+- Punaweb Forum (https://punaweb.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Specialized Group Forums (https://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Land Use Working Group (https://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: from Larry Brown: WG report review evaluation (/showthread.php?tid=4348)
from Larry Brown: WG report review evaluation - Rob Tucker - 01-24-2007
Aloha Puna SC Members and WG Coordinators,
Attached and embedded in this email is are the
criteria and the propcess by which PlanPacific and the
Planning Department propose to review and evaluate the
Working Group reports that are due on February 15. As
you can see, the criteria are basically derived from
the WG Guidelines and shouldn't contain any surprises.
The process is designed to provide ample opportunity
for dialogue between the Consultant and the WGs to
ensure the content and purpose of the WG
recommendations are understood by not only the
Consultant, but the Planning Department, and the
Steering Committee. Although the email only
communications requirement may be problematic for a
relatively few individuals, it is the most efficient
method for rapid communications with the capacity to
allow for the most transparency as possible for this
important process. This process is also designed to
facilitate the need to keep the project moving at an
efficient pace for all parties concerned.
That all being said, we are pretty much married to the
criteria and process outlined. However, if significant
deficiencies are noted, we welcome your comments
provided they are made to me not later than February
9, 2007 so any suggested changes may be shared with
the rest of the SC and WGs prior to the Feb. 15 SC
Meeting.
Mahalo for all your hard work,
Larry
Criteria and Process for Review and Evaluation of
Working Group Reports
It is anticipated that reports from Working Groups are
likely to vary in terms of their thoroughness in
addressing the topic; format and expression of goals,
objectives and recommendations; appropriateness and
relevance of the recommendations for a policy-type
public document; and degree to which the
recommendations appear to reflect broad community
participation and support. It is also probable that
there will be some overlap between the recommendations
of the Working Groups.
The purpose of reviewing and evaluating the Working
Group reports is suggest to the Steering Committee and
the Planning Department a “common denominator” for the
Working Group reports, so that all topics are
adequately covered; redundancies and conflicts are
identified; there is consistency in format, expression
and terminology; and the linkage of recommendations to
public involvement is clear.
The criteria for evaluating the reports are based on
the modified guidelines that were distributed to the
Working Groups on December 14, 2006. The failure to
address any of the criteria in the Working Group
reports will not necessarily result in the omission of
the recommendations by a Working Group.
Review Criteria
1. Statement of Goals and Objectives
Are they provided?
Do they cover the topic comprehensively?
Do they provide a clear basis for the
recommendations?
2. Recommendations
Are they listed in order of priority?
Are they clear enough to understand?
If they are location-specific, is a map provided or
otherwise referenced?
Do any of the recommendations overlap or
conflict with those of another Working Group?
Is there any significant issue relevant to
the topic, based on past plans and previous public
participations, that appears to be overlooked in the
recommendations?
3. Relationship to Previous Plans and
Public Involvement (Where the WG report does not
address the following items the Consultant will
provide comments)
How do the recommendations relate to the
2005 General Plan and other previously written plans?
How does they relate to public input
received in the CDP process?
What potential obstacles exist for
implementing the recommendation?
Who should be primarily responsible for
carrying out the recommendation?
4. Meeting Record
How complete were the Working Group’s
meeting records?
How many meetings were held, and how well
attended were they?
What does the number of attendees and
meeting locations suggest about the breadth of
participation in the Working Group throughout the
district?
If Working Group members communicated
largely via e-mail, was a log kept of the
correspondence?
Review and Evaluation Process
The evaluation will be an iterative process primarily
between the Working Groups and the Consultant. The
Working Groups shall submit their reports to the
Consultant, the Steering Committee and the Planning
Department.
The Consultant’s review and evaluation process may
require communications between the Consultant and the
Working Group Coordinator to ensure that the
Consultant has a clear understanding of the Working
Group recommendations, their purpose and intent. The
Consultant will give the Working Group Coordinator the
notes from his review and suggest some possible
revisions and/or additions to the report for the
Working Group to consider. The Working Group will be
asked to respond to the Consultant’s comments and
recommendations within three weeks.
The Steering Committee may review, evaluate, and
receive public input on the Working Group reports.
The Steering Committee may also communicate with the
Working Groups via the Working Group Coordinator to
obtain clarification on the Working Group
recommendations, their purpose and intent. Any
comments, recommendations or additional public input
on the raw Working Group reports that the Steering
Committee wishes to submit to the Consultant shall be
due at the same time as the response for each Working
Group to the Consultant’s comments and
recommendations.
In order to preserve the Working Group review and
evaluation process for the record all communications
between the Consultant, Working Group Coordinators and
Steering Committee shall be by email. All email
correspondence in this process shall be copied to all
Steering Committee Members, Working Group
Coordinators, Consultant and the Planning Department
project coordinator. The Planning Department project
coordinator copy of each email correspondence shall
identify all recipients of the email.
Whether or not the Working Group responds to the
Consultant’s comments and recommendations in the
allotted time, the Consultant will present the
formatted (original or amended) Working Group report
to the Steering Committee with his recommendations
within six weeks of receiving the original Working
Group reports.
The Steering Committee shall review the formatted
Working Group reports and the Consultant’s
recommendations according to the roles and
responsibilities of the Steering Committee as provided
in the Puna Community Development Plan Steering
Committee Roles, Responsibilities, and Procedural
Guidelines previously distributed. Comments and
recommendations by the Steering Committee on the
formatted Working Group reports and the Consultant’s
recommendation shall be made to the Consultant and
copied to the Planning Department project coordinator
in as timely a manner as reasonably practical so as
not to unnecessarily delay the development of the CDP.