SDCP - Steering Committee
Old Vail Middle School, 9:30am to 11:30am
Saturday, October 6, 2001
Meeting Minutes
Participants: See attached sign-in sheet, David Steele, and SIMG staff.
Goal: To have the Steering Committee organize itself in order to complete its duty to the County.
Meeting Commenced at 9:30am.
The meeting commenced with 23 Steering Committee members. David Steele suggested that if there were not enough members present, then the members present would proceed with the agenda, make an advisory and present it as an item for confirmation at the next meeting. David opened up the meeting by introducing himself and asking members to introduce themselves.
Re-cap of the Ad-Hoc Organizational Steering Committee:
1. The Ad-Hoc committee met on September 21, 2001.
2. The Ad-Hoc committee discussed the issue of a request from many Steering Committee members requesting that the meetings move at a quicker pace. This resulted in the Ad-Hoc committee developing ground rules that would enable the meetings to progress at a quicker and more efficient pace.
3. Also discussed was the request by steering committee members for an east-side location for the October 6th meeting. A location was retained to accommodate this request.
4. This information was provided in memo form, along with the agenda for the October 6th meeting, and minutes from the June, July and September Steering Committee meetings, to the Steering Committee members via mail. A complete package was sent to Maveen Behan, of the Pima County Planning Department, in compliance with the Open Meeting Law.
Ground Rules as they would apply to this meeting only.
1. One minute per person per agenda topic.
2. No transferring of speaking time
3. Can only speak a second minute if everyone else has spoken
4. Speak into the microphones
5. At appointed time, move to decision making or next topic
6. Start and end on time.
Comments:
* Opposed to a group making decisions for whole Steering Committee.
* Each member should be given a chance to speak regardless of time.
* Objection to not being part of this decision.
* This should put this to a vote right now.
At this point a count of Steering Committee members was taken and there were 28 Steering Committee members present- quorum established..
Vote : Ground rules should apply to this agenda. 18 approved. 6 disapproved.
Revision of previous minutes:
Discussion:
· The July 28th minutes state incorrectly that the Steering Committee members decided to modify (85% with fallback-could include voting.) This will be corrected.
· The September 5th minutes contain the entire Steering Committee not the attendees of the meeting. The correct list will be provided.
Re-cap of the previous meeting:
Consensus was reached on the following:
* Agenda order revised: 1. Approval of minutes, 2. Old Business, 3. New Business
* For procedural issues there should be a Simple Majority vote of 50+1.
* One third or more of the present Steering Committee membership can decide that an issue will move from the procedural category to the substantive procedural category.
Next Meeting:
Wednesday, November 7, 2001 7pm to 9pm. The members of the Steering Committee requested a central location for this meeting. SIMG Staff will investigate locations and inform the Steering Committee via mail, phone, email and fax. The County will also be notified.
Call to the Public:
No comments.
Discussion -'fall-back decision-making mechanisms' if consensus is not achieved:
It was decided at the September 5th meeting that Procedural Issues would require a simple majority vote. If one-third of the present Steering Committee felt that an issue was substantive, the issue would go to another fall-back process. This fall-back process to be identified at this meeting.
The Ad-Hoc Committee developed the following Straw Proposals:
* Substantive Non-consensus (Option A)Keep in entire group until X% (e.g. 85) agree. This proposal received 6 approval votes.
* Substantive Non-consensus (Option B)Send to mediation group who would report back to the Steering Committee by the next meeting. If non-consensus remains, supermajority vote.
Options:
-Standing group
-Point of view for each circumstance
-Hybrid: Three standing members, then points of views participate
-Any member can attend, any member can participate.
This proposal received 11 approval votes.
Comments:
· Open Meeting Law does this meet the requirements?
· Members of the mediation group will not be involved in other issues. Response: Mediation group will meet between Steering Committee meetings.
· This will not be efficient if the Mediation group will only make recommendations that will result in longer debate and discussion.
· The discussion should remain within the entire Steering Committee.
· Super majority should be 66%, not the proposed 85%.
· There are not enough details regarding the mediation group to vote.
* Collective Statement: A collective statement would allow the Steering Committee to move forward in the decision making process. This proposal received 12 approval votes.
Steering Committee members made the following proposals:
1. Vote on an issue. If consensus is reached the issue is closed. If non-consensus then look for super majority. If this is not achieved then the issue goes to a mediation group that will meet between Steering Committee meetings and give its recommendations to the Steering Committee for another vote which will strive for consensus or supermajority. If neither can be achieved then fall-back to a Collective Statement. The percentage of present Steering Committee members required for a supermajority vote is yet to be determined. The number of times that an issue will revert to the mediation group was also undetermined.
2. Mediation would occur between voting for consensus and voting for supermajority. Proposed Mediation Groups: a) Steering Committee elects three permanent members for Standing Mediation Group for individual issues, however any Steering Committee member can join; b)Mediation Group is open to all Steering Committee members.
3. Issues should be discussed for 20 minutes then put to vote. If consensus or supermajority is not reached then vote on a)more discussion time; b) send to mediation group; c) collective statement.
4. Go directly to a Collective Statement if consensus is not reached.
Consensus was reached on the following:
· Proposals One and Three will be combined. Members will vote on the options. If the members vote to send the issue to mediation, the remainder of Proposal One will be followed. This passed with majority vote of 15.
· Supermajority will consist of two-thirds plus one. This passed with majority vote of 16.
· Mediation group will be open to all. This passed with majority vote of 15.
Membership Query -- 6-27 Issues Governance:
Key Issues:
* General membership meetings? This proposal received 26 approval votes.
* Should a Chairman and/or other officers be elected? This proposal received 26 approval votes.
* Should a Committee structure be established? If so, what kind of subcommittee? This proposal received 20 approval votes.
* What role, if any, should County staff play in the work of the Steering Committee? The Board of Supervisors will develop a plan- this cancelled the vote on this proposal.
Consensus was reached on the following:
· Steering Committee will not ask the Board of Supervisors to open membership.
· Proxies cannot be selected. Board of Supervisors will address issues of legitimate alternates.
*All items were voted on collectively after it was discovered that a member of the general public had been voting as a Steering Committee member.
Executive Session:
See attached minutes.
Meeting adjourned at 11:37 am