The meeting began with an update from Dr. Brett on the ongoing study of the CIP process, emphasizing the importance of community engagement and equitable access. Dr. Brett highlighted the study’s methodology, which included data analysis from the Office of Financial Services and interviews with stakeholders such as city council members and applicants. Participants noted a divide between “insiders” familiar with the process and those who are not.

A noteworthy tool introduced during the discussion was a story map, combining data mapping with narrative elements. This tool aims to provide insights into applications and funding decisions over time. Dr. Brett expressed enthusiasm for its potential, presenting screenshots of the interface for committee members to explore.

The committee acknowledged the need to balance community engagement with the practicalities of the application process. Acknowledging past criticisms of exclusionary practices, recent changes were noted to have potentially weakened community involvement. Addressing uneven representation in decision-making remains a priority, with the upcoming report expected to offer actionable recommendations based on stakeholder feedback.

Ownership and clarity within the application and community engagement processes were also prominent topics. Questions arose regarding the delineation of responsibility among different segments involved, highlighting the need for clarity and further discussions with the mayor’s office. Leveraging established communication methods to enhance public involvement was proposed, emphasizing accountability and transparency.

The committee discussed the timeline for the final report, anticipating a draft by April 4 and a final version by the end of April. Feedback will be solicited before finalization. Concurrently, the community adviser vacancy was addressed, with a proposed application deadline of April 2 and potential interviews on April 29. Streamlining the review process and improving application clarity were concerns, with suggestions to notify committee members about incoming applications during the submission window.

The application process for audit committee candidates was scrutinized, particularly the decision to remove the requirement for a resume and cover letter. Concerns were raised about whether current questions effectively gauge candidates’ skills and experiences. Suggestions included refining questions to assess candidates’ familiarity with audit-related topics and incorporating multiple-choice elements to capture preferences for qualitative versus quantitative data.

Understanding candidates’ motivations for joining the audit committee was stressed, with a proposed question to temper expectations and clarify intentions. Participants advocated for prompts or examples in the application to guide responses.

Efforts to engage the community were also discussed, with planned meetings with district councils and organizations like the Southeast Community Organization and the North Frogtown Neighborhood Association. Extending invitations for the May meeting when the final report is presented was proposed to enhance community involvement and feedback.

The committee discussed future audit topic selection, considering a suggestion from the mayor’s office concerning compliance with the Data Practices Act. Previous discussions on staff salary studies and police overtime were acknowledged but not prioritized for the upcoming cycle. Compiling a list of potential audit topics from past discussions and community surveys was emphasized to ensure a thorough approach to topic selection.