California Integrated Waste Management Board

 

Partnership 2000 Home

Annual Conference

History

Work Groups

Current Steering Committee

New Initiatives

LEA Central

Partnership 2000

1999 (August) Evaluation Summary of Third Annual Conferenc

 

Subject Areas Excellent Okay Poor Your Comments
Location 36 0 0 Best site picked, next time would like somewhere coastal, loved the place
Registration 30 6 0 Very efficient, thanks for having rooms ready early, very accommodating
Accessibility 30 5 0 Easy to get to for those in Sacramento
Ambience 33 3 0 Bears were a nice added attraction, mountain and lake ambience was special
Room Accommodations 18 15 3 Excellent, Beds too small, lodge is fabulous, don't want to share rooms, double rooms lacked a second bed (2), rooms were too warm
Food 35 1 0 Great food, quantity was abundant, almost too rich, better than excellent (2)
Cleanliness 27 9 0 Needs some cleaning, well maintained, odors
Amenities 26 8 0 Hot tub and pool were nice
What would you change about the facility?
  • Provide comfortable gathering places
  • Larger beds (2)
  • Would change nothing (7)
  • Add more outside lighting
  • Fill the paper towel dispensers
  • Lodging rooms were awkward
  • Non twin beds for couples
  • Fix hot water, was too sporadic
  • Program Activities Expectation: Benefit: Importance:
    Satisfaction Level Relevance to Job
    Low

    High

    Low

    High

    Low

    High

    Booths/Tables 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
    Clean-up Programs 1 3 13 6 2 5 8 7 1 3 10 8
    Video Surveillance 1 3 15 5 3 4 9 6 2 4 10 7
    Gas Monitoring 1 2 8 7 0 3 4 11 0 3 6 9
    LEA Training Program 2 3 7 5 2 1 8 5 2 0 7 9
    EAC 2 4 8 3 2 4 7 4 2 1 11 5
    Evaluations 3 3 8 4 3 2 7 5 2 0 9 5
    Tires 1 6 6 8 2 5 6 7 1 3 11 5
    EPP/Grants 1 3 11 5 0 4 8 5 0 6 5 8
    Board Info. Management 3 2 12 2 2 1 11 2 2 1 9 5
    Y2K 1 4 14 4 1 3 11 6 1 4 10 5
    CCDEH 1 3 16 4 1 2 11 6 1 5 10 5
    Computer Quiz 1 2 8 3 2 3 4 4 2 3 5 5
    Expert Panels
    Permits 0 1 8 7 0 1 6 7 0 2 5 9
    Enforcement 0 1 5 6 0 1 7 4 0 2 4 8
    CEQA 0 3 6 7 0 1 5 10 0 2 6 10
    EPP 1 4 4 5 1 2 5 4 1 3 4 6
    Computers 2 4 4 5 0 3 2 5 0 3 4 4
    Closure 0 1 5 7 0 1 4 5 0 2 4 8

     

    Program Activities Expectation: Benefit: Importance:
    Satisfaction Level Relevance to Job
    Low

    High

    Low

    High

    Low

    High

    Expert Panels 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
    SMS Panel #1
    Nuances of Nuisances
    1 0 2 2 1 0 2 2 1 1 1 2
    SMS Panel #2
    24hr Cleaning TS
    3 1 4 2 3 2 4 1 4 1 4 1
    CEQA Panel #1
    Level of Analysis
    6 3 7 6 5 3 6 7 2 4 5 11
    CEQA Panel #2
    Board and LEA Roles
    1 0 4 5 1 1 2 5 1 1 2 6
    Mini-talks
    Best Mgmt. Practices 0 2 7 5 0 1 8 5 0 1 8 5
    Trans. Station Permits 0 0 7 7 0 0 7 7 0 0 7 7
    Y2K 0 1 4 4 0 1 4 4 0 0 4 5
    Operator Certification 0 1 8 5 0 2 4 8 0 2 3 9
    Organics 0 1 5 8 0 0 7 7 0 0 6 8
    Landfill Gas 0 3 10 8 0 1 11 12 0 2 10 12
    Health & Safety MOU 0 1 3 7 0 1 1 7 0 2 2 6
    Burn Dumps 0 2 3 5 0 1 4 5 0 1 4 5
    Final Talks
    SWIS Database Talk 2 1 8 4 1 3 6 6 1 4 6 5
    CA/Mex. Border Issues 1 3 5 3 4 3 3 1 2 3 4 2

    The percent of time that should be spent on the following program formats
    Lecture/Mini-talks 27%
    Training Sessions 21%
    Workshops/Hands-on 15%
    Demos 6%
    Field Trips 4%
    Poster Board Session 3%
    Networking Activities 15%
    Free time 4%
    Outings 5%

    Total

    100%

    Additional Comments 

     

    Last updated: November 01, 2007


    Partnership 2000 http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Part2000/
    Melissa Hoover-Hartwick: mhoover@ciwmb.ca.gov  (916) 341-6813