Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWomens Commission - Minutes - 06/17/1996MINUTES COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN JUNE 17, 1996 PRESENT: Doreen Kemp, Dana Hiatt, Stephanie Lane, Lorna Harpin-Reeves, Audrey Faulkner, Jo Ann Ginal, Diane Lathrop, Lu Fisk GUESTS: Suzanne Jarboe -Simpson, Karen Johnston COUNCIL LIAISON: Gina Janett STAFF LIAISON: Dana Shea -Reid CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:37 p.m. in the Human Resources Conference Room by Commission Chair, Doreen Kemp. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT: none MINUTES: The minutes were approved from the May 21, 1996 meeting with the following corrections: 1) Under Business Items, paragraph 3, the sentence should read: Diane Lathrop will get information from the State regarding child support and maintenance. 2) Under Business Items, paragraph 5, the spelling should be changed to Lynne Sterkel. The minutes were approved as amended. ANNOUNCEMENTS: * A letter from a citizen to The Coloradoan, was presented to the Commission, followed by questions and a discussion as to how the Commission should respond to this letter. See letter attachment. * There will be a retreat for the Commission members on October 21, 1996. Details to be discussed at a later date. * Some Commission members will be attending the multi -cultural conference, October 25 & 26th. Call Alma Vigo -Morales at 221-6871 for tickets. BUSINESS ITEMS: Handouts were distributed by Karen Johnston on the survey update. Eighteen interviews are completed as of today's date. An attachment is enclosed for review. The interview refusal rates are high at 86% and there was much discussion as to why people are hesitant to be interviewed. Karen talked with the company who supplied the telephone numbers and inquired as to why there were so many business numbers or disconnects. The company had agreed to clean the list prior to issuing for use. Based on available information to date, the cost per interview comes out to $29.77, even when the interviewers are spending a lot of time making a good contact. This figure is within the budgeted amount per interview. Karen suggested that her husband could design a computer program that would set up a random sample of phone numbers as an alternative approach to contacting prospective interviewees through the purchased list. Getting people to agree to an interview over the phone has been difficult, and discussion centered on hiring someone with existing survey or sales skills, or possibly using a temporary service with telemarketers who may be more successful. Currently, interviews take 1 to 1 1/2 hours; shorter interviews may be a consideration. Audrey felt that it was "better to have short answers rather than no answers." There was discussion as to whether or not data from the two different surveys could be combined if the difference was explained in the survey summary. Karen expressed concerns over "mixing data," but was willing to try that approach. It was agreed that the three options that currently exist to expedite the survey process are: . piloting telephone interviews with a modified format. * hiring temporary people with prior interviewing or telemarketing experience. " phone based research, with more local publicity. Promoting more public awareness of the survey and means of accomplishing that was discussed. Karen feels that people don't understand what the survey is about. Council member Gina Janett offered to mention the commission's survey at the next council meeting. She suggested ideas and options that could be used to call attention to the public, i.e. Channel 14 news and the City's electronic bulletin board. Another idea was distributing flyers to area churches or recreation areas. There was a question as to how the commission should respond to citizens who express an interest in participating in the survey as a result of such PR attempts. They might be directed to one of the focus groups or possibly be allowed to complete a survey. Doreen discussed the possibility of using self-selected interviews, which could be itemized in the technical report as separate results, but suggested that data, be utilized only after the initial survey is completed. Karen will contact a phone based research firm to see if it would be feasible to have them do the phone work. She is in need of more interviewers since she is losing two more and the others are not producing as expected. Discussion continued regarding the cost of producing the final survey results, overall productivity and the budget. Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager had questions about what had been accomplished so far and what kind of "product" the commission had that could justify the city budgeting any additional funds. Funding for this project had been pulled from the council's consent agenda, but it will again appear on the consent agenda at the next council session. Gina Janett did not think that there would be a problem with council approving the next consent agenda which includes this budget item. Commission members had questions about what kind of support the commission should have from city staff. Dana Shea -Reid went over a list of the things HR staff currently does for the commission, and also noted the recording duties conducted by other city employees who volunteer for the Women's Commission monthly meetings. It was agreed that a clearer definition of what kind of staff support the commission could depend on as well as who to contact regarding a specific need or problem. Dana said she would continue to attend meetings and serve as the city advisor/liaison and Joan Busch would handle areas associated with information distribution, minutes, agenda items and budget. Gina Janett suggested a memo regarding a mid -course correction for the survey and a new deadline be submitted to City Council. She said she would keep council informed of the needs and progress of the Women's Commission and do whatever else she could to assist the project. ADJOURN: Meeting adjourned at 9:51-p.m. The next meeting is July 15, 1996. Deb Benton Commission Recorder