SDCP - Steering Committee
Inn Suites Hotel, 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm
Wednesday, September 5, 2001
Meeting Minutes
Participants: See attached sign-in sheet, David Steele, Maggie Hunt
Guest Speaker: Eva Bacal, Open Meeting Law Enforcement Team, Office of the Arizona Attorney General.
Goal: To have the Steering Committee organize itself in order to complete its duty to the County.
Meeting Commenced at 7 pm.
Maggie opened the meeting by introducing herself, and the SIMG staff. She then asked each of the attendees to identify themselves to the group along with their particular affiliation. She introduced David Steele of SIMG.
David provided a brief recap of the previous meeting:
1. That 33% of the Steering Committee membership constitutes a decision-making quorum.
2. The group would strive for consensus. Fallback mechanisms would be used if consensus could not be reached.
3. SIMG would continue to facilitate the meetings.
4. Consensus on next six meeting dates.
David then presented the information on the next Steering Committee Meeting. A brief discussion ensued with members suggesting alternative times and locations. While some members wanted the meeting to take place further north, others wanted the meetings further east. There was also a discussion on the length of the meetings. A consensus was reached that the length of each meeting was to remain two hours. The agreed upon day for the next meeting is Saturday, October 6th from 9:30 am to 11:30 am. The present location is the Downtown branch of the Tucson Public Library. SIMG staff will continue to investigate alternate locations.
David introduced Eva Bacal, Open Meeting Law Enforcement Team, Office of the Arizona Attorney General.
Ms. Bacal provided copies of Arizona's Open Meeting Law and Frequently Asked Questions About The Arizona Open Meeting Law. She presented the law and followed with a brief question and answer period. Some of the questions asked were:
Question: Define an Executive Committee.
* Executive committees are very limited and are usually assembled to discuss issues of personnel. Votes would have to be reached in order to go into an Executive decision.
Question: What does the Open Meeting Law say about e-groups?
· Electronic communications may run into problems because of computer accessibility. It is considered secret if some people do not have access.
· The following criteria must be met in order that electronic communication not be in violation of the Open Meeting Law:
1. Does everyone have e-mail?
2. Is the e-mail list open to the public?
3. Is the discussed material provided via mail?
4. Is this only informational material?
Question: What types to materials are considered informational?
* Material expressing a point of view or presenting factual data. It cannot be an interpretation of a law.
Question: What type of materials can be handed out during an open meeting?
* Material should be an item of business on the agenda.
* It is inappropriate to hand out materials that have not been placed on the agenda and introduce them as items for discussion.
Question: How much input can the public, meaning non-members, have during a meeting?
* Meetings must be open to the public, especially during decision-making sessions.
* While the public may comment on any item on the agenda, they may not participate in the deliberation of an issue on the agenda.
* The public may respond at the "Call to the Audience".
Question: Are sub-committees subject to the Open Meeting Law?
* If action has been taken then it must be ratified.
Ms. Bacal concluded her presentation with the final advice that if there is any doubt regarding whether or not the Open Meeting Law is in violation, then the committee should meet publicly and raise questions, issues and discussions at the public meetings.
Lucy Vitale introduced the concept of a Listserv for the Steering Committee members. The group reached consensus that they would not support the use of a Listserv for Steering Committee business. Ms. Vitale then withdrew her suggestion.
Maggie then introduced discussion:
Fallback decision-making mechanisms to consensus:
1. Mediation GroupOptions
* Standing group
* Points of view
* Hybrid 3 standing member, then POV' participate
* Any member can attend, any member can participateTemporary referral then goes back to full Steering Committee
Question: What happens if an issue goes to a mediation group?
Ernie Cohen: Mediation group has to give public notice. The committee must disclose to the public what the issue is so the public could attend. The committee should defer its decision until it receives a report from the mediation group.
2. Ranking weighted group ranking process (i.e. # options = # ranks). Narrow range of options to top rankers then re-rank.· Broad input, lead to consensus
· Could lead to winner and losers.
Question: How do we propose to determine ranking?
Question: If consensus cannot be reached after 15 minutes of discussion should the committee fall back on 85% of the vote by simple majority?
Question: Are we redefining consensus?
3. Collective statement reflects all POV's. Responsible for ensuring that language accurately reflective.· All POV's included
· Relinquishes decision-making.
Question: Do I understand this correctly? If consensus cannot be reached on an issue it will go to a mediation group? The mediation group will bring it back to the Steering Committee and we will vote on the issue using simple majority vote of 2/3 of those present?
4. Voting Majority, 2/3s, etc.· Fast and efficient
· Winners and losers
Question: Why don't we vote on all issues using the 2/3-majority rule?
Straw Proposals to Consider:
1. Determine Type of Issue-
· Procedural
· Substantive
Question: Who will decide which is a Procedural Issue and which is a Substantive Procedural Issue?
Question: How much time will we spend deliberating whether an issue is procedural or substantive?
Question: Can we have an example what is considered a procedural issue and what is a substantive issue?
Maggie: A Procedural issue would be anything regarding the procedure of these meetings. An example would be, where to hold a meeting or when to hold a meeting. Substantive would be something more important.
2. Procedural- Non-consensus
· Vote simple (or super) majority prevails
· Examples: Whether or not an issue is substance or procedural, meeting place and times, etc.
Question: Shouldn't we just go simple majority vote on this? Just keep it simple 50+one?
Maggie: May I suggest that on Procedural issues the group strives for consensus within an allotted time frame, say 15 minutes or whatever you decide, then fall back to simple majority 50 + 1 vote?
Question: I think that for simple procedural issues we should just use a simple majority vote.
Question: While I disagree on using voting 50+one, simple majority should equal 2/3 or 85% super-majority.
Maggie: How many agree that for procedural issues there should be a simple majority vote of 50+one?
The vote showed 27 YES votes and 3 NO votes of the Steering Committee members present for a Simple Majority Vote of 50+1 on Procedural Issues.
* Substantive Non-consensus (option #A)3. Determining whether an issues is substantive or not
Bill Arnold: If it is logical for a valid body, that is 2/3, to approve something, then it ought to be that 1/3 should constitute the amount of this body that could be required to move an issue into the Substantive Procedural issue category.
Ernie Cohen: I agree, very creative and useful.
Lucy Vitale: Why did we have the consensus workshop on consensus making if we are talking 1/3 2/3 or voting we should be striving for consensus.
Maggie: We need to set a guideline for the amount of time that we will use to strive for consensus.
Ernie Cohen: I would like a vote on the issue of 1/3 of the members determining whether an issue is substantive issue or procedural.
Question: Is 1/3 of the total membership or the members present?
Ernie Cohen: 1/3 of the members present.
David: Does everyone agree that if one third or more of the present Steering Committee membership decides that an issue should be moved to the Substantive Procedural category it will be? Does everyone agree to this?
The group reached consensus that if 1/3 third or more of the Steering Committee members present can decide that an issue should be moved to the substantive Procedural category.
David: We will adhere to our time line and I would like to propose that we would continue with the remaining items at the next meeting.
Issue of facilitator
David: Do you want us to continue serving a your facilitator for the next meeting? Does anyone object?
No objection
David: Just to make thing run smoother, the facilitators need to control the meeting better and set time frames for discussion and the facilitator need to hold us to that time-frame.
Next meeting agenda:
David: Spent a great deal of time, organizing ourselves, some members of the ad-hoc committee wanted to begin considering substantive issue at the next meeting.
Ernie Cohen: I need to think that we will need to complete procedural issues at the next meeting, and we need to commit to addressing substantive issues at the November meeting.
Jonathan Duhamel: I do have several issues to propose for future meeting agendas but I think you should ask that question again.
Carolyn Campbell: We have to come up with a way to get through this more quickly, we need to have shorter discussions, and people need to think about what they can live with and making decision and putting them into practice. Sooner or later you are going to have to give your opinions at a Board meeting. See we need to get past all of this stuff.
Bill Arnold: Can we provide you (facilitator) list of items we would like on the next agenda?
David: Yes, of course. You have our email address right?
Bill Arnold: Yes, okay, I'll send it.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00pm.