have a copy of that Steve. They give it to us at ISAC the first meeting in January.
Stutsman: I do too.
Lacina: OK, well it looks like we don't need to order it.
White: It's recently revised.
Lacina: This would be old, I've had this around for along time.
Bolkcom: Well we better get revised ones.
Lacina: 4th edition, there's probably a number 5.
Stutsman: All right. Thank you. Moving on to inquiries and reports from the public. Bob, do you have a comment?
Welsh: I do. On the item that you just discussed. Before you lay that aside and say hey we're going to junk that, I was at your meeting when you discussed that originally. As I understood it there were 2 basic purposes. Number one was to save staff time, in other words, rather than having 5 visits, you could have one visit with the staff. The other basic purpose was to provide the Supervisors with an opportunity to visually see what they were talking about and the context which was a little different than reading reports. I understood from the beginning that those visits were open to a citizen like myself to go with you and that was a part of the public record that you discussed. But if some citizen wanted to come and participate and the statement was they could ride with you. I guess what I'm raising in question is whether or not you need to plan 2 or 3 vehicles in terms of transporting so that you are in separate vehicles, there will be enough opportunities, but to have a... Your staff would be there and could answer your questions at that point. I gather from what Pat said, an opportunity could be provided for the applicant and other interested citizens to be there and hear what was said. I gather they could even, the applicant could even say then, point out things in existence.
White: Well that would be discretionary with the Board.
Welsh: Yes.
Lacina: And would 3 Supervisors ride in one vehicle and 2 in the other and would the public have access to the majority? Plus there's many times when you go out and do a site review, we really don't need staff. If there's a technical question, then we may have to go back, but if we do our homework and we look at the zoning minutes, we go out and physically look at the ground and still have questions, we can continue the public hearing as well if things come up during the public hearing to get more information.
Bolkcom: Unless you have the staff's file, I think going out with the staff is a waste of time.
Stutsman: Yes, and I think it's a personal preference.
Bolkcom: I don't understand what you can even see.
Lacina: I agree.
Bolkcom: You need to know where the boundaries are and what's proposed.
Stutsman: Yes.
Bolkcom: I think going out with staff is a total waste of time myself, but I think the only way this is going to work is if the entire Board is committed to it and we work out the logistics. If the entire Board is not committed to it, I think we're just going to continue to... It's not going to work.
Jordahl: To bring forward Bob's suggestion here Steve, I think what he was saying with 2 or 3 vehicles was precisely to avoid 3 Supervisors being together.
Stutsman: We're off the agenda item, this is reports and inquiries from the public.
Bolkcom: Well we did have it on the agenda to talk about it and I don't know if we've concluded what we, I mean we're not on to do action on that, but...
Stutsman: We're not on to do action. I think if we want to take more time...
Bolkcom: We have site visits planned for Monday morning. The Board needs to decide if we're going to do that or not.
Stutsman: I think we need to decide which Supervisors are going out and...
Bolkcom: Or maybe we should just put this on for further discussion.
Jordahl: Well would it be appropriate for me to simply say that in order to avoid any potential problems with the open meetings law I'll simply absent myself from that meeting and request staff to go out with me individually?
Stutsman: Yes, that would be appropriate. I've got it on my calendar so I plan to go out Monday morning at 9:00...
Duffy: Pat, can I comment about Bob's remarks?
White: Sure.
Duffy: Bob, I don't think there will be 5 visits by our staff. This meeting, it took a long time, in fact I wanted to ask Rick or RJ a question about zonings and they were gone for a long time, but there's other things you can incorporate when you go yourself or 2 together. Road problems, for example, like Steve and I when we went out to Cosgrove and we looked at the roads and we stopped places and looked at a couple zonings and things like that. But your gasoline is donated when you pay for it yourself. I know other counties most supervisors will submit a bill, but as far as 5 people going out in extra cars, I don't like that idea Bob. I know that you have good ideas but that, forget it, as far as I'm concerned.
Welsh: Charlie, all I'm saying is I think your original purposes were valid and all I'm saying is that from my experience this is surely not my (inaudible) is if there are valid reasons for something then there should be a way for reasonable people to work out reasonable accommodations to achieve those purposes. That's all I'm saying.
Stutsman: Rick, comment?
Dvorak: I don't mean to be... Well, would it be possible to have a representative from the County Attorney's Office ride along?
White: Yes, it's possible.
Dvorak: In reality...
Stutsman: You know my whole idea with supporting this was to keep it simple and it's just gotten so complicated. I agree, I think we all have to be willing to work on this to work it out and I don't get that sense, that there's 5 people that are committed to work out the details. So from that point of view I think we'll just go ahead with making arrangements with the staff to no more than 2 supervisors at a time and go from there.
Lacina: See I think that's appropriate and encourage that. We do have a vehicle, 2 of us can go out and check sites, but I don't think it's a matter of the details. I think, and the Press-Citizen basically wrote an opinion stating kind of the same thing, whenever 3 get together there's where I have the problem because inadvertently, innocently you can say well what should we do? We are now deliberating for solutions and options that the public has been denied the opportunity of hearing that. But again, I totally support the idea of a couple of us going out, checking the sites, or if it is so critical that we all need to see it then... Awhile back we did it. We wanted to look at space in the County building here and we said well, we're going to adjourn quickly downstairs and we went down and took a look. We all could say we're going to continue this at the site for a quick review and then the public is aware.
Stutsman: A couple more comments and then we need to move on. No more comments? OK, we will move on then. Any other reports and inquiries from the public? Reports and inquiries from members of the Board of Supervisors. Steve do you have anything this morning?