Click for next page ( 13


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 12
12 urbanized area and its members will be vigilant to rep- TABLE 3 resent the citizens of their area, both geographically WHAT KINDS OF DECISIONS OR MILESTONES WERE and ideologically. The CAC will convey to the MPO COMMITTEE MEMBERS ASKED TO PROVIDE INPUT ABOUT the goals and wishes of the citizens in the Cheyenne (choose all that apply)? (Q43) Metropolitan area regarding transportation issues. It Percentage Frequency will bring varied input to the CAC's planning functions Issues related to project scope, 48.8 79 by calling on a wide range of citizens' talents, civic schedule, or budget interests and disciplines (both professional and lay). Issues related to public involvement or The committee will serve to make recommendations 62.3 101 outreach regarding MPO plans or products to the MPO Policy Committee" (Cheyenne MPO Citizen's Advisory Evaluation framework or criteria 34.0 55 Committee (CAC) Policies and Procedures). Technical issues (e.g., design, align- "Purpose: To promote continued coordinated planning 56.2 91 ment, alternatives) and development of integrated public transportation ser- Policy issues 61.1 99 vices within and through Kootenai County" (Kootenai MPO Public Transportation Roundtable charter). Not applicable 1.2 2 Other (please specify) 12.3 20 When asked to indicate all of the committee's respon- answered question 162 sibilities, nearly all committees provided input and made recommendations on projects, programs, or policies. Most committee members acted as liaisons to their communities About one-half of the committees made decisions by con- by sharing information and gathering input. Finally, most sensus; most of the remaining groups made decisions by vot- committees heard input from the public in their meetings or ing. Of those groups that made decisions by consensus, about in writing. Most committees did not explicitly develop media 40% of them defined consensus as agreeing that an outcome protocols, because they reported that committee members is best for the group as a whole. About one-third of groups were not contacted by the media. that operated by consensus did not define consensus. Those groups that operated by consensus were likely to table con- Nearly 80% of committees made recommendations to tentious discussions until more information became avail- the agency, MPO, or decision makers. Most other commit- able or to continue with discussions in the hope of reaching tees were decision-making committees or sounding boards agreement. When consensus could not be reached or a vote that provided input (see Table 2). Committees were most was not unanimous, most committees captured minority likely to provide input on technical issues (e.g., alignment, viewpoints in meeting minutes, and some reported minority route); policy issues; issues related to scope, schedule, or viewpoints verbally. Relatively few committees developed budget; or public input or outreach (see Table 3). Most com- formal minority reports. mittees provided input on more than one of these topics. In most cases, committees provided input to decision mak- ers, whether the decision makers were elected or appointed Feedback and Measures of Effectiveness officials or executive-level staff. When a committee made a recommendation that was not adopted, most agencies dis- When asked how agencies evaluated the effectiveness of cussed the decision with committee members during a com- advisory committees, most agencies reported that effec- mittee meeting. tiveness was not evaluated. Most agencies did not ask advi- sory committee members to evaluate the effectiveness of TABLE 2 individual meetings or the overall process. About 70% of WHAT WAS THE COMMITTEE'S HIGHEST LEVEL OF those agencies that asked committee members to evaluate AUTHORITY? (Q42) individual meetings or the overall process made changes Percentage Frequency to their practices based on input. These changes included meeting formats (by implementing time limits for agenda Community liaison 1.2 2 items or presentations), method for developing agendas, Individual input/sounding board 11.0 18 or protocols for resolving disagreements. One respondent reported annually surveying all committees for sugges- Advice/recommendations 76.7 125 tions about improvements and making changes according Decisions 8.6 14 to input. Another respondent uses their annual evaluation Other (please specify) 2.5 4 process to refine their MPO public involvement plan. A summary of committee evaluation activities is shown in answered question 163 Table 4.