Information Services Advisory Board
MINUTES
December 1, 2005, 5:30 p.m.
Temporary Council Chambers
Herbert C. Young Community Center
101 Wilkinson Avenue, Cary, North Carolina
1. Call to Order
Chair Jo Rathgeber called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m.
2. Introduction of Members
Present: Donna Bravo, Dean Smith, Mark Evangelista, Jo Rathgeber, John Fitzpatrick, Lee Douglas, Dayna Guzik and Staff members Susan Moran and Teri Peralta
Absent: Jamie Cuticchia and Steve Del Verde
After noting that there were no new members to introduce, Chair Rathgeber explained that Mr. Cuticchia will be resigning due to scheduling conflicts. She asked about Ms. Robison, Council Liaison, and Ms. Moran stated that she was out of the country.
3. Approval of Minutes
No meeting was held in November because a quorum was not met. The Board unanimously approved the October 19, 2005, minutes with the change requested by Mr. Fitzpatrick.
4. Old/New Business
a. Annual Report Vote
The Board unanimously moved to approve the draft of the Year End Report as presented.
b. Comments on the 2006 Annual Biennial Survey draft questions
Ms. Moran started out by stating the discussion should focus on the new blocks of questions, added to this year’s survey since time is limited. She noted that every two years beginning in 1998 it has been her responsibility as PIO to draft the biennial citizen survey, send it to staff for review and present a relatively final copy to Council for approval. Ms. Moran asked the ISAB for their thoughts and observations, noting that after reviewing their comments the survey would be sent to the consultants.
Ms. Moran went on to explain that every two years when the survey is updated, a block of questions is reserved for hot topics and emerging issues. She noted that beginning with question #33 several questions were added to assess emergency preparedness. She asked for comments on these questions.
Ms. Guzik was unfamiliar with how the survey works and asked how many people are and who surveyed. Ms. Moran explained that it is a telephone survey conducted by a third party trained in telephone surveys. She noted that about 400 individuals are randomly selected and contacted as a representative sample with a +/-5% margin of error. Ms. Moran also stated that we are the only jurisdiction that conducts this sort of survey. She explained that the results are available on the Town’s Web site and also in printed form.
Ms. Guzik asked about questions on emerging issues, and Ms. Moran stated that those questions started with question #33 and again asked for comments from the members.
Mr. Fitzpatrick felt these questions were apropos considering events throughout country. He expressed concern at the length of the survey, noting that it’s hard for people to take that much time on phone. Ms. Moran acknowledged that the survey is rather long but noted that Cary citizens are familiar with the survey and like it, and often anticipate participating.
Mr. Fitzpatrick then asked if putting the survey on the Web has been considered, so that people can go online at their convenience and answer the questions. Ms. Moran explained that online surveys do not provide a scientific read of the citizens and again emphasized the need to focus on the new questions.
Ms. Rathgeber noted question #5, “Who was the person you contacted at the Police?” She felt most people don’t know who they speak with and would likely answer “a police officer.” Ms. Rathgeber also felt question #10f was somewhat confusing noting that “instructor/coach” might be easier to understand. She then referenced question #29, noting that it might be too soon to ask citizens about the curbside program. Ms. Rathgeber noted question #14 and asked if that question might be a bit vague or hard to answer. Ms. Moran responded that we get a lot of feedback on that question.
Mr. Fitzpatrick expressed surprise that questions 30 and 31 did not ask residents to rate the Town’s handling of stormwater runoff, noting that other items listed seemed significantly less important. Ms. Moran acknowledged that stormwater runoff was not addressed there but explained that some of the questions which may seem less important are actually encouraged under State stormwater rules.
Ms. Bravo noted that because question #2 asks how well Cary “maintains streets and roads” citizens may respond with comments about traffic issues. She felt that asking how well the Town maintains “street and road surfaces” might be clearer. Ms. Bravo also felt it might be difficult for citizens to determine who should pay for Wi-Fi when they don’t have a clear idea of how much it will cost. She explained that some may think it will cost $10,000, while others think it will cost $10M. Ms. Bravo had similar thoughts about question #43. She felt the question was a bit ambiguous and results could be skewed.
Mr. Evangelist also commented on questions #40 and #43, stating they are “essentially the same question” but refer to different projects. He wondered why it could not be a single question with a two-part answer. Ms. Moran explained that we know the cost of one but not the other, but noted that the question can be looked into. Mr. Evangelista also noted that a respondent may not be certain who “private sector” refers to, local businesses or the citizens, and they may be thinking along the lines of “who will pay for my free Wi-Fi.”
Ms. Guzik cited the use of the word “aquatics” in question #41 and felt some might not know what “aquatics” means. She felt the wording could be changed more specifically to “indoor pool”. Ms. Guzik also noted that it might be hard for a respondent to grasp what a 1 cent increase on the tax rate would amount to. She explained that it’s an intangible number, and if the respondent cannot see the result of this money spent, it might seem a bit arbitrary. Ms. Moran then stated that other questions will determine what activities people generally participate in, helping the Town to determine how to proceed with an Aquatics program.
Mr. Fitzpatrick cited question #8, saying it would be good to break it out a little more in the next question, stating his experience volunteering at the Senior Center shows him that many citizens do not feel the Senior Center is part of the Park & Recreation department, partially because Bond Park is physically separate from the Senior Center. Ms. Moran agreed this is a misconception, noting that many citizens think the YMCA is a Town program as well.
Mr. Evangelista noted concern that respondents would interpret question #11 to read “How’s the Mayor doing?” Ms. Moran acknowledged this possibility. Mr. Evangelista also felt question #6 was difficult to read. Ms. Moran responded that they could take a look at that.
c. Citizen Attendance at Public Meetings (continued)
Ms. Rathgeber read from the last meeting’s minutes to recap the last discussion of citizen attendance at public meetings, noting that two primary questions were brought up: 1) Are we getting information about the meetings to our citizens? 2) How do we motivate them to attend?
Ms. Rathgeber noted the example given that, while it may be a good idea, very few people go Christmas shopping in September; they wait until the last minute. It was mentioned that immediacy may be the driving factor, and if that is the case, citizens are not likely to go to meetings early in the process.
It was also brought up at the last discussion that citizens feel their input is not taken seriously, and that some may participate late in the process because they perceive the project negatively.
Ms. Moran then explained that since the last time the ISAB considered this topic a Council retreat has been scheduled, and citizen attendance and participation will likely be discussed as well as timing of citizen involvement and how we can get information to the citizens earlier. She noted that input from the Board would be given to the Council to include in their discussions.
Ms. Guzik stated that, having been involved in this process personally this year, she noticed discrepancies in mailings and signs being posted. Ms. Moran noted that timing and sensitivity to the calendar are important. She explained that State laws dictate time frames, so the change would have to be effected when scheduling the meetings and mailing notices, taking holidays into consideration and so on.
Mr. Fitzpatrick noted that making planning information more easily available online would be helpful. He felt that people tend to get the information much too late in the process, or that is the perception. Ms. Guzik added that educating people more about what their role is, not just when and why, but how can they make a difference, might also be beneficial.
Ms. Moran then explained that the Town is in pre-production on a series of educational products for that very purpose. She suggested that before they were completed, she would try to send Board members the scripts for their review.
Mr. Fitzpatrick also mentioned use of the Maps Online section of the Town’s Web to show current and future projects. Ms. Moran said upgrades had been made to the mapping program six months ago, and that it has been used for leaf collection and the curbside collection delivery process. She noted that work is being done to get parks information added. She also reminded the Board that this was an idea that originated with the ISAB.
Ms. Rathgeber suggested that a two-hour block of time be set aside for questions if some are not able to attend meetings. Ms. Moran said that the Town tries to get a comment period of several weeks, during which time people can call or come in and get their questions answered.
Ms. Rathgeber then turned attention to January’s agenda which is normally reserved for discussion of the annual report but is now open for suggestions. Ms. Bravo suggested reopening the benefits of Wi-Fi. Ms. Rathgeber said that topic was still with the EDC, and Ms. Moran explained that the EDC has been directed by Council to work with consultants to prepare an Economic Development strategy for the Town, so they have been unable to give attention to the Wi-Fi issue. Several members cited references to anticipation of Wi-Fi in the community, but many felt it would be premature to bring up the discussion before feedback was received from the Economic Development study.
Mr. Evangelista mentioned a section of the survey was about emergency information, and Ms. Moran stated that when the survey comes back they plan to have action items based on the results. She went on to say that Staff has begun a project to look for communications methods that could be used when we don’t have power, something this board brought up a couple years ago. She felt it would be good time to bring this topic up for discussion again. All heads nodded, and it was agreed that this should fill a meeting.
Ms. Moran reminded the Board that the January meeting would be held at 316 N Academy Street, in either the Administrative conference room or the Council conference room, and that instructions would be provided in the next quorum call.
Mr. Evangelista asked about new members, and Ms. Moran reviewed the appointment and introduction process. Ms. Rathgeber also noted that Staff provides a roster. It was asked if the Board would be putting objectives for 2007 together in January, and it was explained that that actually takes place in February.
Ms. Moran responded to a 911 call at 6:28 p.m. and returned to the discussion at 6:31 p.m.
5. Comments
a. Statement of Findings
The Board approved the Annual Report, made comments on the 2007 Biennial Citizen Survey, concluded their discussion of Citizen Attendance at public meetings, and determined the agenda for January meeting.
b. Citizen comments
Ms. Bravo stated that she has received a number of replies to her e-mail regarding Wi-Fi. She was a little surprised to receive e-mail from people she didn’t know and wondered what the protocol was for sharing these e-mails with other members of the Board. Ms. Moran explained that they were free to share any e-mail received from citizens.
Ms. Guzik left at 6:31 p.m.
c. Member comments
There were no member comments.
6. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 6:34 p.m.
The next meeting of the ISAB will be held on Thursday, January 5, 2006, at 5:30 p.m. at 316 N. Academy Street, in the Administrative Conference Room on the 2nd floor, unless noted otherwise in the next quorum call.
Please contact Susan Moran, Public Information Officer, with any questions about this agenda. The e-mail address is susan.moran@townofcary.org, and the phone number is (919) 460-4951. Visit our Web site at www.townofcary.org for more detailed information about each agenda item.
The Town of Cary is committed to providing all citizens with the opportunity to participate fully in the public meeting process. Any person with a disability who needs an auxiliary aid or service in order to participate in any meeting may contact the Town Clerk at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. The e-mail address is sue.rowland@townofcary.org; the phone number is (919) 469-4011; the TDD number is (919) 469-4012.