Service Profile, UF - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

• EUGENE Administrative Services Service Improvement Team City of Eugene MEMORANDUM 860 W. Park Street, Suite 240 Eugene, Oregon 97401 -2793 (541) 687 -5272 (541) 341 -5802 FAX Date: January 9, 1997 To: Budget Committee From: Service Improvement Steering Committee (SISC) Beth Bridges, Manager, Service Improvement Team (SIT) Subject: Proposed adjustments to Service Profile process INTRODUCTION Two events require that we re -think the process we use to create Service Profiles. At the September 30,1996 Budget Committee meeting, members adopted a motion requiring citizen review of Service Profiles by a current or recently disbanded standing committee, departmental advisory committee, or council ad hoc committee. Included in the motion was direction to service teams to incorporate or respond to citizens' concerns prior to the profile being presented to the Budget Committee. At the meeting, Service Improvement staff were directed to develop a consistent format in which to present the citizen review feedback to the Budget Committee. In November, Measure 47 passed. Shortly thereafter, the SISC (Executive Managers, Barb Bellamy, Tony Mounts, and Lauren Chouinard) requested that our team review the Service Profile product, process, and queue. We were asked to propose alternatives that would accelerate completion of the remaining profiles while still providing the policy and performance measure information presented in the Budget. The following memorandum describes the work done to -date to respond to these requests. At times, the underlying goals of these two requests appear to be in conflict. Our efforts to get meaningful citizen review have elongated the process we are trying to shorten. At the conclusion of the memo, we have listed areas on which we request Budget Committee direction. CITIZEN REVIEW Ways to achieve Citizen Review Attachment A divides the services according to those completed or awaiting Budget Committee review, those that still need to complete a Service Profile and have access to a citizen committee; and those that do not have a citizen committee to review their Service Profile. The two "internal services" being reviewed at the next Budget Committee meeting, Information Technology and Fleet Services, did not have an external, citizen review. Fleet Services didn't have access to a relevant citizen committee. According to the motion based in September, Information Technology's citizen review could have been done by a recently disbanded council ad hoc committee, the Council Committee on Automation. However, the chair expressed concern that her committee (composed of three Councilors) would not provide the "general public" review of the Information Technology profile intended by the Budget Committee. That group has not been reconvened, waiting further clarification from the Budget Committee. II -1