Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM102001 Retreat Marine Resources Committee Planning Retreat 9:00 - 1:00 p.m. Saturday, October 20, 2001 Present: Dave Christensen, Jefferson County Natural Resources Larry Crockett, ex-officio, Port of Port Townsend Judy Damore, District 1 Jeff Gallant, District 1 (Vice Chair) Spike Hall, Citizen Larry Lawson, Commercial Fishing Anne Murphy, District 2 Andrew Palmer, District 3 (Chair) Rex Rice, Environment Judy Surber, City of Port Townsend Staff: Barbara Bowen, Jefferson County Natural Resources Susan Latham, Thinking Edge Joanna Sanders, Recording Secretary WHERE WE ARE NOW - ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Andy Palmer opened the meeting by reviewing some of the MRC accomplishments to date: · Organized and adopted rules · Contracted and compiled a report of Jefferson County Marine Resources · Established an MRC library at WSU Extension Office · Created an informational website · Created searchable annotated bibliography of marine resources in Jefferson County and have acquired software to make it functional on the website · Developed Public Outreach strategy · Prepared initial survey of public attitudes and opinions · Held informational meetings identifying areas of concern · Had informational booths at the 2000 and 2001 County fairs, receiving over 200 survey responses · Held public informational meeting / workshop at Pope Marine Building · Held local and regional emergency response meeting focusing on oil spills · Produced and presented a report to the Board of County Commissioners · Issued a report to Northwest Straits Commission on results of grant · Prepared an insert in The Leader on state of the resources of Jefferson County · Partnered with North Olympic Salmon on the forage fish spawning beach survey ~~ developing list of landowners and assisting with the development of a brochure to landowners · Established an MP A committee to define what MP As might look like in Jefferson County and are currently holding focus groups · Participated in monthly meetings of the Northwest Straits Commission · Attended various trainings sponsored by the Northwest Straits Commission · Brought in speakers to address resource issues of concern · Provided oversight and management of a number of contracts He asked members to keep in mind the considerable amount of work done to date and congratulated the MRC on its efforts. INTERACTIVE REPORTS: Members partnered to answer one or several of the following questions. 1. Short personal reflection: · Impressed by different message that this group is able to give because it is a non~ governmental group · Value the process, excited MRC exists · Initially it was hard to figure out how MRC functioned · Have found MPA subcommittee is a good fit Page 1 of 4 · Meetings involve a lot of process -- much of it is necessary and ongoing · Now have a county~wide view instead of district view · Personal growth through participation on the MRC · Diverse energy in the group and the challenge that brings to getting focused 2. What MRC does best? · Brings diverse viewpoints and a variety of skills · Outreach · Provides an education and outreach effort focused on Jefferson County · Public outreach 3. Ways we could improve · Look at amount of time the group is willing to spend and look at the various tasks that need to be accomplished and determine the best use of volunteer time and move toward more substantive tasks rather than administrative · Need more time · Working more with schools, using publicity, maintaining our library, including videos of interest to the public, working with shoreline planners on policy issues · Better focus to agendas/meetings · How we work with policy · Expanding public image, be more aggressive with local media, work on being perceived as a public entity getting on other community group agendas · Communicate to citizens how we can live together and still protect marine resources · Outreach - find ways to educate people in a balanced way · Learn more about drift cells and function of our marine resource environment · Work on pulling together individual ideas into a group voice PROCESS: Susan Latham prefaced the process exercise by reviewing the two types of people that contribute to why meetings are tough: process vs. product and adapter vs. innovator. Personality references: People who think on their feet vs. those that reflect first; big picture vs. concrete details; logic~based decisions vs. personal value decisions; like closure vs. prefer flexibility. In thinking about improving MRC communication and in working with other people, consider four categories of people to maximize participation: factsllogic; ideas/vision; planning/organization; feelings/social. The following recommendations for improving process resulted from breakout sessions and whole group discussion: Meetings .- content and structure: · Limit or focus agenda items -- stick to agenda and meeting process guidelines * · Be prepared for meetings - do homework (paper and electronic) * · Set time limit on agenda items or individual presentations * · Eliminate back and forth discussions · Set aside time for free-form vision and brainstorm -~ balance good ideas and discussion with need to move on with agenda. (example: San Juan County holds one business and one discussion meeting) · Topics and motions should be posted so during discussion members are reminded if they are on/off issue · Hold extra meetings for miscellaneous purposes · Avoid writing reports and proposals at full committee meetings · Either set aside time on agenda or hold extra meetings · Invite speakers to provide informationlbackground to support decisions being made Page 2 of 4 · Set guidelines for electronic mail and begin distinguishing list serve topics (example: FYI, Action) ** · Provide opportunities for discussion, time to exhaust concerns (try to do electronically with discussion subgroups, include experts or others who may have an interest in topic) ** · Consider adopting a weighting system for determining subcommittee priorities · List the type of agenda item (example: information, discussion, action) CommunicationlPeople -- participation, motivation, preventing burnout, offering feedback · Listen to and respect diverse views and communication styles * · More focused agendas and goals for meetings * · Keeping motivated with social activities, hands-on events, field visits and refreshments- potlucks for long meetings! · Time to share successes and acknowledge accomplishments - with those outside MRC also · Spread workload involving community groups · List serve pros/cons - members could distinguish messages (FYI, for action) · Save energy, minimize administrative work for members ~- recognizing all members will be involved in some administrative functions · Network with other MRCs · Revitalize committees - eliminate inactive ones, members should self~select committee work . Take advantage of member interests while addressing goals of MRC - balancing both · Consider different meeting locations (Dave Christensen, Larry Crockett, and Andy Palmer will decide) Tri-Area Community Center, Chimacum Grange, Quimper Grange * Executive Committee plus Spike Hall will submit recommendations for meeting process guidelines * * Consider starting another subcommittee to submit recommendations for electronic communications County/MRC Connection: defining the relationship, dividing responsibilities, airing concerns Relationship to County Administration and how MRC does business: There was general agreement that people appreciated County administrative role and rely on County for oversight with bureaucratic process tasks. Relationship to the BOCC (not as clear/few comments): This topic relates to long~range planning. Questions about closer MRCIBOCC ties, what is the MRC's role in the shoreline management program, and other department type planning. Resolution 45-99 established the MRC, but leaves a lot of flexibility for involvement, activities and focus. Recommendations: · Establish a relationship with the BOCC ~~ have them understand what the MRC is doing. If the MRC feels it is influential, more will be accomplished. If there is not a working relationship and sharing of knowledge with government entities, there may be more fear about each others' activities. · Executive committee should consider options for making presentations to other governmental entities and NGOs. · If County begins to use MRC to help with policy discussions, then guidelines would need to be developed for how to address these within meetings. Is this already a role of County staff? · Consider developing Local Government Relationship Building Committee with Judy, Larry, Andy, Dave Christensen and Jeff). Committee will consider ideas, poll members and make recommendation to MRC whether or not a committee is needed. May already be part of resolution. Page 3 of 4 DISCUSSION OF YEAR 3 ACTION GRANT PRE~PROPOSAL: Dave Christensen reviewed projects and feedback received from Northwest Straits Commission. Members discussed projects and where refinement of items is needed to finalize the proposal. 1. Emergency Response: There was a suggestion to lump this item into the Administrative Grant, because of the limited amount of funds necessary, but acknowledge the project in the MRC's work plan to the Northwest Straits Commission. The Emergency Response Committee (Andy Palmer, Larry Crockett and Bill Kalina) agreed to expand the project description by Oct. 26 explaining how it will a part of ongoing operations or integrated into this plan at no additional cost. Copying costs of $100 should be included in either the County or Administrative Grant budget. There was a suggestion to consider educating the local public about oil spills and the different levels of spills. 2. Improvements to Web Site and Communications: There was discussion about eliminating this as a separate project, but linking the objectives to another project that has website and technical components. A suggestion was to identify the related benchmark/goal. 3. Synthesize Forage Fish Inventory Data and Begin Preliminary Policy Discussions: More detail was requested about the MRC's level of involvement in the second year of the beach survey. Larry Lawson explained that the proposal is to identify specific protected areas, but he also believes the MRC has an opportunity to be involved in the 2nd year beach surveys and protect more shoreline. Members felt more information was needed on this project, including updates on activities of other groups so they know how to aid existing efforts. A question was whether there is any support in the City and County. It was noted that the Planning Commission has identified the Forage Fish project as one which will result in useful information for the County. A question was what level of involvement is needed by the MRC in order to obtain the policy recommendations. While there was support for improving, not ending communications, there was a decision to back out of a major contribution to the forage fish project. 4. Participatory Habitat Protection Assessment Process: Definition and potential outcomes of habitat protection is needed. 5. Cooperative project with affected governments and interests to reintroduce Olympic Oysters: There was overwhelming support for moving forward with this project and striving for tribal involvement. There was support for focusing on two proposals: Reintroduce Olympia Oysters and Habitat Protection Assessment Process, noting that the Forage Fish project is ongoing. There was also a suggestion to stress in the projects a strong relationship with co~managers, the public and the BOCC. To finalize the Habitat Protection proposal, Jeff Gallant agreed to begin a rewrite of the proposal, possibly with another discussion before hand. It was also suggested that ideas be submitted to Northwest Straits for their input before a lot of work goes into the proposal. Following the opportunity for MRC and staff input, Spike and Jeff will provide a rewrite to Dave Christensen by October 26. A final draft of the Year 3 Action Grant proposal will be taken to the MRC training. There was interest in scheduling a long~range planning retreat January 26, 2002. The meeting concluded at 1:00 p.m. Page 4 of 4