Wetlands Executive Team - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

IV. BREAK The WET took a short break at 3:15 p.m. V. DISCUSSION: How Do We Move Forward From Here? Mr. Soll asked for comments on the WEW Charter Discussion Background Information handout, the Draft Organization Chart, or the re- organizational information sent by Mr. Moll. Mr. Asher said his statement of need was an information based question. He had three programs, including wetlands, waterways and ridgelines, from Mt. Pisgah to the WEW, and was interested in helping everyone else. OYCC looked for quality projects, good learning opportunities and the ability to expose the kids to the professional staffs of the various partners. If projects did not have funding, he had some funding available and the ability to work with the partners to seek grant funding, as well as. Ms. Johnston suggested providing a closer tie to WREN for OYCC, since WREN sat on FOG and was the nexus to bring kids into various programs. Mr. Taylor said there was a need for a head nod for the partners to continue to do the work and add subcommittees and partners, especially around the ridgeline, where no formal coordination currently existed. Other work was being done and coordinated on an ad hoc basis attached to the wetlands structure ineffectively. The problem could be solved within the current structure, without the need for a formal agreement, but with acknowledgement that the ridgeline was part of the current objectives. He asked if WET was working well, with the current structure of meeting annually and celebrating, and providing sufficient structure to maximize its potential as a partnership. He also asked if a name change would be appropriate or if it was sufficient to acknowledge the additional work done by the team. It would be helpful to have direction from the executive level to do better coordination if that was desirable. Mr. Hatton said the Statement of Partnership was timeless and suggested revising it to address mutual areas of interest rather than the west Eugene wetlands system. Mr. Soll agreed the Statement was a great document, but asked if the WET was actually performing the functions identified in the document. Revision of the goals and objectives inferred an engagement of work that was not currently being done by the WET. He favored meeting more frequently and having more substantial meetings. Mr. Corey was sensitive to the work load of Parks and Open Space (POS) staff and it was worth periodically reviewing the documents. The strength of WET was what the partners wished to do with the charter and how the partners measured its accomplishments. He noted in the past, the group met several times annually, but the need to meet as frequently decreased as the number of agenda items decreased. He was amazed by the record of the group's accomplishments, and WET provided the structure to celebrate those accomplishments. He agreed the statement was good with some minor tweaking, and addressing specific issues to help address the operational side. Those opportunities that were not precluded by the existing structure would continue moving along. He concurred with Mr. Moll's e -mail that making the group larger would make it less personal, and perhaps Less flexible. He thought the group was about the right size while the door was always open for specific groups and staff to raise issues and add major issues that needed policy direction. Ms. Gilley concurred with Mr. Hatton's suggestion to delete wetlands from the Statement of Partnership and provide more inclusive goals and objectives. She would also like to have more meetings to provide MINUTES Wetland Executive Team September 4, 2008 Page 5