My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Outreach Task Force Agenda and Packet 2014 07 28
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PUBLIC OUTREACH TASK FORCE
>
2014 Public Outreach Task Force Agendas and Packets
>
Public Outreach Task Force Agenda and Packet 2014 07 28
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 10:03:39 AM
Creation date
7/30/2014 8:04:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
POTFPKT 2014 07 28
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
97
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
• Directors were evenly split as to whether or not their communications needs would stay the <br />same or increase /change. The factors cited most frequently related to possible increases or <br />changes were: <br />Impact of Social Media; <br />Less use of print media and more reliance on electronic means of communication; <br />- The need to target a broader range of the population, including specific target audiences; <br />Increased need for two- way /interactive communication with the public; <br />Increased priority because of City Manager's focus on effective communication. <br />What Has Worked Well About Communications Structure <br />• Public Information Team (PIT) — collegial, supportive, available to provide information and <br />assistance. <br />• Training that was provided by Communications Division. <br />• Directors and staff who have dedicated PIOs identified that as working very well. <br />• The recent concern of having back -up for the Public Safety PIO is being addressed. One of <br />the PIOs currently supporting Planning and Public Works will be trained to provide backup <br />for this critical position. <br />• Centralized distribution and posting of Council materials. <br />What Has Not Worked Well About Communications Structure <br />• At times process has been slow, cumbersome, and overly intrusive. <br />- Examples were given of news releases being edited to the point of changing the meaning <br />and /or rendering the information inaccurate. <br />- At times concern about being politically correct results in unclear message. <br />- We often haven't been able to move quickly and get out in front of the story. <br />- One size fits all approach. <br />• City communication has lacked an over - arching strategy and coordination. City needs a <br />more comprehensive view of communications. It seems very fragmented at times. There is <br />no overall branding, marketing or outreach by the city. <br />• Some departments have dedicated staff resources and/or financial resources to do things like <br />using consultants, contracting work out, and creating programs for Channel 8, while other <br />departments do not. <br />• City is slow to embrace new communication technologies (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) <br />• Public Information Team (PIT) is not as focused and helpful as it could be. Needs of group <br />are too diverse, some representatives feel they don't need to be there. <br />• People have been asked to do communications - related jobs but do not have appropriate <br />training. <br />• Expectations for Communications function may not be realistic (champagne tastes but a beer <br />budget). Roles and expectations need to be clarified. <br />• Media relations have suffered. <br />• Departments are relying more and more on the web to provide information and city services, <br />but city web sites need a lot of work. <br />• One or more of the following needs was identified in a number of interviews: <br />- Web Content Management <br />- Graphic Design <br />6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.