HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-06-2012 Council Reading File B3i tie
The next time you start a new community planning
project, one of your first tasks will probably be
the formation of a steering committee. How large
should the committee be? Is there an ideal size? If
your elected board is involved in the appointments,
as it should be, how can you advise them as to the
number of appointees? (Remember, some boards, if
left to their own devices, will appoint as many people
as possible.)
The answer is 9 to 15. "Wait just one second ", you
say. "How can you justify such an arbitrary range ?"
Well, let's try. First we'll talk about the mechanics of
large committees (really, the inconveniences), and
then get into the specifics of committee size and
human interaction (where the real problems arise).
The Mechanics of Large Committees
1. Have you ever tried to get a group of people to
agree on a meeting day and time each month
convenient to all? Invariably, no matter which day
you suggest, there will always be one person who
has a conflict. Now, think about the math of this
problem. With each person added to the size of the
group, the level of difficulty in reaching agreement
does not grow linearly but rather exponentially.
Think about that when expanding the size of your
committee beyond the maximum 15 suggested here.
2. How's the workload of your staff regarding
routine monthly mailings? Your office already has
agenda packets for the Planning Board, for the TRB,
for the HPC, for the Council or the Commissioners,
and so on and so forth. Yes, this is part of the day -
to -day work of the planning office -- but is making
even more copies and stuffing even more envelopes
the best use of your staff time, when there are better
options? I call this the "manila envelope paperwork
shuffle ". The next time you're thinking about
recommending that 60- person committee, be sure to
factor in about 18 monthly mailings of 10 to 20
pages of material each. Over the life of the project,
that's at least 1000 manila envelopes containing
over 15,000 copies you've made on your trusty
Xerox. (There's not enough space here to cover the
staff hours involved -- and we won't go into the
copying, mailing and other costs here, either.)
3. How about reminder phone calls? Do you have
a reliable front office administrative assistant who
has time on his or her hands? You know, someone
who doesn't have to prepare several sets of minutes
each month, field phone calls, direct traffic and
handle other special projects? Good. Then you won't
mind asking that person to make dozens of extra
phone calls every month to remind each member of
that large committee about the next meeting.
Planner's Tip She(
Committee Size and Human Interaction
1. Let's get specific now: Social scientists tell us
that for a working group to be most effective, it must
include at least one representative of each of the
four basic personality types (popularly known by tag
names such as lion, otter, golden retriever and beaver,
or "d" determined doers, "i" interactive influencers, "s"
steadfast supporters and "c" competent critics. Studies
have shown that for work groups with fewer than 8 or 9
individuals, there is a much higher probability that one of
the four necessary personality types will not be
represented. This is especially true when the group is
not randomly selected, such as when looking for already
involved community leaders to serve on a steering
committee. Hence, one important reason for setting the
bottom of the size range at 9.
2. "They won't miss me if I'm not there." Have you
ever noticed that as a committee increases in size,
attendance by committee members is less reliable and is
usually subject to more attrition over time? The principle
is this: there is greater anonymity in larger groups. Each
member says to him or herself "There are so many
people on this committee, they won't miss me if I don't
come." Oftentimes, this perspective is with good reason,
too. When groups get so large as to not sit comfortably
around a conference table, human interaction suffers. As
groups grow larger than 15, there is a tendency (even a
need) for a few individuals to take over the dialogue,
leaving some individuals (who may be more comfortable
being quiet anyway) out of the conversation. Interest
soon wanes and attendance declines. This type of
attrition is damaging to the process, and leaves a bad
impression on all involved. So why not just start out with
a reasonable number from the get -go and make sure
their involvement is meaningful and significant?
3. Aren't we shortchanging involvement by limiting
committee size? No, no -- not at all. There are plenty of
ways to involve the community in the planning process
other than trying to pack everyone onto one grand
steering committee. Just think about the many options.
4. Finally, is it ever necessary to have a committee
whose numbers fall outside the 9 -15 person range?
Of course, but just keep in mind that, especially in the
case of a larger group, it's going to take a lot more time
and energy on your part (and your staff) to keep
everyone involved at a meaningful
level. And, while there are a number
of useful techniques that you'll need
to employ, that will have to be the „
subject of a future Tip Sheet.
Published as a service to friends and clients 'I
of Glenn R. Harbeck. AICP. Comments and
suggestions for this and future tip sheets are
welcomed at: HarbeckG @aol.com Ad
Tip Sheet. No. 1.3 @ Copyright 2003 by Glenn Harbeck Associates, Community Planning and Public Involvement, Wilmington, NC 910 -313 -6753
CRF
COUNCIL
READING CILE
"t°EETING AGENDA
i IATE ? ITEM # . 8-3 r�
Marquette University
e- Publications(aMarquette
Economics .Faculty Research and Publications Business Administration, College of
1 -1 -2009
Committee Size and Smart Growth: An Optimal
Solution
Russell Kashian
University of Wisconsin- Whitewater
Heather Kohls
Marquette University, heather.kohls@marquette.edu
Published version. Journal of Applied Business and Economics, Volume 9, No. 2 (2009), Publication's
website. Used with permission.
Journal of Applied Business and Economics
Committee Size and Smart Growth:
An Optimal Solution
Russell Kashian
University of Wisconsin- Whitewater
Heather Kohls
Marquette University
Wisconsin is one of many states that have enacted a "Smart Growth Initiative " law that requires
inclusion of the public in the creation and development of a Comprehensive Plan. One
implication of public participation is the strategic development of a comprehensive planning
committee. Two crucial decisions occur when the committee is formed: the size of the
committee and the composition of the committee. This paper models a relation between
committee size and the accuracy of plan, as well as the relationship between the inclusion of
experts, whether paid consultants or planners, and the quality of the outcome. Based on a
survey of committee members, we test the relationship between the participants' observations of
quality and group size and composition, analyzing the tradeoff between the size of the group with
the perception of quality of the decision.
INTRODUCTION
Comprehensive planning is often used to address the constant change and evolution of a
community and its vision for land use. These uses include the evolution of education, the need
for parkland, the anticipation of housing, commercial and industrial development, and other
matters of resource allocation. A critical challenge of Wisconsin's comprehensive planning
process (often called the Smart Growth Initiative) is to include the public in the creation and
development of a community's plan. This paper focuses on the structural complications of that
process. The challenge wrestles with conflicts between paid professionals and citizen volunteers.
It tests relationships between passionate citizens, elected officials, and appointed committee
members. It requires design choices developed within an inclusive environment of large
committees but not so large as to inhibit decision making.
The Wisconsin model offers a wide variety of methods from which to develop a plan. The
size of planning committees varies widely. The groups are comprised of citizen volunteers,
consultants, paid staff, elected officials, or a mix of all of these. This body can be the local plan
commission or an advisory committee created by the governing body. Within this framework,
the initial structure must specify the roles of the various participants in both the preparation and
approval of the comprehensive plan.
The oversight committee or group charged with the development of the comprehensive plan is
often selected in an attempt to satisfy and include community stakeholders. However, the
complex nature of zoning and planning requires the inclusion of both staff and consultants. The
addition of members to the committee often serves to bring talent to the deliberations, while at
the same time disrupting the efficiency of a smaller group. The beliefs regarding the benefits of
stakeholder representation align with academic insight into group size: there exists a framework
that contends that committee size should incorporate diversity and input that can lead to a more
representative result. In light of these issues, we analyze a mechanism design problem involving
the creation of the smart growth committee. This question focuses on the optimal number of
members and the impact of the makeup of the committee on the end product.
The Nature and Implementation of Wisconsin's Smart Growth Initiative
As part of its 1999 -2000 biennial budget, the State of Wisconsin enacted one of the most
comprehensive pieces of land use legislation considered in this state during the last fifty years.
The legislation, referred to as the "Smart Growth" Initiative (s. 55.1001 subsequently revised in
2001, 2003 and 2005), is intended to provide local governmental units with the tools necessary to
create comprehensive plans, make more informed decisions, and encourage agencies to create
more balanced land use rules and policies.
This law was unusual because it was supported by a coalition of groups representing varying
interests. Groups such as the Wisconsin Towns Association, League of Wisconsin
Municipalities, the Wisconsin Alliance of Cities, Wisconsin Builders Association, Wisconsin
Counties Association, and the Wisconsin Realtor's Association all supported the Smart Growth
legislation. In order to accomplish the goals of comprehensive planning, approximately $17
million in grant funds have been awarded since 2000 to assist local governments in
the development of local comprehensive plans. The grants are awarded to local governments,
tribes, and regional planning commissions.
Some comprehensive planning may have been done at the county level. As a result by the end
of 2006, while there are 1260 townships in Wisconsin, only 43 received grants directly, as much
of their comprehensive planning efforts have been contributed through county comprehensive
planning committees. Thirty-four of Wisconsin's 72 counties have 'received comprehensive
planning grants. In addition, 32 of the state's 190 cities and 25 of Wisconsin's villages have
received grants. Finally, Wisconsin is divided into 9 regional planning authorities; four of these
RPA's have received grants. In all, between 2000 and 2007, over 960 communities in Wisconsin
have benefited from this grant program.
The law, as passed in Wisconsin, prescribes certain elements to be included in a
Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the EPA recommendations. The contents of a local
comprehensive plan are specified in nine elements. While a local government may choose to
include additional elements, a comprehensive plan must include at least all of the following nine
elements:
1. Issues and Opportunities
2. Housing
3. Transportation
4. Utilities and Community Facilities
5. Economic Development
6. Agricultural, Natural and Cultural Resources
7. Economic Development
8. Intergovernmental Cooperation
9. Implementation
Wisconsin's Comprehensive Planning law establishes certain minimum requirements that a
community must follow during the preparation, review, and adoption of a Comprehensive Plan.
Whether the Plan Commission or a subcommittee (a Comprehensive Planning Committee)
prepared the document, the law requires that the Plan Commission must recommend adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan in order that it progresses to the Common Council, Village Board, or
Town Board. These entities must then adopt the plan by ordinance. Once accepted, the
legislation also requires that a Comprehensive Plan be periodically reviewed and updated every
ten years. Amendments and revisions can be made during this time frame. However, they need
to follow the same procedures as were followed in adopting the original plan: the planning
commission needs to recommend and the Common Council, Village Board, or Town Board must
then adopt the amendments by ordinance.I
The creation of a Planning Commission is dependent on the local form of government (for
example, a town or a city). In a City, according to state statute, the council of any city may by
ordinance create a "City Plan Commission," to consist of at least 7 members. All members of
the commission shall be appointed by the mayor, who shall also choose the presiding officer.
The mayor may choose to sit pn the commission or may nnnoint anv other city elected or
officials, except that the commission shall always have at least 3 citizen members who are
neither paid nor elected. Citizen members shall be persons of recognized experience and
qualifications. A township will have a plan commission consisting of at least 5 members;
villages have few guidelines or requirements to follow.
While the community may elect to have the plan commission serve as the comprehensive
planning committee, this is not necessary. Due to the work load already placed on these citizen
members, the delegation of labor is often preferable. Since the size of the comprehensive
planning committee is not statutory (they ultimately report to the planning commission), many
comprehensive planning committees have more than 7 members. As this paper shows, the
committees are comprised of a variety of members, from planning professionals, citizens, elected
officials and consultants ranging from 4 to 24 members.
Unlike prior definitions, the "Comprehensive Plan" as defined by the Smart Growth law (s.
55.1001) applies uniformly to all cities, villages, towns and counties in Wisconsin. The
Comprehensive planning law (s. 66.1001) does not mandate how a local municipality should
grow, rather it requires public participation at the local level in deciding how a municipality
wants to look in the future, and that can mean simply preserving characteristics a municipality
has today.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The agency effect of public participation creates an environment in which committees are
accountable to the public they serve. In this environment, the agents have an incentive to
For further details on Smart Growth Initiatives, including case studies see
http: / /www.smartizrowth.or /lg ibraa /projects.asp ?res =1400 or visit the portion of the EPA (Environmental
Protection Agency) website devoted to smart growth at hiip://www.epa.jzov/dced/.
maximize their own (or their groups) well being rather than the communities' overall well being.
Thus the agency effect suggests that people do things for purely personal reasons that do not
necessarily serve the public interest. Comprehensive plans developed by consultants and
implemented by paid planners run the risk of serving the interests of their authors. Public
participation, while creating an additional avenue of potential for agency effect, broadens the
available interests that offer ideas and input.
Public participation enables citizens to shape planning decisions and outcomes while
increasing their sense of social and political empowerment (Laurian, 2004). Crucial to the
argument of public participation is the development of accountability and democracy within the
process (Healey, 1992). One natural perk of public participation is the inclusion of lay
knowledge (Forester, 1999) and community awareness. This knowledge and visibility improves
public support for policies (Bickerstaff and Walker, 2001). Evolving out of this premise is the
fundamental question regarding the makeup and size of these committees.
The idea of public participation is a question of how and why they participate (Laurian, 2004)
as well as the impact of the content of the comprehensive plans (Berke and Conroy, 2000) on
participation have been addressed in prior literature. This paper focuses rather on the outcome
of participation by bureaucrats, citizens, and elected officials, paid or unpaid, and how it may
lead to plan success. One of the original premises of this paper evolves from an article on the
design of small decision making groups and the probability of accurate outcomes
(www.intuitor.com, 1996). The authors argue that larger does not result in more accurate results.
For example, a firm may find that offering a wider variety of products does not ensure success.
It rather offers more opportunities for failure at the individual level. The paper also argues that
larger groups create a problem in managing communications.
This paper seeks to estimate policy success by modeling the relationship between committee
size and plan accuracy. The idea of large committees is supported by intuitive ideas. Large
committees provide an opportunity for each member to learn from each other and pool the
judgment of different individuals (Lombadelli, Proudman, and Talbot, 2002). This idea,
combined with the Condorcet Jury TheoremZ suggests that committees should be very large.
Persico (1999) contends that the standard model is based on the idea that if each committee
member contributes private information, increasing the number of committee members helps the
decision making process.
However, Persico continues that with larger committees evolves a less engaged committee
member, prone to free riding on the others efforts. Also, each additional member feels less
responsible for the ultimate decision. As a result, it can be argued that small committees may be
more accurate.
Employing the rule of large numbers, it can be observed that, if high - quality members are
scarce, adding members to a high quality small committee will simply lower the average quality
of the membership. This could be more problematic in smaller communities, especially if the
more qualified members are the first selected. In voting schemes requiring majority rule, the
addition of lower quality members, combined with the possibility of free riding, creates a
scenario worth examining.
The contribution of this paper is to look at these issues in an applied fashion. According to
the argument and the models, the development of committees creates two hurdles. The first is
2 If each committee member has an independent probability greater than %z of making the correct decision, then the probability
that the majority of the committee makes the correct decision increases with the number of members (Grofman and Owen, 1986).
This is based on the expectation that individuals are more likely (perhaps 60 %) to be correct than to be incorrect (perhaps 40 %).
the increased likelihood that a large committee will confront a sensible and positive solution.
However, due to the noise created through the multiple answers developed in a large format, this
solution may be drowned out by the noise. As a result, this paper looks at recent policy and the
corresponding committee size. Finally, using the results of the regression equation, the question
of an optimal committee size is addressed.
DATA AND METHODOLOGY
The data for this model initiated with a list provided by the Wisconsin Department of
Administration of all communities who had filed comprehensive plans with the state of
Wisconsin between the years 2002 and 2004. This ensured that the communities surveyed had
seasoned their plans with actual service to the community. In addition, the Department of
Administration provided input regarding the question design and the quality metric. The one-
page survey and explanatory letter was sent to 489 individuals who were identified in the
completed plans as participants.
The survey itself was divided into five sections. The first was respondent's basic
demographic information, most importantly how many years they had served as a community
planner or as an elected official. The theory being that elected officials and bureaucrats have
different levels of accountability to the citizens they represent. The second question identified
demographic characteristics for their community. The third question focused on issues of
con Ij1'11liP A, dryn and dec.sion marking style, including a ctnlit batwePn volts teers, elected
members, and bureaucrats. The fourth question probed the plan authorship and funding. The
final question was to find out how they perceived the plan to be working.
The fifth question has three parts. The initial part asked if the plan is referred to when
decisions are currently being made. The assumption here is that, as a living document, the plan
is integral to current decision making. Secondly, we asked how often exceptions are made to the
plan. Finally, committee members were asked how long before the plan is expected to need
revision. If exceptions are regularly being made or the community is already considering
revision, the plan itself was not perceived to be of high quality. This analysis assigned points to
these measures of quality3. This provided a quality measure based on all three questions ranging
in value from a low of 3 to a high of 30.
Surveys were mailed on Marquette University letterhead by the Department of
Administration and returned to UW Whitewater. Of the 489 surveys mailed 152 were returned.
This provided a 31 % return rate where no incentive was given which is well within standard
expectations of respondents. Eight of the surveys had plans that were submitted to the state in
2004; those surveys were removed from the data because of the immaturity of the plans.
Unfortunately of those remaining respondents, only 82 answered the survey completely. Three
of those had unrealistic responses for committee size (i.e. greater than 90 members) and were
omitted.
3 Question number 5a: "Is plan regularly referred to when making decisions ?" Never =1, Sometimes =5, Always =10.
Question number 5b: "Frequency of exceptions to plan" never -10, one -four times =7, five -ten times =4, and more than 10 =1.
Question number 5c: "How many years do you expect will pass before the plan needs major revision ?" 5 years= 1, 10 years =5,
and 20 +years =10. The intent of these questions was to establish how usable the existing plans are with minimal room for a
personal opinion by the respondent.
Table 1
RELEVANT STATISTICS
The remaining79 respondents represented a wide variety of communities: 45 planners from
cities, 64 from townships, and 35 from villages. 57% of respondents stated that their decision
making rule was majority rule rather than consensus. In spite of smaller numbers of completed
data, the actual responses were quite representative of the communities in the state of Wisconsin
that have participated in the comprehensive planning process as measured by the Wisconsin
Planners database.
Table 2
COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS AND ORIGINAL DATABASE
Variable
Wisconsin Planners
Respondents
Std.
database
Variable Name
Obs.
Mean
Dev.
Min
Max
Description
Age
144
57.92
10.98
30
85
Age of respondent
years as cp
139
11.16
9.59
0
43
Years served as a
community planner
years as eo
133
4.80
6.94
0
30
Years served as an elected
Represented
official
Commsize
118
8.59
3.65
4
24
Committee Size
Pct Bureaucrats
100
28.37
37.65
0
100
Percent of Committee that
are paid but not elected
The sum of point values
Quality metric4
126
18.26
4.87
3
30
earned by the quality
questions (see appendix
footnote)
The remaining79 respondents represented a wide variety of communities: 45 planners from
cities, 64 from townships, and 35 from villages. 57% of respondents stated that their decision
making rule was majority rule rather than consensus. In spite of smaller numbers of completed
data, the actual responses were quite representative of the communities in the state of Wisconsin
that have participated in the comprehensive planning process as measured by the Wisconsin
Planners database.
Table 2
COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS AND ORIGINAL DATABASE
Variable
Wisconsin Planners
Respondents
State of Wisconsin
database
City
153
31.3%
23
29.1%
190
11%
Village
113
23.1%
21
26.6%
402
22%
Town
223
45.6%
35
44.3%
1260
67%
Counties
30
15
72
Represented
RESULTS
The ordinary least squares (OLS) econometric equation of interest was constructed to explain
the value of the perceived quality metric in terms of Committee size, committee size squared,
years as community planner, years as elected official, population and governance dummies, and
the percent of paid, unelected individuals on the planning commission.
This commonly employed technique allows us to understand whether or not the variables in
the function have an impact on the variable quality metric and if that impact is significantly
different from zero. The model was run twice. First we found the result without any weighting
for potential distortions from committees with large sizes. Second, we used analytical weights to
adjust for the possible impact of too many responses from the same community which would be
the result of too many planners from that community responding to our survey.
Table 3
RVGRFSSinN FSTiMATFS OF OIJAIATV METRIC
Independent Variable
Unwei hted
Weighted
Committee Size
1.78 * **
1.16*
0.66
0.65)
Committee Size Squared
- 0.081 * **
- 0.047*
0.03
0.024
Years as a Community Planner
-0.06
-0.084
0.06
0.057
Years as an Elected Official
0.15*
0.11
0.08
0.092
Population Indicator
-3.17*
-1.40
1.70
2.77
City or Town Indicator
.94
1.98*
1.32
1.18
Percentage of Commission Paid but not elected
.05 * **
0.049 * **
0.01
0.016
Constant
9.99 * **
10.094*
3.45
3.79
Adjusted -R squared
0.2406
0.2429
F -stat
3.75 * **
4.58 * **
Notes:
* indicates significance at 10% level
* ** indicates significance at the 1% level
The most crucial variable to find significant is the committee size and its square. Both of
these were found to have an impact on the quality metric. Committee size was found to have a
positive impact on perceived quality, whereas its square was not. That suggests that increasing
committee size is a good thing up to a point; the identification of that point is the subject of the
next section of this paper.
There are four other significant variables are of interest. The years as an elected official
variable confirms the positive relationship expected between the quality of the plan and an
elected official's institutional and community knowledge; however, it is only a small
improvement in quality. Small communities, less than 10,000 residents, produce a lower
perceived quality metric; this is anticipated due to limited resources available to direct to the
writing of the plan. This is reflected by both the population indicator dummy and the city or
town indicator variable, as negative would indicate smaller population for the former and
positive would indicate a smaller town for the latter.
Finally, the percent of paid but not elected members on the commission produce a small
positive impact on the perceived quality; this is consistent with the historic and educational
capital that they bring to the process. This result supports the idea that paid consultants provide a
positive component to the planning process.
Optimal Committee Size Calculation
Econometric theory suggests that the optimal number of a variable is produced by
incorporating the variable and its square into the model. Once regressed into an equation, the
first derivative should be calculated and set equal to zero. In such a maximization regression, the
key is the signs of the coefficients for the variable in question (committee size) and its square. It
is important that committee size is both significant and positive, while its square is significant
and negative. In both versions of the model we have achieved this requirement. Using the
coefficients for committee size and its square, we can absorb all of the other variables into the
constant resulting in the following equation:
[1] Quality metric = Constant + 1.78 *Committee Size — 0.081 *Committee Size
The first derivative of this function results in:
[2] 6(Quality metric) / b (committee size) = 1.78 * 0.162 *Committee Size
Finally, setting this equation equal to zero results in an optimal committee size of 10.98
members. Thus the size predicted by our model is 11 commission members. In other words, to
maximize the perception of success of the plan by the commission, there should be 11 members
on the committee.
CONCLUSION
Comprehensive planning commissions can be composed in a variety of forms and types of
members. Research theories suggest that there should exist an optimal size for a decision
making body. The findings presented here are consistent with the theory. The linear regression
model results in significant, opposite, and correct signs for the committee size variables,
allowing us to conclude that the optimal committee size for a comprehensive planning
commission should be 11 members. The research further suggests that both experienced elected
officials and paid consultants have a positive impact on the perceived quality of the plan. This
could help to facilitate costly decisions for small town planners.
The goal of the Wisconsin Comprehensive Planning law is to manage development and to
guarantee public participation in the process with the intent of creating plans that are useful and
applicable as communities grow. Thus investigating the planners perceptions of successfulness
(i.e. How frequently the plan must be amended, how well growth is tied to the plan, etc.) relative
to the composition of the decision making body should attest to the quality of the plans and
therefore the importance of the law itself. The focus of this work is just the beginning. Several
more years will need to pass before it is possible to evaluate whether the investment of state
funds to support local comprehensive planning has been effective. Effectiveness depends not
only on the quality of plans, but also on public awareness of their content and intent, and on the
commitment of successive local government administrations to their implementation.
REFERENCES
Berke, P. R. and M. M. Conroy, (2000). Are we planning for sustainable development. Journal
of the American Planning Association 66(1), 21 -33.
Bickerstaff, K. and G. Walker, (2001). Participatory local governance and transport planning.
Environment and Planning, 33(3), 431 -452.
Forester, J., (1999). The logistics of public participation in environmental assessment.
International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 11(3), 316 -330.
Healey, P., (1993). European urban planning systems: Diversity and convergence. Urban
Studies, 30(5), 701 -720.
"How to set up small groups for decision making ".(1996). Intuitor Resources, website:
http://www.intuitor.com/statistics/SmallGroups.html.
Laurian, L., (2004). Public participation in environmental decision making. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 70(1), 53 -65.
Lombardelli, C., J. Proudman, and J. Talbot, (2002). Committees vs. individuals: An
experimental analysis of monetary policy decision - making. Working Paper 165. Bank of
England. ISSN 1368 -5562.
Persico, N., (2004). Committee design with endogenous information. Review of Economic Studies,
71(1), 165 -192.
Appendix A:
2005 Comprehensive Planning Survey
You have been asked to complete the following research survey. It should take approximately 10 minutes
for you to complete the survey. The following survey, sent to communities that fled their
Comprehensive Plans with the Wisconsin DOA during 2002 and 2003, is designed to investigate how
valuable the process of completing these plans were to the communities they were designed to serve.
Your responses are strictly anonymous and your participation is completely voluntary. By completing the
survey, you are giving your permission to the researcher to use your anonymous responses for use at
professional meetings and in research publications. Thank you for your participation.
1. Please tell us some basic information about yourself:
Are you: ❑ Male ❑ Female
Current age:
Years involved in community planning:
Years spent as an elected official:
2. Please tell us a bit about your community:
Estimated population: ❑ 0 —10,000 ❑ 11,000-50,000 ❑ > 50,000
Is your community: ❑ City ❑ Town ❑ Village
3. Tell us about your Planning Commission:
a. Did you reach your decision by:
❑ majority rule ❑ consensus
b. # of voting members
C. % elected
d. % volunteers
e. % paid and not elected (these 3 should equal 100 %)
4. Tell us about your Plan
a. % developed by consultants
b. % taken from previous plans
c. Length of time taken to pass (in terms of hours of meeting time):
d. % of plan paid by local funds only.
5. How well is the plan working?
a. Is plan regularly referred to when making decisions?
❑ never ❑ sometimes ❑ always
b. Frequency of exceptions to plan
❑ never ❑ one -four times ❑ five — ten times ❑ more than 10 times
c. How many years do you expect will pass before the plan needs major revision?
❑ 5 years ❑ 10 years ❑ 20+ years