Ohio.gov State Agencies  |  Online Services
Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Sign In
   
View: 

1. I would be in favor of the following approach to local agency leadership of the ORIL Board:

 Board-elected Chair with a 1-year term.
 (27%) 
 
 Board-elected Chair with a 1-year term; renewable to 2 years (max.) by mutual approval with the Board.
 (27%) 
 
 Board-elected Chair (1-year term) and Vice Chair (1-year term); with Vice Chair in line to become the next Chair (pending formal approval from the Board).
 (40%) 
 
 No preference.
 (7%) 
 

Total: 15

2. When voting for changes to the board's standard operating procedures, the preference for how the vote will be handled is:

 Roll Call Vote
 (20%) 
 
 Consensus of the Board Members Present
 (13%) 
 
 Consensus unless there is a split, then Chair will call for a Roll Call vote
 10 (67%) 
 

Total: 15

3. The Board may opt to use online voting as needed for various votes.

 Yes
 15 (100%)  
 No
 (0%)  

Total: 15

4. What types of decisions do you feel could be made through online voting?

 change in calendar
 (7%) 
 
 Any actions deemed necessary by the Chair and/or ODOT technical liaison(s) whereupon the Board cannot be assembled within a reasonable timeframe. Certain administrative actions(s) required by the Board where the Chair and/or ODOT technical liaison(s) approve online voting.
 (7%) 
 
 With majority of the baord comfortable, anything. I think this will take time to determine.
 (7%) 
 
 All
 (7%) 
 
 Priority of research ideas and some policies/procedures of the Board. I would hope there would still be room for online questions/comments/discussion prior to the voting.
 (7%) 
 
 Most decisions with the exception of any officer elections and project or researcher selection.
 (7%) 
 
 Any
 (7%) 
 
 we'll know them when we see them
 (7%) 
 
 Scoring of previously discussed projects.
 (7%) 
 
 Minor issues, but not including major decisions such as proposal review and final selection, by law changes, etc.
 (7%) 
 
 not sure, would like a list of options
 (7%) 
 
 I am not sure I have a good feel for what decisions we will be deciding. I believe at least our administrative decisions could be done online.
 (7%) 
 
 All types as long as there is sufficient information presented for review.
 (7%) 
 
 I think this will need to be determined farther into the process. I think many things will fall into this category once we have an established process.
 (7%) 
 
 nearly all decisons.
 (7%) 
 

Total: 15

5. Please select one individual to be the ORIL Board Chairperson for the first year.

 Greg Butcher
 15 (100%)  

Total: 15

6. In general, Board meetings will be

 Closed for members only
 10 (67%) 
 
 Open for the public to attend
 (33%) 
 

Total: 15

7. Board meetings where idea selection and researcher selection will occur should be:

 Closed for members only
 (60%) 
 
 Open for the public to attend
 (40%) 
 

Total: 5

8. The Board will establish strategic research focus areas, which research ideas must be responsive to in order to be considered for funding.

 Yes
 13 (87%) 
 
 No
 (13%) 
 

Total: 15

9. If the Board selects to have Strategic Research Focus areas, the areas should be updated as frequently as:

 Once a year
 (62%) 
 
 Once every two years
 (38%) 
 
 Once every three years
 (0%)  

Total: 13

10. How often do you feel ORIL should formally solicit ideas from the locals?

 Once a year
 11 (73%) 
 
 Twice a year
 (20%) 
 
 Quarterly
 (7%) 
 

Total: 15

11. The Board will formally consider research ideas for funding as frequently as:

 Once a year
 (60%) 
 
 Twice a year
 (27%) 
 
 Quarterly
 (13%) 
 

Total: 15

12. The Board will issue RFPs for the research ideas selected as frequently as:

 Once a year
 (60%) 
 
 Twice a year
 (33%) 
 
 Quarterly
 (7%) 
 

Total: 15

13. RFPs will be developed by:

 The Board
 (20%) 
 
 The submitter of the idea
 (0%)  
 A Technical Advisory Committee
 12 (80%) 
 

Total: 15

14. The Board should establish and approve (for all projects sponsored by ORIL) a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to monitor the technical progress of individual projects:

 Yes
 15 (100%)  
 No
 (0%)  

Total: 15

15. If yes, the TAC must include at a minimum:  (multiple choices permitted)

 The submitter of the original idea
 (0%)  
 One ORIL board member
 (7%) 
 
 One ODOT staff member (not necessarily a board member)
 (0%)  
 One ORIL board member; One ODOT staff member (not necessarily a board member)
 (13%) 
 
 One ORIL board member; one project advocate
 (7%) 
 
 The submitter of the original idea; One ORIL board member; One ODOT staff member (not necessarily a board member)
 (40%) 
 
 The submitter of the original idea; One ORIL board member
 (20%) 
 
 The submitter of the original idea; One ORIL board member; could be anyone with specific knowledge of the problem and potential solution - ODOT or not
 (7%) 
 
 The submitter of the original idea; One ODOT staff member (not necessarily a board member); a subject matter expert not necessarily ODOT
 (7%) 
 

Total: 15

16. The Board will conduct focus groups for the purpose of soliciating ideas and marketing the program as frequently as:

 Once a year
 (53%) 
 
 Twice a year
 (40%) 
 
 Quarterly
 (7%) 
 

Total: 15

17. Please provide any other feedback you feel would be important for this survey.

 cool
 (7%) 
 
 It may be necessary for the Board to meet more frequently in the beginning stages of the ORIL process, perhaps monthly.
 (7%) 
 
 Glad to see this progressing
 (7%) 
 
 N/A
 (7%) 
 
 The Board must be flexible at the begining to see what works best to obtain ideas, establish good RFPs, and to recieve quality proposals to the RFPs. Lastly we must assure excellent research results in order to move ORIL forward long term.
 (7%) 
 
 Especially early on, the board will need to be flexible with its processes.
 (7%) 
 
 None
 (13%) 
 
 i think we get the word out by communicating with our own entities. greater accessibility and working knowledge within our own associations.
 (7%) 
 
 None.
 (7%) 
 
 It is critical that focus areas be identified that may address common issues faced by locals. In this way, the research fund can be leveraged to benefit multiple government departments. Further, RFP writing could be done by a Technical Advisory Committee to reduce the Board's total responsibility.
 (7%) 
 
 some of this was hard to bring to life at this point, so I think we need to re-group in a year to see what is and isn't working
 (7%) 
 
 no additional feedback
 (7%) 
 
 I think we need to revisit these procedures periodically as we move through the process to reevaluate their necessity and/or desired frequency
 (7%) 
 
 Important for board to be very flexible, gather support and promote program. Don't want any locals to miss opportunity for research, problem solving, cost savings or efficiency improvements.
 (7%) 
 

Total: 15

18. Submitter Name:

 Greg Butcher, PE
 (7%) 
 
 Warren Schlatter
 (7%) 
 
 Leo Shanayda
 (7%) 
 
 Eris Steinberg
 (7%) 
 
 Jack Noble
 (7%) 
 
 John MacAdam
 (7%) 
 
 steve luebbe
 (7%) 
 
 Terry Lively
 (7%) 
 
 Robert Liang
 (7%) 
 
 Bill Lozier
 (7%) 
 
 Edward J. Meixner
 (7%) 
 
 Paul Schmelzer
 (7%) 
 
 Anna Kuzmich
 (7%) 
 
 Mitch Blackford
 (7%) 
 

Total: 14