Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 104-10TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DATE: JANUARY 25, 2010 CMR:I04:10 REPORT TYPE: INFORMATION SUBJECT: Process Feedback from Compost Blue Ribbon Task Force BACKGROUND Palo Alto's Compost Blue Ribbon Task Force (Task Force) operated from March through September 2009, making recommendations to Council on October 19,2009. The Task Force consisted of nine members of the public appointed by Council. Council directed the Task Force to make recommendations concerning organics materials management and included a series of specific topics to be investigated. Because the Task Force was appointed by the Council, it was subject to the Brown Act. The Council requested the Task Force to conduct independent analysis and prepare recommendations. Limited City staff time and no consultant staff time was available for support. DISCUSSION The Task Force requested that Council be given feedback on their experience to help guide the establishment of other task forces in the future. Attachment A is the survey used and the responses received, in full. A number of the points were made by only one or two individuals, but some points are more representative of the group, and those are summarized below: 1. Clarity of Direction from Council The Task Force struggled with an important and contentious land use question (whether to un-dedicate parkland for composting) which confounded an analytic approach. Direction from Council with respect to this issue was initially felt to be clear, but much less so following Council action on the Task Force Recommendations. Council initially directed the Task Force to consider parklands "as a secondary priority after all other non-parkland options have been pursued." 2. Size of the_Task force The size (9 people) was about right. 3. Length of Time The length of the Task Force process (6 months) was about right. 4. Brown Act Restrictions (dictated by the fact of Council appointment) Many task force members raised concerns about the restrictions of the Brown Act. They felt CMR;104:10 Page lof2 especially constrained by the inability to communicate with the group via email. The group also found it difficult to prepare a collaborative technical report within the confines of the Brown Act. An alternative approach would be to hire a consultant to do the analysis (as was done for the Zero Waste Task Force) and allow task force members to comment on the report at a publicly noticed meeting. Yet another approach would be to have the City Manager appoint technical task forces. Task forces appointed by staff (such as the Website Review Committee) are generally not subject to the Brown Act. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Task Force Survey Responses PREPARED BY: PHIL BOBEL DEPARTMENT HEAD: l:n~&teDi~SIDn GLE S.ROB TS Director of Public Works CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR:I04:10 Page 2 of2 \ ATTACHMENT A Summary of Blue Ribbon Task Force Survey 1. Was the Direction from Council clear and sufficient? 2. ~ No. The mission statement to avoid parkland except as a last resort did not accurately reflect the true feelings of a majority of the Council, in my opinion. It was a political compromise that led the task force to deliver a less than optimal recommendation. The Council sent us into the assignment with a compromised mission statement. The task force should have been assigned to investigate alternatives for organic waste management, specifying site requirements where appropriate. It was not feasible for the Task Force to evaluate the land-use issues of alternative sites, and inappropriate to ask them to do so. ~ There was probably a subtext to the Council's direction and that certainly wasn't clear at the outset. In the context of their original problem -deciding to keep compo sting yard waste on Byxbee Park or finding 2-3 non-park acres where some high tech solution could be implemented (as recommended by the Parks and Rec Commission) the issue was made much more complex by the Council direction. ~ We could have been much more effective if the Council had not punted this hot potato to the TF but rather solved the land use issue and then asked for the TF to work on evaluating the merits of the materials handling options. Instead the TF spent most of its time and energy debating something that is a Council decision and should have been dealt with by the Council. ~ It seemed fairly broad and sweeping. Council didn't seem to know specifically what it was after. Was the assignment from Council doable? ~ Not entirely. The Brown Act, insufficient resources, and insufficient public information on the technologies prevented a full technological and financial analysis. ~ Certainly, as we found out, the economic portion was clearly NOT doable because we would have needed to rely on vendors' numbers. Those numbers that we got were non­ site-specific and therefore rough estimates. Council also had no idea of the scope of their referral when they made it with respect to scoping out the technologies and the many variables that had to be weighed in terms of criteria, etc. ~ See above. ~ As a task force, we fairly quickly gravitated toward a more narrow and doable set of questions than the original direction from Council set out for us. For example, we didn't take on the question of environmental impacts in a rigorous way beyond greenhouse gas emissions. To do so would have required expertise and resources beyond our means. ATTACHMENT A 3. Did the Brown Act reduce effectiveness of the Task Force? )i> Dramatically. The inability to work with each other between meetings severely limited our ability to make progress. The inability for teleconference participation is just absurd and had severe impacts. )i> No. I think that transparency is important, if sometimes difficult. The Attorney's interpretations of the Brown Act are much stricter than the last time I served on a Brown Act body, however. )i> Boy am I sorry that the attorneys decided that this needed to be treated as a Brown Act committee. This NEEDS to be looked at seriously for future TF and committees as it made the process 5 times more difficult than it needed to be. Specifically, it made the collaborative effort clunk, inefficient and bureaucratic. I would be willing to serve on another TF, but only if it is not a Brown Act committee. )i> Absolutely. It was only after joining the task force that I learIled that Brown Act restrictions would keep me from participating in meetings by speaker phone. I had pre~ existing travel plans, so was only able to participate as a listener for several meetings. Also, the Brown Act seemed to get in the way of basic conversation among task force members. I appreciate the spirit of the act, but it seems to come at great cost. 4. What should the size of the Task Force have been? )i> It was the right size. )i> Nine was a good number that could divide evenly into subcommittees and could bring a range of viewpoints (or at least two ... ) )i> Too many members. 5 or 7 would be more productive. The length of discussion is a function of the number of members. And while discussion is good, it can make the process tiresome and inefficient. I would make the same suggestion regarding the number of City Council members. )i> I thought the size was good. There was a diversity of experience and opinions and enough people to keep the conversation going when some people had to :miss meetings. I didn't think there were so many members as to make conversation onerous. Progress certainly felt slow at times, but I attribute that to the inherent difficulty of the task and not to the group size. 5. What should the length (6 tp.onths?) of the Task Force have been? )i> That was an appropriate time~frame. )i> Six months was enough time to do the research. Writing, re-writing, etc. was challenging and left too many loose ends between meetings where various manipulations occurred ego ''toxic fumes" liberally scattered about the report. )i> Six months was plenty, if it was not a Brown Act regulated committee. ATTACHMENT A ~ I think 6 months was about right. It really goes back to what Council wanted out of the task force. A shorter time frame probably would have lit a fire under us to do our research faster on waste management technologies and other details, but it might have eliminated the chance for the group to reach consensus, which feels like one of the major achievements of the task force. 6. What changes do you suggest with respect to meeting management, the "Co-Chair" approach, or the frequency of meetings? ~ Given the Brown Act restrictions, I think what we did was about right. The Co-Chair approach worked very well, but that was in part due to the two co-chairs chosen, who worked together very well. ~ Phil Bobel is a genius. Good job listening to and respecting what emerged from the task force while grabbing the salient pieces from the flow of conversation and gradually corralling the task force toward unequivocal statements. 7. What changes do you suggest with respect to subcommittee work, technical seminars, or report writing approach? ~ I would suggest that in any similar future task force, the City must engage a consultant or dedicate a staff person to drafting the report based on input from the task force. ~ Staff support was definitely sufficient and actually Mr. Binder et al who appeared at our Technology Workshop gave us a pretty good idea of what is currently happening in the high tech realm -particularly with Santa Barbara. Clearly, it was a lot of work for Task Force members to research and write our report without on-going consultant help. ~ All effective in my opinion. 8. How could the interaction with City Council be improved? ~ The antagonistic tone taken by one of the Council during the study session was very inappropriate. The Council sent us into the assignment with a compromised mission statement. ~ City Council should have responsibility to vote up or down on each Task Force recommendation before heading off to left field. If the Council wanted to do its own thing, there would be no need for a Task Force unless we were supposed to be their window dressing. ~ It was ok, particularly because Phil Bobel is a serious and professional member of the P A Staff and he dedicated time the process. ~ Written or oral comments from City Council on a draft report at 4 months. Also, to a large extent this whole challenge and decision requires leadership from City Council. It feels as though Council is trying to make the choice that will upset the fewest number of (or least powerful) people. Recognizing the rift in the community over this issue for ATTACHMENT A what it is, Council should consider focus groups and other larger scale citizen participation. Communities around the world have effectively zero experience weighing longer term crises such as climate change against more near term values and priorities. This is new territory. Council needs to think carefully about setting a precedent because there will be many challenges and conflicts of a similar nature in the near to mid-term future. 9. How could the presentation of findings be improved? » Alas, I missed it due to a very scary injury from which I am still recovering slowly. No comment. 10. What other suggestions do you have for improvements? » Don't use task forces to postpone difficult political decisions. » Too many members, too much discussion, and a lot of work from the members. And during the process, there was little participation from the Council. Phil was great. Staff was responsive but refused to engage in anything discussion that might be interpreted as an opinion on the land use or best course of action for the City. While I understand Staffs reluctance to tangle with this political topic, a few "frank" discussions would have helped shortened many of the meandering discussions and TF'd dead ends. » None. Serving on the task force prior to my injury was a very positive experience for me. U:\PWDIADMIMKAREMCMRIOJ J IIO\Compost Survey ResponseslAttachment A Survey Responses. doc