Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2001-10-23 Info Packet of 10/18
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET october 8,200t I MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS I IP1 Memorandum from City Manager: Ridership of Routes Changed August 27, 2001 IP2 Memorandum from City Manager: Police Community Relations and the Iowa City Schools IP3 Memorandum from City Manager: CALEA Update IP4 Memorandum from City Manager: Public Intoxication Arrests IP5 Memorandum from Economic Development Coordinator to City Manager: Business Financial Assistance Information IP6 Memorandum from Senior Center Coordinator to City Manager: Senior Center 28E Review Committee Update IP7 Letter from John Moreland (Arlington Development, Inc.) to City Manager: Appreciation of Housing & Inspection Services Staff IP8 Memorandum from Assistant City Manager to Council Member Kanner: Appeal to the Iowa City Board of Appeals by Sycamore Mall IP9 Memorandum from City Clerk to Staff of City Boards and Commissions: Open Meeting Requirements IP10 Memorandum from City Clerk: October 8 Council Work Session IPll Letter from David Brown (Hayek, Hayek, Brown, and Moreland, L.L.P.) to City Clerk: Southgate Development Company, Inc. v. the City of Iowa City, Iowa IP12 Memorandum from Police Sgt. Mike Brotherton to City Manager and Police Chief: September Off Premise Alcohol Sales Report IP13 Letter from Council Member Kanner to Carol Thompson (JC Board of Supervisors): Jail (Full copy at end of this Info Packet) IPl4 Minutes: August 16 Public Access Television Letter from Greg Hall: Case #200109565 Letter from Carol DeProsse: Informative Talk Tonight Letter from Carol DeProsse: Counter-terrorism November 30, 2001 Information Packet (continued) 2 Letter from Council Members Kanner to Carol Thompson (JC Board of Supervisors): Jail (Full set of documents on file in Clerk's Office.) Best copies available. City of Iowa City °"I_ MEMORANDUM Date: October 15, 2001 To: City Council From: City Manager Re: Ridership of Routes Changed August 27, 2001 At the start of the fall semester at the University of Iowa, the Department of Parking and Transit instituted ¼ hour midday service on the Towncrest and Oakcrest Routes and changed the Mall Route to provide service to Scott Boulevard and Heinz Road. The Department reports there has been a 34% increase in ridership on the Oakcrest Route and an 11% increase on both the Towncrest and Mall Routes. Since no additional service was added to the Mall Route, an 11% increase in ridership was surprising after just over I month. The 34% increase in ridership for the Oakcrest is encouraging. Hopefully we can maintain or even increase on that over the course of the year. cc: Joe Fowler City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: October 16, 2001 To: City Council From: City Manager Re: Police Community Relations and Iowa City Schools As you know the Iowa City Community School District (ICCSD) has decided to, change its curriculum from the DARE Program to the "Michigan Model Health Curriculum". The Michigan Model Health Curriculum is a "Scope and Sequence" Health Program that extends beyond drug use and abuse. There are ten different topics (Scopes) that focus not only on Safety & First Aid Education (Seat Belt use, bicycle safety, etc.) and Substance Abuse ("say no", drug identification, etc), but extends a child's education to include Nutrition, Family Health, Consumer Health, Community Health, Emotional & Mental Health, to name a few. Each of these "Scopes" are prepared in a "Sequence" that is age specific and each year builds on the previous year's lessons. At this time the Michigan Model is in place in all K-6 grades in the ICCSD. The program is in the "pilot" phase in selected 7~8-9th grades. The Iowa City Police Dept. is working with ICCSD Staff to help determine ways that our officers will participate in the classrooms in those grades. The Iowa City Police will continue their commitment to serve as a resoume for the ICCSD as it implements the "Michigan Model". The ICCSD is asking members from the community to work together in concert with ICCSD staff to open new avenues of "community participation" by being active in the classrooms. This group is called the "Community Resource Team". The Iowa City Police Dept. is a charter member of this team. Teachers can utilize members of the Community Resource Team to come into the classroom and present, co-present, or assist in other ways to give our students the opportunity to discover other "assets" the community has to offer. The overall effort is to help students build self-esteem and create strong assets of their own to help them make safe and healthy life choices. Our Police/Community Relations Officer will be working to promote a positive environment for officer participation in the Michigan Model. October 16, 2001 Page 2 The Community Relations Officer will coordinate and encourage officers to stop by schools in their assigned areas of patrol and introduce themselves to the Principal and Office Manager. This will assist school officials to recognize officers in the event of an emergency. Officers will visit playgrounds and simply have a conversation with students comfortable with this approach. As the trust builds, the officer will be "invited" by the students in to "play". This will give the officer a chance to build a positive relationship with students and teachers. The simple concept of presence will lead to a more relaxed and friendly atmosphere for students to approach officers. As the officers then participate in the classroom, they will already be a common sight in and around the building. In order to help officers prepare for classroom presentations, we are working with the ICCSD to develop a training session to give the officers a general understanding of the Michigan Model Curriculum and provide skills, to better assist teachers in the classroom. Also in conjunction with officer interest, we would like to match officer parents with their children's school. This would allow the students to see "Johnny's Dad / Morn" as a person as well as a Police Officer. As the requests from the schools are made the Community Relations Officer will attempt to send officers to the schools who have children attend that school. Regina Elementary has chosen to keep the DARE Program. The Officer is involved with staff in preparation for the upcoming DARE Session. There are three 6th grade classes in this year's program and the first lesson is scheduled for October 5th. The three classes will require a little more that one half day. Time for interaction with the students at recess or lunch remains a very important aspect of the class. cc: Chief of Police mg~memos\commrelatiens.doc City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: October 15, 2001 To: City Council From: City Manager Re: CALEA Update As you may recall, our police department has been actively involved in seeking accreditation from CALEA. This work effort has extended over the last several years. The Iowa City Police Department is tentatively set for a Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) on-site review Dec. 15-19, 2001. CALEA was developed and formed under the guidance of the following organizations, International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), National Sheriffs Association (NSA), The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) and The National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE). While the accreditation process has been lengthy, it has been productive. The process has primarily consisted of the documentation of procedures/practices in use in the department in order to satisfy recognized standards. Practices and Procedures have also been reviewed by the City's Legal Department. In June of 2001, five Assessors visited the Police Department and to perform a preliminary review of procedures and files relating to the 441 CALEA standards. Assessors are law enforcement professionals trained in the review and evaluation of departmental files associated with the standards. Each standard is assigned an individual file in which we place appropriate directives and documentation relating to the individual standards. The police department staff anticipates completion of the standards within the next three weeks. Mgr\memos\caleaupdate.doc City oflowa City ! MEMORANDUM Date: October 10, 2001 To: City Council From: City Manager Re: Public Intoxication Arrests I received community interest in a follow-up report to the recent memo on public intoxication arrests. The earlier memo was for the week of September 10 - 16. The following information is for the week of September 17 - 23. During that week there were seven incidents of public intox arrests. Of the seven incidents: 1. Average age was 27 years 2. Three were under age (less than 21 ) 3. Two refused field PBT 4. Average PBT was. 153 5. One was over .200 Additional offenses/charges incidental to public intox arrest: 1. Two were for fighting 2. Three could not control themselves, passed out, public urination 3. One interference in an OWl arrest rngr/mern/publintox2.doc City of Iowa City M MORANDUM Date: October 16, 2001 To: Steve Atkins, City Manager Re: n i i In response to a request from Council Kanner, I provided him with the following information: · Property Tax Assistance Directly Approved by Council - Active Projects · List of City-Sponsored CEBA and NJIP Applications · City Assessor's Report on Partial Industrial Property Tax Exemptions, August 3, 2001. Property Tax Assistance Directly Approved by Council Active Projects Estimated Total Estimated Total Tax Savings on Taxes Paid on Project Name Type of Property Tax Term of Property Tax Added Value of Added Value of Assistance Assistance Improvements for Improvements by Developer Over Developer Over Ten Years (1) Ten Years (1) Sycamore Mall TIF property tax rebate 7 years, 100% of assessed value $2,000,000 $640,000 (September 2000) Whiteway Building Urban Renewal property 3 years, 100% of assessed value $210,000 $494,000 210 S. Clinton Street tax exemption (January 2001) Grandview Terrace, Urban Renewal property 10 years, declining percentage of $195,000 $250,000 332 S. Linn Street tax exemption assessed value (November 2000) Owens-Brockway TIF property tax rebate 5 years, 100% of assessed value $696,000 $809,000 (October 2001 ) Seabury &Smith TIF property tax rebate 10 years, declining percentage of $781,000 $753,000 (October 2001 ) assessed value National Computer NJIP property tax 10 years, declining percentage $320,000 $406,000 Systems exemption (September 1998) (1) Debt service tax levies are not eligible for TIF property tax rebates \\cityn~dschoon$\FILES\Prspct\Tax Assistl Since January 2000.doc City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: March 15, 1999 To: Stephen J. Atkins, City Manager From: David Schoon, Economic Development Coordinato Re: City-Sponsored CEBA and NJIP Applications Attached is a summary highlighting the City's participation in sponsoring Community Economic Betterment Account (CEBA) applications and New Job and Income Program (NJIP) applications. The first part lists all of the CEBA and NJIP applications that the City has submitted to the State, whether or not the projects were awarded State funds. The second part provides detail on those projects that received State funds. Iowa City Projects Receiving Community Economic Betterment Account (CEBA) or New Jobs & Income Program (NJIP| Funds "Project Completion National Computers Systems - 1993 CEBA Project Pledged in Date" Figure or "Most (Project Has Been Closed Out) Application Recent Reporting" Figure Site &Building Investment ~6,720,000 99,775,000 Machinery & Equipment Investment 93,000,000 ~4,515,000 Total Number of Positions 800 FTEs 1000 FTEs* (*Approximately 75% are full-time positions) Average Hourly Wage for All Positions NA 917.87 "Project Completion Moore Business Forms - 1994 CEBA Project Pledged in Date" Figure or "Most (Project Will Be Closed Out This Spring) Application Recent Reporting" Figure Site &Building Investment 9534,000 9691,000 Machinery & Equipment Investment 9565,000 9573,000 Total Number of Positions 317 326 Average Hourly Wage for All Positions NA $14.21 OFFICE OF THE IOWA CITY ASSESSOR JOHNSON COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING DAN L. HUDSON ASSESSOR DENNISBALD~DGE DEPUTY CAROLY'NBURKE DEPUTY August 3, 2001 Mr. David Schoon Economic Development Coordinator City of Iowa City 410 E Washington St Iowa City IA 52240 Dear David, For your information, I am forwarding to you a list of the applicants for the Partial Industrial Exemption and the amount of the assessed value of same. I am also tabulating the full assessed value of the improvement for which the exemption is filed. From this tabulation, you can see that four eligible applicants filed for 2001. I know that you are interested in the taxes for the exemptions and I have included a copy of my calculations for the most recent year. The new levy for 2001-01 taxes payable in 2001-02 is 14.84983 for Iowa City. In addition to the Partial Industrial Exemptions, we now also have the Citizen Building L.P. Urban Revitalization Exemption which amounts to $968,310 for 2001, and the N.C.S New Jobs & Income Program which amounts to $1,055,000 for 2001. New for 2001 are two Urban Revitalization Exemptions, one for Gene L.C. at $346,330 and one for Marc Moen, etal at $1,011,560. Let me know if you need any further information. Sincerely, Dan L. Hudson Iowa City Assessor 913 SOUTH DUBUQUE STREET · POST OFFICE BOX 1350 · IOWA CITY IOWA 52244 TELEPHONE 319-356-6066 PARTIAL INDUSTRIAL EXEMPTIONS Amount of '01 Total Assessment Type of Application Exemption Added By Applicant Property Year (Assessed Value) Improvements Exemption Expired 1985-1996 $ -0- $ 24,729,090 Gringet Feed &Grain Industrial 1997 $ 8,310 55,400 2144 Old Hwy 218 S 1998 5,060 16,880 Lear Corporation Industrial 1997 $ 1,790 $ 11,940 2500 Hwy 6 E 1998 39,760 132,520 Blooming Prairie Warehouse Commercial 1997 $ 140,200 $ 934,660 2340 Heinz Rd Distrib Center 2000 85,800 143,000 2001 578,750 771,660 General Mills Industrial 1997 $ 3,320 $ 22,160 1854 S Riverside Dr 2000 10,420 17,360 2001 39,080 52,100 Proctor &Gamble Industrial 1998 $ 1,400 $ 4,670 2200 Lower Muscatine Rd 1999 35,380 78,620 2000 12,380 20,640 2001 100,110 133,480 RexamRelease Industrial 1998 $ 1,550 $ 5,180 2000 Industrial Park Rd Roberrs Dairy Industrial 1997 $ 27,430 $ 182,860 1 I09 N Dodge St Economy Advertising Industrial 1997 $ 1,540 $ 10,240 2800 Hwy 6 East Oral B Industrial 1997 $ 2,270 $ 15, 120 1832 Lower Muscatine Rd 1998 865,260 2,884, I90 1999 59,380 131,960 Buncher(P&G) Industrial 1997 $ 11,270 $ 75,150 2500 Heinz Rd 1999 48,830 108,500 Hieronymi Industrial 1997 $ 90,290 $ 601,940 2239 Heinz Rd 1998 211,760 705,870 Croell Industries Industrial 1999 $ 11,720 $ 26,040 3310 Old Hwy 218 S 2000 412,760 687,930 RussGerdin(P&G) Industrial 2001 $ 4,126,310 $ 5,501,750 2570-2610 Independence Rd TOTAL $ 6,932,130 $ 38,060,910 PARTIAL INDUSTRIAL 2000-01 TAXES --- PAYABLE 2001-02 Amount of '00 Iowa City Amount Remaining Iowa City Applicant Year Exemption Tax Saved Full Value To Pay Tax On Tax Paid Gfinger Feed & Grain 1997 $ 16,620 $ 246 $ 55,400 $ 38,780 $ 576 2144 Old Hwy 218 South 1998 7,600 112 16,880 9,280 138 Lear Corporation 1997 $ 3,580 $ 54 $ 11,940 $ 8,360 $ 124 2500 Hwy 6 East 1998 59,630 886 132,520 72,890 1,082 Blooming Prairie Warehouse 1996 $ 41,090 $ 610 $ 273,900 $ 232,810 $ 3,458 2340 Heinz Rd 1997 280,400 4,164 934,660 654,260 9,716 2000 107,250 1,592 143,000 35,750 530 GeneralMills 1996 $ 3,320 $ 50 $ 22,160 $ 18,840 $ 280 2309 Heinz Rd 1997 6,650 98 22,160 15,510 230 2000 13,020 194 17,360 4,340 64 Procter & Gamble 1996 $ 42,020 $ 624 $ 280,140 $ 238,120 $ 3,536 2200 Lower Muscatine Rd 1998 2,100 32 4,670 2,570 38 1999 47, 170 700 78,620 31,450 468 2000 15,480 230 20,640 5,160 76 RexamRelease 1998 $ 2,330 $ 34 $ 5,180 $ 2,850 $ 42 2000 Industrial Park Rd Roberos Dairy 1997 $ 54,860 $ 814 $ 182,860 $ 128,000 $ 1,900 1109 N Dodge St Economy Advertising 1997 $ 3,070 $ 46 $ 10,240 $ 7,170 $ 106 2800 Hwy 6 East Oral B 1997 $ 4,540 $ 68 $ 15,120 $ 10,580 $ 158 1832 Lower Muscatine Rd 1998 1,297,890 19,274 2,884,190 1,586,300 23,556 1999 79, 180 1,176 131,960 52,780 784 ACT 1996 $ 425,900 $ 6,324 $ 2,839,350 $ 2,4!3,450 $ 35,840 2727 S Scott Blvd Buncher(P&G) 1997 $ 22,550 $ 334 $ 75,150 $ 52,600 $ 782 2500 Heinz Rd 1999 65,100 966 108,500 43,400 644 Hieronymi 1997 $ 180,580 $ 2,682 $ 601,940 $ 421,360 $ 6,258 2239 Heinz Rd 1999 317,640 4,716 705,870 388,230 5,766 Croelllndustries 1999 $ 15,620 $ 232 $ 26,040 $ 10,420 $ 154 3310 Old Hwy 218 South 2000 515,950 7,662 687,930 171,980 2,554 Totals $ 3,631,140 $ 53,920 $ 10,288,380 $ 6,657,240 $ 98,860 Senior Center Memorandum To: Steve Atkins, City Manager From: Linda Kopping, Senior Center Coordinator Date: 16 October 2001 Re: Senior Center 28E Review Committee Update Since June of this year the Senior Center 28E Review Committee has been meeting regularly to discuss possible modifications to the City/County 28E Agreement that relates to the operation of the Senior Center. Members of the committee include City Council members Mike O'Donnell and Conhie Champion, Board of Supervisors members Carol Thompson and Pat Harney, and Senior Center Commissioner Jay Honohan. Committee members have reviewed the current 28E Agreement as well as two draft documents prepared by committee members. As of this date, committee members have not been able to reach a consensus on any of these documents. The following areas seem to be particularly problematic. 1. Beliefs held by committee members about the intent of the original agreement. Specifically, was it meant to be a participation agreement or a partnership? 2. Identification of the principal parties to the agreement and establishing which ones should be mentioned in the document. 3. The use, meaning, and implications of the word partnership. 4. The role and status of Senior Dining and the Nutrition Advisory Board at the Senior Center. 5. The creation of some type of a supervisory link between the Senior Dining Director and Senior Center Coordinator. 6. The role of the Board of Supervisors in the operation of the Senior Center. One area of agreement is that the Senior Dining program needs additional space for storage and office staff. Because there is no additional space at the Senior Center, Committee members have been investigating the possibility of acquiring storage space for the program in Tower Place and Parking. This possibility will be thoroughly investigated by the next scheduled meeting in late November. In addition, another draft 28E agreement is being prepared and will be reviewed at the November meeting. I will keep you informed of any further developments. 14~ ~ 1" A~ ~ O~ober 12, 2001 ~ / Mr. Steve Arkins City Manager 410 East Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Steve, For the ;ast 20 plus years, I've been building and developing in Iowa City. It's been both challenging and rewarding. T~i~lly, when you get feedback, it's likely to be mostly negative. This le~er is not for that purpose. I would just like to tell you that in all my years of dealing with the building depadment, there's been both ups and downs. But now, in my opinion, you have the finest building depa~ment staff in the State of Iowa. From Jann, all the way to Doug and Tim, they are the best~ Julie also does a tremendous job with the site work end of proje~s. They a, follow through on projects as quickly as possible and they t~ to help solve problems rather than creating them. Qf course, that's not to say I get eve~hing I want. I've done my share of moving and adding windo~ and soffits, but I don't mind doing what they ask bemuse I have a tremendous amount of respect for each and eve~ one of them.; must admit that in the past that hasn't always been t~e. Thanks again, Steve, for helping put together this great group of p~ple. Now I enjoy coming to ~e Civic Center instead of avoiding it. Sincerely, John Moreland, Jr. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: October 18, 2001 To: Steven Kanner ~ From: Dale Helling Re: Appeal to the Iowa City Board of Appeals by Sycamore Mall In response to your question of the breakdown on the vote, the motion was to deny the appeal by Sycamore Mall to allow a manual standpipe system in place of an automatic standpipe system. The final vote was 3- 2 with Tom Werderitsch, Gary Haman, and John Roffman voting in favor of the motion to deny, and Anna Buss and Wayne Maas voting against the motion. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: October 17, 2001 TO: Staff of City Boards and Commissions FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk ~ RE: Open Meeting Requirements Recently the City Council received minutes from a City Board and Commission that did not indicate the breakdown :of a split vote taken on an issue. Minutes should include sufficient information to indicate the vote of each member present. I have attached an article from the February 2000 CITYSCAPE newsletter from the Iowa League of Cities which I thought might be helpful. Please remember that Advisory Boards, as well as City Councils, are required to comply with the open meetings law. CC: City Council Meeting fundamentals, part 1: Open meetings Q. What rules apply to cities in conducting and recreation commission. In addition, Q. How many council members must be meetings? it may include committees established present to conduct a meeting? A. In Iowa, city councils, as well as their by executive order, such as an ad hoc A. A majority of all council members advisory bodies, are required to comply building committee created by the constitutes a quorum. A quorum must with the open meetings law (Code of council. The open meetings law favors be present before business can be Iowa, chapter 21). The law applies to openness and cities should always con- transacted. Vacant positions must be meetings of governmental bodies. For suit with their city attorney to interpret included when calculating the number cities, the law specifically defines a the state law if they are unsure whether of people that must be present. For governmental body as "a board, council, a group's meeting must comply. example, a city with a five-member commission, or other governing body of Q. What constitutes a meeting? council must have three members a political subdivision or tax-supported A. The open meetings law defines a present to have a quorum, even if there district..." It further applies the law to meeting as "a gathering in person or by are one or two vacancies. "an advisory board, advisory electronic means, formal or informal, of Q. Are cities required to provide notice of commission, adviso~7 committee, task a majority of the members of a govern- their meetings? force, or other body created by statute mental body where there is deliberation A. Yes. Cities must give public notice or executive order of this state or or action upon any scope of the govern- for each meeting held. The notice must created by an executive order of a mental body's policy-making duties." include the time, date and place of each political subdivision of this state to The definition further states that meeting and the tentative agenda. develop and make recommendations on "meetings shall not include a gathering "Reasonable notice" is defined to public policy issues." of members of a governmental body for include advising the news organizations The first definition applies the law to purely ministerial or social purposes which have filed a request for notice city councils and i~he second definition when there is no discussion of policy or and posting the notice on a bulletin applies the law to boards and no intent to avoid [sidestep] the board or other prominent place easily commissions created by a city code. For purposes of this chapter." accessible to the public and clearly example, this includes groups such as Councils and their advisory designated for that purpose at the city's the planning and zoning commission, commissions need to exercise caution. principal office. If no such office exists, the board of adjustment and the park For example, a majority of the city the notice should be posted at the council may travel in the same vehicle building where the meeting will be held. ' uper! .? tea League workshop. .is acfivity i.aNot,ce sha,l be give. at ,east 24 bours Outstandin gathering--not a meeting under the prior to the meeting. open meetings law. However, the Fabulous! gatber,.g becomes a meet,.g ,, there isQ.,.,he.eunytim. whe.,he.4-hour Easy!deliberatio. of public matters or i.te.t.otice ,s no, ueeessa ,? FlexiblelIlemarkable~to avoid the :aw. For example, if one ofA. Yes. Tweoty-four hours' notice must · ' the riders says, "What do you think of be given unless for good cause such f that proposed ordinance the city clerk notice is impossible or impractical, such distributed last week?" the gathering as an emergency situation. In this case, has just become a meeting and the law as much notice as is reasonably possible has been violated. Another common shall be given. When a meeting is held (A few comments about the Windows situation arises where members of the with less than 24 hours' notice, the software available from CIVIC SYSTEMS.) city council meet on an informal basis, nature of the good cause justifying that such as at the local coffee shop, and departure from the normal require- utility billing · ~leneral led!ter allow their discussion to stray to city ments shall be stated in the minutes. accounts payable · payroll/benefits business. Again, this qualifies as a Q. Are ciaes required to keep meeting meeting under the open meetings law. minutes and what must be included in cash receiptlng and motel It is important to restrain from talking them? about city business except in strict A. Yes. Each governmental body is 888'241 -1517 compliance with the statute. required to keep minutes of all its Q. Where and when can a meeting be meetings showing the date, time and heM? place, members present and action A. Meetings must be held in a place taken at each meeting. f__he ~minu!e reasonably accessible to the public and must also show the results of each vote CIVIC atatime,easonab,yconveoie.ttotbe public. If for good cause such place or f6' i~aj~t~e~v~e of e;i~ member SYSTEMS, LLC time is impossible or impractical, the pr~'s~hT. TFi'ia~h~es are hublie records An affiha e of Virchow Krause & Company, LLF~ nature Of the cause justifying the ~p6h td public inspection. cssates@civicsystems. com· www civiesystems. eom departure from these requirements In addition, the minutes of council 'A proauct of Case~te./,,c must be stated in the minutes. meetings must be published. 16 CIWSCAP[ February 2000 · Q&A · Section 372.13 of the Code mandates that "Within 15 days rollowing a regular or special meeting of the council, the clerk shall cause the minutes of the proceedings of the council, including the total expenditure from each city fund, to be published in a newspaper of general circulation [as defined in the Code, chapter 618] in the city. The publication shall include a list of all claims allowed and a summary of all l eceipts and shall show the gross amount of the claim." Q. Are all cities required to publish the minutes in a newspaper? A. No. In cities with a population of less than 200 or in cities where a newspaper is not generally circulated, minutes must bc posted in three public places in the city that have been permanently designated by ordinance. In cities with a population greater than one hundred fifty thousand, the council must print a pamphlet monthly that contains a detailed itemized statement of all receipts and disbursements of the city and a summary of its proceedings during the preceding month. Copies must be furnished to the city library, the daily newspapers of the city and to persons who apply at the office of the city clerk. This pamphlet shall constitute publication as required by state law. Q. Are there any exceptions to the rule of openness? A. Yes. Governmental bodies are authorized to close a meeting "only to the extent a closed meeting is necessary" for certain reasons listed in the Code, section 21.5. Details on closed meeting procedures will be published in the next edition of Cityscape. · For 90 years Dain RauscherTM has been synonymous with high-quality investments. Today we are making a name for ourselves with service that goes beyond expectations. Because of our dedication to our clients and the community, we are proud to be leaders in fixed income, trading, institutional sales and public finance banking. Our affiliate, Insight Investment Management, allows our clients the opportunity to have short-term assets throughout various economic and interest rate environments. We offer atilt range of services including: · Bond Underwriting · Long-Term Investment Planning · Debt Management · Interest Income Proiecticms · Computer-Assisted Budgeting * Fund Investment · Cash Plow Management * Revenue Estimates for Levy CcrtiBcations Kelly Johnson '.4 ..'V· ~ Managing Director ~ ~ 2700 Westown Parkway Suite 170 West Des Moine$, IA 50266 (515) 225-4519 Ba kinq ta gt, anqe, eammuuitlet..,t}iq t fle,e at flame! (sag) 395-2944 CITYSC~E February 2000 17 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: October 17, 2001 To: Mayor and City Council From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Re: Council Work Session, October 8, 2001, 5:00 PM in Emma J. Harvat Hall Council: Champion, Kanner, Lehman, O'Donnell, Pfab (5:05), Vanderhoef, Wilburn Staff: Atkins, Helling, Dilkes, Karr, Franklin, Davidson, Mollenhauer, Boothroy Tapes: 01-91, Both Sides (A complete transcription is available in the City Clerk's Office) PLANNING & ZONING ITEMS PCD Director Franklin presented the following items: A. Motion setting a public hearing for October 23 on an ordinance to rezone approximately 3.07 acres from Medium Density Multifamily, RM-20, to Medium Density Single Family, RS-8, located at 747 W. Benton Street. (Buss/REZ01-00013) B. Motion setting a public hearing for October 23 on an ordinance to rezone approximately 6.15 acres from Intensive Commercial, C1-1, to Community Commercial, CC-2, located at Commerce Drive and Libedy Drive. (Fareway/REZ01-00015) C. Motion setting a public hearing for October 23 on an ordinance to rezone approximately 24.12 acres from Interim Development Single-Family, ID-RS, to Sensitive Areas Overlay Low Density Single-Family, SAO-5, located east of Hickory Trail. (First & Rochester, Parts 4- 6/REZ01-00012) D. Motion setting a public hearing for October 23 on a rezoning ordinance to amend the OPDH plan for Village Green Part XVIII to permit nine additional residential units on 4.33 acres of property located west of Scott Boulevard and south of Wellington Drive. (REZ01-00018) E. Motion setting a public hearing for November 13 on an ordinance to rezone 1.38 acres from High Density Multi-Family Residential, RM-44, to Medium Density Multi-Family Residential, RM-20 for property located at 1045-1075 W. Benton Street. (Benton ViIla/REZ01-00020) PCD Director outlined the time frame stating that setting the public hearing would begin a 60 day moratorium or suspension of issuance of any building permits, and that a rezoning would have to be completed by the end of the moratorium period which is December 7. (See further discussion as a separate item later in the meeting) F. Ordinance to rezone approximately 14.07 acres of property from Low Density Single Family Residential, RS-5, and Planned Development Overlay - Low Density Single Family Residential, OPDH-5, to OPDH-5, for approximately 14.07 acres of property located south of Village Road and north of Wintergreen Drive. (Village Green, Pads 19-20/REZ01-00014) Council Work Session October 8, 2001 Page 2 PCD Director noted a problem with the publication notice for the hearing set at the last Council meeting, so no hearing will be held and instead it will be necessary to set a new hearing for the next Council meeting. G. Ordinance amending the Zoning Code, Article O, Sign Regulations, to permit canopy roof signs. (Second Consideration) H. Ordinance to rezone approximately 30.11 acres of property from Rural Residential, RR-1, to Sensitive Areas Overlay - Low Density Single Family Residential, OSA-5, located at the west end of Bristol Drive. (REZ01-00011) (Pass and adopt) I. Resolution approving the final plat of a Resubdivision of Lot 236, Washington Park Addition, Part 11 (Arbor Hill), an 8.02 acre, 2-lot residential subdivision located north of Washington Street, east of Green Mountain Drive. (SUB01-00017) PCD Director noted the attorney for the applicant had requested deferral to October 23 for preparation of final legal papers. J. Resolution approving the preliminary and final plat of Saltzman Subdivision, a 2.8-acre, 3-lot commercial subdivision located east of Riverside Drive south of Benton Street. (SUB01- 00011 ) PCD Director noted the applicant had requested deferral to provide legal papers, and Council will be provided a definite deferral date prior to formal action. AGENDA ITEMS 1. (Consent Calendar item #3e(1) - Resolution accepting work...Iowa Avenue Streetscape) Council Member Vanderhoef requested the item be removed from the Consent Calendar as she would be abstaining due to conflict of interest and would like to vote on other items on the Consent Calendar. 2. (Consent Calendar item #3b(1) - Minutes of Board of Appeals) Council Member Kanner requested a breakdown of the Board 3/2 vote on the request from the Sycamore Mall for an exception to the Building Code requirement regarding the standpipe system. Staff will report back. 3. (Consent Calendar item #3b(5) - Minutes of Parks and Recreation) Council Member Kanner noted discussion with the County on possible uses for the County Home site from a parks and recreation perspective, and suggested pursuing a cemetery on the west side of the side in conjunction with Coralville. Majority of Council did not express interest to pursue at this time. 4. (Consent Calendar items #3e(1) through (5) - Resolutions accepting work...) Council Member Kanner questioned the absence of a letter from the City Engr. accepting the work for the Highway 6 pedestrian bridge overpass (item #2). Asst. PCD Director Davidson stated the it was a University project and Shive Hattery was hired to oversee the project. The Shive Hattery letter included in the Council packet should be viewed as recommending acceptance from the one hired to inspect the project for the University. Council Work Session October 8, 2001 Page 3 5. (Consent Calendar item #3f(1) letter from John Neff regarding Johnson County jail statistics) In response to Council Member Kanner, the Mayor stated Mr. Neff was a retired University professor who had done a great deal of research and provided it to the Jail Committee as well as City Council. 6. (Agenda Item #7 - Resolution authorizing agreement...Seabury and Smith...TIF) In response to Council Member O'Donnell, the City Manager and City Attorney stated the item was in order for Council consideration that evening. BENTON ZONING PETITION AND MORATORIUM PENDING SW DISTRICT PLAN (Continued from Planning and Zoning Item #5e) PCD Director Franklin and City Atty. Dilkes presented information. Majority of Council expressed an interest to proceed with discussion and receiving input on the request for a moratorium. Staff Action: Prepare necessary documents for October 23. (Franklin) PREFERRED DEVELOPER SELECTION FOR PARCEL 64-1A (AQenda Item #12) PCD Director Franklin present for discussion. Majority agreed to proceed with action on the item scheduled for the formal meeting later in the evening. NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL RENTAL HOUSING ENFORCEMENT PROPOSAL (IP1 of 10/4 Info Packet) Neighborhood Council Housing Subcommittee representatives Jerry Hansen and Tim Walker presented information regarding membership in the community committee to review the proposal. After discussion a majority agreed to the following representation on the community committee: 3 tenants (Northside or Broadway areas; Student Senate); 3 Neighborhood Associations; small apartment owner; large apartment owner; I realtor; three non-voting city staff (City Attorney, HIS, Police); and a chair to be determined by the Community as a whole. The City Manager will staff the Committee and meet with Jerry Hansen and Tim Walker. The City Atty. noted that if the Committee was established to recommend a policy to Council it would be subject to open meeting law. Staff Action: Prepare resolution establishing Committee for October 23 meeting (Dilkes), and schedule meeting with Jerry Hansen and Tim Walker and to prepare summary memo for next Council packet (Atkins). Meeting adjourned 6:25 PM. clerk\min\Wsrnl000801doc HAYEK, HAYEK, BROWN & MORELAND, L.L.P. ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILL J. HAYEK (i896-1982) BREMER BUILDING AREA CODE 319 JOHN W, HAYEK I20~ EAST WASHINGTON STREET TELEPHONE 337'9606 C. PETER HAyEK FAX 338-7376 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240-3976 DAVID E. BROWN JOSEPH T. MORELAND MATTHEW J. HAYEK* -A ........ ,~o .......... October 12, 2001 Marian Karr City Clerk 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Re: Southgate Development Company, Inc. v. the City of Iowa City, Iowa Dear Marian: Enclosed please find a copy of the order setting trial in the Southgate case for November 7, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. Would you please promptly make arrangements to provide a copy of this order to each of the city council members, except for Mayor Lehman. Also, please notify the council members that I may be contacting them soon, individually, to discuss this case and their possible testimony on November 7. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely yours, rown ~ SOUTHGATE DEVELOPMENT CO. Plaintiff, No. CVCV061752 ORDER SETTING VOR vs. CITY OF IOWA CITY ~-~ Defendant. Trial Setting Conference was held on OCTOBER 10, 2001. Plaintiff(s) were represented by MIKE PUGH. Defendant(s) were represented by DAVE) BROWN. The following is ordered: Trial is set for NOVEMBER 7TH, 2001, at 9:00 Am., in the .JOHNSON County Courthouse, IOWA CITY, Iowa before a judge of this Court. Counsel estimates the trial will last ONE DAY. Counsel shall each prepare in writing and file in the Clerk of Court's office, on or before OCTOBER 31 ST, 2001, a Statement including the following: (a) Agreement to the admission of facts, documents, or records not really controverted, to avoid unnecessary proof at lfial. (b)Stating and simplifying the factual and legal issues to be litigated at trial. (c)Specifying all damages or other relief claimed in detail. (d)Specifying all proposed exhibits. (e) Stating the possibility of settlement. O Clerk to notify all interested parties. Dated: OCTOBER 10, 2001 Dam: Mailed To: ~ ~ "~ B~le~ss~ffic, a personnel RespGnsibte ~' ~mator or Desj~ee for Mailing Document 10-18-01 IP12 Iowa City Police Department Memo c To: Steve Atkins, City Manager, & RJ Winkelhake, Chief of Police From= Sgt. Mike Brotherton, planning & research Date= 10/17/01 Re= September Off Premise Alcohol Sales Report Attached is the September report. I anticipate that for the October report all businesses will have been checked at least once. · Page 1 Iowa City Police Department Monthly Liquor License (OFF PREMISE SALES) Report SEPTEMBER 2001 YEAR 2001 Monthly Total Year to Date Totals Arrest/Visit Business Name A B A B YTD A&J MINI MART - 2153 ACT CIR. 0 0 0 0 i~ 0.00 AAJAXXX LIQUOR STORE 0 0 0 0 0.00 BIG KMART-HOLLYVVOOD BLVD 0 0 0 0 i~,~ 0.00 COLLEGE ST. OASIS 0 0 0 0 0.00 CUB FOODS 1 0 1 0 0.00 DAN'S SHORT STOP CORP 0 0 0 0 0.00 DELl-MART - MORMON TREK 1 0 1 0 0.00 DELlMART- S. BENTON 0 0 0 0 0.00 DELIMART-HWY 1 1 0 1 0 0.00 DELIMART-LWR MUSCATINE 0 0 0 0 0.00 DOC'S STANDARD 0 0 0 0 0.00 DRUGTOWN 0 0 0 0 0.00 EAGLE FOOD CENTER- N.DOD. 0 0 0 0 0.00 FAREWAY STORES INC 0 0 0 0 0.00 GASBY'S - S. GILBERT 0 0 0 0 ~" 0.00 GASBY'S EAST - 2303 MUSCAT. 0 0 0 0 0.00 HANDIMART - DUBUQUE ST. 0 0 0 0 0.00 HANDIMART - N.DODGE 0 0 0 0 0.00 HANDIMART- WILLOWCREEK 1 0 1 0 0.00 HARTIG DRUG - MORMON TREK 0 0 0 0 0.00 HAWKEYE CON ST-KIRKWOOD 0 0 0 0 0.00 HY-VEE- N. DODGE ST 0 0 0 0 0.00 HY-VEE- S. 1ST AVE 0 0 0 0 0.00 HY-VEE- WATERFRONT 0 0 0 0 0.00 JOHN'S GROCERY INC 0 0 0 0 0.00 KUM aGO - MORMON TREK 1 0 1 0 0.00 KUM & GO - GILBERT 2 0 2 0 0.00 KUM & GO- S. RIVERSIDE 2 0 2 0 0.00 KUM S GO- W. BURLINGTON ST 1 0 1 0 0.00 L&M MIGHTY SHOP INC 2 0 2 0 0.00 MINI MART 0 0 0 0 0.00 NEW PIONEER COOP 0 0 0 0 0.00 NORTH DODGE EXPRESS 0 0 0 0 0.00 OLD MARKET PLACE 0 0 0 0 0.00 ON THE GO CONV. STORE INC, 0 0 0 0 0.00 OSCO DRUG 0 0 0 0 0.00 Column A is the number of times a license holder is visited specifically checking for underage sales. Column B is the number of people charged with possession under the legal age. Note this is not the total number of charges. Iowa City Police Department Monthly Liquor License (OFF PREMISE SALES) Report SEPTEMBER 2001 YEAR 2001 Monthly Total Year to Date Totals Arrest/Visit Business Name A B A B YTD PETRO-N-PROVISIONS 1 0 1 0 0.00 RUSS' AMOCO SERVICE 0 0 0 0 0.00 SCOTT BLVD HAWKEYE CON ST 0 0 0 0 0.00 SUBURBAN AMOCO 0 0 0 0 0.00 SUBURBAN AMOCO-KEOKUK 1 0 I 0 0.00 T&M MINI MART 0 0 0 0 0.00 TOBACCO OUTLET PLUS- S. RIV 0 0 0 0 0.00 TOTAL 14 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 Column A is the number of times a license holder is visited specifically checking for underage sales. Column B is the number of people charged with possession under the legal age. Note this is not the total number of charges. eSTEVEN City Councilmember. Zowa City Home Address: 630 S. Governor #1, Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (319)338-8865 Carol Thompson Johnson County Board of Supervisors 913 S. Dubuque Iowa City, Iowa 52240 October 11, 2001 Dear Carol, As you might recall, at our last joint meeting you presented some information about the status of the Johnson County jail. I replied that pursuing a collaborative process that include parties representing all sides of the issue would be a positive way to resolve differences regarding jail problems. Here is some information on different approaches that might be useful for this community debate on the best way to resolve the jail issue. "Study Circles" information was provided by Study Circles Resource Center (SCRC) (697 Pont~et St., P.O. Box 203, Pornfret, Connecticut 06248. Tel. #[8601928-2616). They are being recommended by the National League of Cities and are being used by many communities to examine issues of racism. Study circles are used for all types of community issues. Included is information fi'om a statewide Study Circle effort in Oklahoma regarding their criminal justice and jail system. Martha McCoy, director of SCRC, writes, "The SCRC was rounded in the belief that everyone should have a voice in our democracy and in solving public problems...SCRC's ultimate aim is that all communities will see the value of diverse, large-scale dialogue on how to do it as a regular part of community life." SCRC has many resources that would be helpful in our county jail discussion. I feel that the Study Circles model has great merit and will urge my fellow Iowa City Councilmembers to consider using some oftbese resources for such hotly debated city issues as alcohol & drug abuse, building, roads & development and criminal enforcement. Laura Varricchione of the National League of Cities (NLC) (1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 2004. Tel. #[202]626-3000]) supplied information on community collaborative efforts from their NLC Examples Database. The NLC provided three examples ofcollahorative efforts. In Hampton, Virginia (pop. 133,793) a professionally facilitated community-wide committee met for a year to work on transportation issues. In Scottsdale, Arizona (pop. 130,069) elected offlc'mls and residents met in residents' homes to "discuss community values and issues. . .Two-thirds of the conversations occurred in the less affluent southern section oftbe city, where residents often feel left out of city politics." And in Durham, North Caroline (pop. 136,611) they have initiated the Durham Dispute Settlement Center. "Trained mediators work in public gathering settings, such as town meetings, to help the community reach resolution on a variety of issues inneluding race relations, long range planning, economic development planning, city manager selection, and zoning issues." The list two resource hooklets that I'm giving you were supplied by Annie Tucker of Annie Tucker Mediator Service (220 Laffayette St., Iowa City, IA 52240. Tel. #354-5775). The first piece is "A Facilitator's Manual." The second piece is "A Practical Guide to Consensus." Both of these books are helpful in explaining collaborative and decision-making processes. Many successful colliborative efforts that seek to include diverse - and perhaps opposite - voices of the community require a well-trained facilitator and well-established ground rules on how the .1. participants will hope to reach a consensus decision. These books give an introduction to accomplishing the above. I am enclosing full copies of all of the materials for you and also for the City Clerk of Iowa City. Highlights from the full copies will be sent to the cc'd parties. I believe it is of supreme importance that all parties with different viewpoints on the jail issue sit down together, listen to each other and work on solutions together. There are many ways to do collaborations. I think that Study Circles would he a good place to start, although the other examples would also work. Please let me know what you think and how I can be of assistance to you and the Board of Supervisors in solving our Johnson Cotmty jail problems. Sincerely, Steven Kanner cc: Johnson County Board of Supervisors Iowa City City Council encl: "Study Circles" information; Collaborative examples from the NLC Examples Database; "A Facilitator's Manual"; and "A Practical Guide to Consensus" STUDY CIRCLES ~' RESOURCE CENTER Basic information about the Study Circles Resource Center What is a study circle? The study circle is a simple process for small-group deliberation. There are just a few defining characteristics: · A study circle is comprised of 8-12 people who meet regularly over a period of weeks or months to address a critical public issue in a democratic and collaborative way. · A study circle is facilitated by an impartial person who is there not to act as an expert on the issue, but to serve the group by keeping the discussion focused, helping the group consider a variety of views, and asking difficult questions. · A study circle looks at an issue from many points of view. Study circle facilitators and discussion materials give everyone "a home in the conversation," and help the group explore areas of common ground. · A study circle progresses from a session on personal experience ("how does the issue affect me?") to sessions providing a broader perspective ("what are others saying about the issue?") to a session on action ("what can we do about the issue here?"). What is the Study Circles Resource Center (SCRC)? SCRC was established in 1990 to promote the use of study circles on critical social and political issues. It is a project of the Topsfield Foundation, a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan foundation whose mission is to advance deliberative democracy and improve the quality of public life in the United States. SCRC operates by creating study circle organizing and discussion materials, distributing those materials free of charge to organizers of large study circle programs, and providing free technical assistance to organizers. What is a community-wide study circle program? Study circles can take place within organizations, such as schools, unions, or government agencies. They have their greatest reach and impact, however, when organizatiOhs across a community work together to create large-scale programs. These community-wide programs engage large numbers of citizens - in some cases thousands - in study circles on a public issue such as race relations, crime and violence, or education. Broad sponsoring coalitions create strong, diverse community participation. Participants in study circles have an opportunity to make an impact on an issue they care about. Bow do community-wide study circle programs come into being? Typically, a single organization such as a mayor's office, a school board, or a human relations commission spearheads and staffs the project. In most communities, an initiating organization takes the first step by approaching other key organizations to build a sponsoring coalition. Most community-wide programs have 10-3 0 organizations as sponsors or endorsers. Grass-roots organizations such as churches, neighborhood associations, businesses, schools, and clubs often take part. 697 Pomfret Street · R O Box 203 · Pomfrt,L Connecticut 06258 · leh 860-928-2616 · Fax: 860-928-3713 · E-maih scrc@studycircles.org What are the outcomes of community-wide study circle programs? By participating in study circles, citizens gain "ownership" of the issues, discover a connection between personal experiences and public policies, and gain a deeper understanding of their own and others' perspectives and concerns. They discover common ground and a greater desire and ability to work collaboratively to solve local problems - as individuals, as members of small groups, and as members of large organizations in the community. Community-wide study circle programs foster new connections among community members that lead to new levels of community action. They also create new connections between citizens and government, both at an institutional level and among parents and teachers, community members and social service providers, residents and police officers. Where are community-wide study circle programs going on? In 1992, Lima, Ohio, became the first city to create a community-wide study circle program. Since then, over 40 communities have followed Lima's lead, ranging in size from Orford, New Hampshire, to Los Angeles, California:Over 100 other communities are in various stages of planning and organizing community-wide programs. SCRC also collaborates with a number of national organizations that are working with the community-wide study circle model, including the National Crime Prevention Council, the YWCA of the USA, the League of Women Voters, the Education Commission of the States, the National Association of Human Rights Workers, and the Alliance for National Renewal. ON STUDY CIRCLES, Reprint from FOCUS,Volume 9 · Number I · Winter 1998 Organizing for action Taking a study circle program to its full potential by Matt Leighninger and Cathy Florin-McDonald The opportunity for participants to take action is a key points, particularly the action ideas and main areas of component of a successful study circle program. Many of the agreement or disagreement. This record doesn't have to be people and organizations you involve in your program will scientific or complex, but it does have to fair and take part because they hope to make a difference on the issue. objective. At the end of the session, make sure everyone Making people aware that you are planning for an action agrees the summary captures what happened in the phase helps you rccmit; when participants know that action is session. The Board of Selectmen of Porefret, pan of the program, there is also a more constructive dynamic Connecticut. used study circle records to create a report for the dialogue inside the study circles. on citizens' views on the future of the town; the County Community-wide study circle programs around the Manager's Office in Sedgwick County, Kansas used stud), country have shown that tremendous progress can be made circle records to develop their solid waste disposal plan for on an issue when organizers plan for action. From grass- the county. roots projects like the Daily Bread soup kitchen in Lima, 3. Reach out to organizations already working on the Ohio, to state legislation like Oklahoma House Bill 1213, issue. All of these organizations need to know that the study circle participants have proven their capacity for study circle program will produce many energized citizens public problem solving. looking for ways to get involved. Ask the organizations how they could use volunteers and how they would like to How to do it receive citizen input (contact SCRC for a copy of a form developed for this purpose for a study circle program in Organizing for action requires planning ahead. Study Northeast Connecticut). circle organizers who are deep into getting a program off 4. Hold an action forum. The action forum at the end of the ground sometimes say that the action phase feels like each round of study circles is your most important another big task. It is. However, organizers who plan for opportunity to galvanize problem-solving efforts. At the action from the earliest stages find that it is not only kickoff, announce the date of the action forum. Invite thc possiblc, it strengthens the entire program and benefits the study circle participams, coalition members, area whole community. Here arc some lessons and suggestions: organizations working on the issue. and other community 1. Form an action committee within your organizing members. Use the study circle records to identify themes coalition. Since many organizations are attracted to the which emerged from the groups. At the action forum, givc coalition because they want to help move the community people the opportunity to sign up for task forces on those to action. it makes sense to form an action committee. This themes. For example. the task forces for a program on racc committee is responsible for creating the conditions that might focus on themes such as improving police- help participants take action. not deciding what those community relations, reducing bias crimc. and dealing actions will be. It will help if the people on your action with race relations among young people. Ask people with committee represent a mix of professions and approaches some professional expertise in each topic to join that task to the issue~ since action can take many forms. force. If you are writing a report based on the study circle 2. Create a study circle recording process to track themes. records, the action forum is an excellent time to release it It is helpful to have a brief session-by-session record of Contact SCRC for copies of stud)' circle reports and the discussion within each study circle. Records from all coverage of action forums around the country, the study circles can be combined into a report for the 5. Support the task forces as they move forward. It is program as a whole; they will be useful in planning action critical for program organizers to stay in touch with the forums for the program: and they can be used to give task forces. Help them get off the ground by identifying updates to public officials and journalists. Ask one of the convenors and setting meeting dates. To keep task force participants to jot down notes on the most important efforts in the public'{iye, create a uewslej. ter ~vhich reports on their progress, and encourage newspapers and television stations to cover their work. Provide ways for newcomers to join task forces as the program moves along. The study circle program in Lima, 'Ohio, went even further, winning a grant from the Ohio Bureau of Justice Services to fund a Violence Prevention Center. The Center was designed to provide staff time to support the eleven task forces which arose from the study circle program. Finally, it is important to celebrate the task force achievements and build on them. One way to do this is through periodic large-group meetings. Democracy in action One of the most common action ideas voiced by study circle participants is the need for more study circles. Take advantage of this opportunity to strengthen your program by involving more people as facilitators, organizers, and coalition members. The task forces may also want to revisit the first session of the study circle materials, so that their members can better understand one another and work as a team. It is vital to maintain the spirit of deliberation as citizens and organizations plunge into the action phase. Your participants will benefit by opportunities to work together in small groups and celebrate their achievements at large forums. With careful planning, your study circle program can exemplify democracy in action. ~ Balancing Justice in Oklahoma by Matt Leighninger, SCRC Program Director The state will spend $247 million on corrections this Nothing illustrates Oklahoma's current obsession fiscal year. with criminal justice like the image of Timothy While rising costs intensified the battles over the McVeigh, wearing a bulletproof suit and handcuffs, state budget, other controversies have plagued the being led to a police vehicle through a crowd of corrections system. This summer, a prisoner who was shouting people. The accused Oklahoma City bomber put on emergency release because of overcro~vding in has become a symbol for an intensely emotional, the prisons went home and murdered three people. In multi-faceted issue. the last session of the state legislature, proposals for Nineteen months after the bombing, citizens in truth in sentencing and community corrections failed communities all over Oklahoma are meeting in study amidst raucous debate. Even the most basic facts are circles to talk about criminal justice in their state, to in dispute: corrections and law enforcement officials set priorities for their corrections system, and to have been unable to agree on how to count the decide how they should move forward at the local offenders who are in the system. and state level. Due largely to the efforts of the Community-wide organizing, stute-wide scope League of Women Voters of Oklahoma (LWVOK) The LWVOK heads a team of state-wide and the support of the Edna McConnell Clark sponsors which includes the Oklahoma Conference of Foundation, the "Balancing Justice" study circle Churches, the Oklahoma Academy for State Goals, program is an example of how public dialogue can and the Citizen's League of Central Oklahoma. The thrive even in an atmosphere of great tension and coalition has been assisted by SCRC. conflict. In each community, members of these state-wide "This program has been very positive on several organizations met earlier this year to begin forming levels," says Jacqueline Duncan, a judge in Okla- broad-based local coalitions to support study circles. homa's Second Judicial District who has been attend- They've enlisted PTAs, Chambers of Commerce, ing the study circles in Weatherford. "The study cir- cles have brought together people from many differ- ent walks of life to think hard about this issue. The New study circle guide on Corrections process engenders respect - so, even though the participants don't always agree, the discussions have The study circle guide being used in Oklahoma, been civil and productive. Most importantly, the Balancing Justice.' Setting Citizen Priorities for the Corrections System, is now available. In size and format it program is also helping the community as a whole is similar to SCRC's Busy Citizen's Guides on race, generate ideas on how to handle the prison popu- education, violence and youth issues. Contact SCRC for lation and how to sentence offenders in a meaningful free copies ifyou are organizing a large-scale study circle way." program; for other uses, the price is $1.00 per copy. Tulsa Mayor Susan Savage, recognized by Newsweek magazine as one of the 25 most dynamic churches, community action groups, court systems, mayors in the country, proclaimed October to be Bal- police and sheriffs departments, corrections ancing Justice Month in the city, saying "Oklahoma's employee unions, victims' groups, inmate support corrections system should mirror the values and pri- groups, colleges and universities, and local orities of Oklahoma citizens." government officials, as well as chapters of the Constant crisis management Christian Coalition; AAUW, NAACP, and AARP. "Oklahoma's criminal justice system has been in As a basis for the discussions, the study circles are using Balancing Justice: Setting Citizen Priorities a constant state of crisis management in the '90s," says LWVOK Executive Director Trish Frazier. "The for the Corrections System (see box). The guide's cost of the system is skyrocketing and public three sessions are designed to help citizens work confidence in it is dwindling." In 1995~ Oklahoma through what the goals of the justice system ought to had the third-highest incarceration rate in the country. be, consider the current corrections dilemma, and talk about what they can do to affect the way we deal with criminals. reprinted from Focus on Study CIrcles, Win~,,~ way in Tulsa, Weatherford, Muskogee, =d La~on. study ckcle pmicip=m ~ wo~ ~'~' Over the next fo~ months, those pro~s will be Judge ~ch~d Miller to implment such a pro~. joined by ~ore, Bmlesville, E~ond, E~d, ~e Madill citizens who a~end~ ~e study circles No~, Okl~oma City, Pontotoc Co~W, PoRawa- also recomended ~d helped creme a peer tomie Co~W, Rogers CounW, ~d Stillwater. These mediation proem at ~e local ~ school. co~unities r~ge in size ~om i0,000 to over Building civic infrastructure in O~ahoma 400,000; numbers of pmicip~ts h each place ~e expected to r~ge from 100 to rou~y 500. ~e successes of Bal~cing Justice ~e due in l~ge pm to ~e yeom~ effoas of ~ee people: Tfish Study circles and the state legislature F~ier, Cl~k Fo~dation consulrot Willira ~e Bal~cing Justice sponsors hope not only to D~cio, ud L~OK Presidem C~ol Woodw~d. create local dialogue ~d action, but also to co~ect F~ier h~ visited eveW study circle site in the citizen voices to polic~Ig at the state level. A state at le~t once, pu~ng over 2,000 miles on her c~ recorder in each study circle is compiling a ~Ren ~ ~e process. She's ~ent most of 1996 spewing at repoa on that goup's discussions, to cap~e ~e~ of press conferences, bminsto~ing with local org~iz- a~eement wi~n the goup, action ide~ for that e~, ~d meeting wi~ public officials ~d other co~uniW, ~d input for state-level policy m~ng. potential proFro suppoHe~. SCRC Proem D~ng the final session of each s~dy circle, ~e Director Ma~ Leig~nger h~ joined her on muy of ~oup works to refine ~d approve the final report. ~ose occ~ions. Fmier is energized by this ~e ide~ generated by ~e study circles ~d re- "oppo~W for ~e Lea~e m help build a civic fl~ted in the repo~s will be put before ~e state legis- i~c~e of s~dy circle org~ze~, facilitaton, la~e when it convenes in ~e new ye~. ~e Lea~e ~d active citizens across Okl~oma. We en~sion ud ~e Academy for State Goals will b~e their ushg t~s ne~ork to org~ze s~dy circles on o~er lobbying effoas on ~at citizen input. issues in ~e ~e." Apm from whatever state-wide impact ~e pro- As FrYer ~d ~e o~er Balucing Justice org~- ~ will have, it h~ akeady affected cminal izers cu tell you, ~e process ofbuil~ng civic inffa- justice at the local level. h tiny Madill, Okl~om~ s~c~e is difficult, ~glmorous, ~d often conten- study circles piloting the Balancing d~tice ~ide tious - ~ well ~ invigorating, i~ovative, ud ~us- were held in J~u~ ud Febm~. Citizens aRending foxing. ~d ~ the McVeigh ~al proceeds, we c~ those sessions ageed that one of~e priorities for all see ~at, in Okl~oma ~ in eveW pm of the coun- their co~iW w~ a "~g co~," a pro-time ~, t~s ~nd of civic work is urgently needed. The lessons of Balancing Justice By Patricia P. Frazier, League of Women Voters of justice system in the history of the state, was passed in Oklahoma, and Matt Leighnthger, SCRC the first weeks of the legislative session and enacted Citizen education has been a central mission of into law. the League of Women Voters throughout its history.. "The Balancing Justice study circle program "Balancing Justice in Oklahoma," the most ambitious made a huge difference because it helped to create an project the Oklahoma League has ever attempted, atmosphere where we could try new things in the turned out to be as educational for its organizers as it sham of Oklahoma," said Senator Cal Hobson, who was for the citizens. The project demonstrated that sponsored the legislation. Corrections reform bills had people didn't just want to recommend solutions to failed in the two prior legislative sessions; this one their shate's corrections crisis: passed the House and Senate they were ready and willing to be by a total vote of 140-2. part of those solutions. "The Balancing Justice study circle In their discussions, study The primary reason the program made a huge difference circle participants identified League initiated this program because it helped to create an at- two major goals for the cor- was to bring the input and ideas mosphere where we could try new rections system: incapacihation of citizens to bear on state things in the state of Oklahoma." of violent offenders, and re- policymaking. David Mathews of - State Senator Cal Hobson habilitation of all offenders. the Kettering Foundation lists Those values were behind their four situations where poli- support for two policy ideas: cymakers need direction from the public: when values truth in sentencing, the idea that offenders serve all or are at issue and conflict erupts; when trade-offs have most of their sentences; and community corrections, to be made: when the natm'e of the problem is un- the notion that locally-controlled intermediate sane- clear; and when them is political gridlock (Mathews. lions are often more effective and morn economical Politics for People, 1994). than prison or probation. These two ideas turned out to be the two main components of the legislation. It could be argued that all of those conditions were true of the state's corrections system during the The bill mandates that after July 1, 1998, violent summer of 1996. In the Balancing Justice study cir- offenders will serve 85 percent of their sentences cles, Oklahomans rolled up their sleeves and got to before being considered for parole. This will result in work. Over 1,000 citizens were joined by judges, increased time served by violent offenders in many sheriffs, and legislators in productive deliberation categories. The bill also allocates $5 million for alter- about how to handle the twin challenges of skyrocket- native sanctions at the community level, which might ing corrections costs and falling public confidence in include options like intensive supervision probation, the system. The study circles occurred in thirteen substance abuse treatment, day reporting, and halfway communities, and over 50 state and local civic organi- houses. The allocation will rise to $30 million over the zations and churches co-sponsored the project. next decade. Following each meeting, participants gave sum- A mandate for community involvement maries to local coordinators who compiled a report In addition to the reasons cited by Mathews, for that community. At the completion of the pro- Oklahoma's legislative leaders turned to the people gram, those reports were made into a final Balancing for another important purpose: the implementation of Justice report for the entire state (contact SCRC for a the community corrections sections of HB 1213. copy). HB 1213 is a devolution bill which gives local House Bill 1213 governments the responsibility foi' dealing with many The public dialogue generated in part by the low-level offenders. The decisions regarding the local study circles made an impact even before any of the implementation of this legislation must be~ made .by. ~i'~. participants' conclusions were in print. House Bill commU~i.'ty Volume 12, Number 2 SUMMER I FALL 2001 ON STUDY CIRCLES Best Practices Community-building principles from effective study circle programs CONTENTS By Rona Roberts Roberts & Ke(y Inc. Best Practices .............. I Alittle while ~ ........... Z_~ Decatur, Georgia, Community-building ago. a residents principles from effective respected participate in a Roundtable study circle programs colleague called me ~ discussion. and said, "Quick! I :i Decatur was one Director's Note ............ 2 need a crash course F ~..-c'- of the 17 Community Voices building." She e studied in a two- Favetteville Study continued, "I know .~ ~ 7 year research ' about the steps and project to determine best Circles, Fayetteville, about getting people '~"' "~5,?' ~. ' practices in North Carolina .............. 3 to the table and '~ ~* ' ~. organizing making the table as - ': community-wide News from community- large as possible and / ' study circles. wideprograms ............ 4 deciding on action plans and carrying Announcements .......... 6 them out, but surely there's more to it than programs where there was that." diversity within the smallest PlEASe sgg core group at the very PRAC'nCgS' PROJECT" AS we laughed, I told my colleague that she beginning - particularly in ON PAG~ 8 VO~ needed some of my secret stash of "Operating terms of race, ethnicity, and ADDmONAL Principles of Community Building and Civic gender - have an advantage INFORMATION. Change." I began thinking through what I had all the way through. learned, both as one who has attempted these The secret fuel of community building ~s the things in my own neighborhood and networking capacity that each person brings to community, and as a researcher. t~e effort. That fuel is fired by the passion and energy of the key organizers, who make things From 1998 to 2000, I was privileged to se~we on happen by activating personal and professional a strong team that did a long-term, qualitative networks. Often those networks of friends and study of citizen-driven communiD/-building allies strongly reflect the core group members' efforts for the Study Circles Resource Center. own race, age, gender, ethnicity, cultural This study involved community wide study 13ackground, or neighborhood. An example: circle programs in 17 sites throughout the Consider a diverse core group of four people United States. As I talked with my colleague. I that includes men, women, people of color, realized that there are some common sense and European Americans. When organizers principles that emerge fi'om this study. decide to expand their numbers to build a larger working group for their study circle I. Diversity at the very beginning yields program, they will draw from their own diversity all the way through. constituencies. The resulting working group In community work, diversity brings strength, will reflect that diversity. good ideas. and workable tactics, When we the looked carefully at 17 places where people had The trend continues as the program grows. of the done a good job of organizing community- When the time comes fo~ the working group to Circles xvide stud}' circle programs, we saw that those cFeate task forces and_ carry out one-to-one Center -;- :': (See Best practices continued on page 7) (Best Practices continued from page participant recruitment, working group to members will turn In these programs, we found organizers who can envision to people they know and trust to get things done, and tbat the power of a whole community engaged in dialogue. Their larger group will naturally reflect some of the community's vision includes a way of carrying out the planning work so diversity. that it, too, builds a sense of connection and power among those who are involved. 2. Four~faceted leadership helps people know what to do and how to succeed in improving their communities. TIle working teams in these communities intentionally extend Successful community-building initiatives have four-faceted hospitality and welcome to people from all backgrounds, and leadership: work hard on collaborating across differences. They share leaders with vision about ways communities can improve ownership of work and the credit for results. They hold out · leaders with power, resources, and connections to make confidence and optimism that citizens can and will make things happen important changes in their communities. They blur some of · leaders with administrative ability to make things function the lines between vision, planning, and implementation by well taking a "study circle" approach to all these activities. The · leaders with marketing and promotion skills to make sure result is that even the planning work changes the community people show up and take part because of the values on which it is based. Some people bring more than one of these leadership ¢. Success depends on realistic assessment and qualities to community work, but rarely will any person reassessment of how a particular community works. exhibit all foul The bottom line: Communities need to attract In study circle programs that succeed in organizing large- and cultivate all four kinds of leadership. That's the only way scale, diverse participation and in linking dialogue to change, to ensure that a community-change effort benefits from each the organizers are people who understand local conditions. of these essential leadership facets. The most effective study Beyond the usual understanding of opportunities, resources, circle programs we observed include and value all these and needs, they understand their community's change history kinds of leadership. and habits. They tailor their community-wide study circle process to key factors in their communities, and they learn 3. Linking established and emerging leaders yields a and adapt as their efforts unfold. potent increase in both power and energy. Established leaders offer access to power and resources. As they make key decisions, they ask themselves: "What Emerging leaders offer exciting new energy, new works here?" ~How do we make change happen here?" When connections, and a sense of what will .fly,. based on clear- something works, they add to it. When something doesn't headed understanding of the community's real assets, needs, work, they learn from that and move on. No matter how and people. Beyond the four leadership facets, and diversity much these good organizers know about their community, based on personal and cultural characteristics, this additional they remain open to learning something new or even dimension of leadership diversity stems from the different contradictory to what they originally thought. gifts and experience that traditional and emerging leaders bring to shared projects. Every successful community-w!.de study circle program we These common-sense principles are not technical or complex studied benefited from the active, enthusiastic participation of ideas. On the other hand, they are not easy to implement. known, visible leaders along with capable, lesser known, These tactics call for sustained effort. They cannot be carried emerging leaders. We saw that it is worth the work to find out by individuals; they require group effort. When citizen the established leaders who view linking with emerging groL~ps bring these suggestions to life in real communities, leaders as a compelling way to accelerate change. In the the repayment for their hard work will be increased programs we studied, this blending of experience with new, effectiveness, improved outcomes, and accelerated results. energetic leadership yields powerful results within the The evidence from the study circle sites suggests the organizing coalition for the program, and within each investment will be more than worth it. ~'~ individual study circle - thus multiplying the power throughout the whole community. (A version of this article was ~rst published in the 4.Vision becomes reality at every stage when organizers Kentucky Journal.) use study circle principles and values throughout their work. Vision can seem "pie-in-the-sky" - abstract, and unlikely to yield tangible results. Planning. on the other hand, can seem too earthbound, leaving little room for adaptation or imagination. The strongest programs do not get stranded in either of those incomplete activities. Instead, they always seem to be doing work in a study circle-like way. Study Circles N Resource Center 697 Porefret St. P.O. Box 203 Porefret, Connecticut DIRECTOR'S NOTE FOCUS ON S/liD Y CIRCLES IS FREE AND THE CIRCLE OF cross-aisciplinary team in a stndy or study TIMES A YEAR circle sites. In tile tree spirit of study circles, the LEARNING "best practices" research team learned with PHONE: by Martha McCoy communities. Through interviews and focus 860.928.2616 gronps, the team explored the impacts of study FAX: The Study Circles Resource circles and the most effective practices for 860~928.3713 Center was founded in achieving those impacts. E-MAIL: the belief that everyone scrc@studycircles.org should have a voice in our democracy and in In brief, the research shows us: WEB SITE: solving public problems. To further this idea. our · that the community-wide study circle process wv~,v.studycircles.org founder, Paul Aicher, charged us to create tools yields clear and powerful results. Organizing that would help bring together all kinds of for community-wide dialogue is challenging Editor:. people in face-to-face dialogue for problem and difficult, but it is more than equally Amy Malick solving and communiW change. rewarding. It yields powerful individual, Assistant Editor. institutional, and community change. Molly Holme Barrett SCRC's ultimate aim is that all communities will .. that there are conunon practices across EditorialAssistance: see the value of diverse, large-scale dialogue on different communities that yield those results. Meg Bishop critical public issues, and will have the know No one should have to reinvent what has cartie Boron how to do it as a regular part of community life. already been learned - though each Production Manager: In order to fulfill such community will learn its Fmncine Nichols ambitious goals, we own unique lessons knew we had to become "The advice and tools we along the way, and The Study Circles a learning organization continue to contribute to Resource:Center and the catalyst of a provide come from the trials, the storehouse of (SCRC) is dedicated to learning network. The knowledge. fmdingwaysfoi'all · kinds of peolite. to advice and tools we errors, and successes of real · that there is still engag~ in dialogue provide come from the learning to do. The and problem ~olving trials, errors, and people in real communities. ' cutting edges of the work on critical social and successes of real people are: connecting dialogue politic~d iifsues. SClld in real conununities. to action and institutional helps Communities by Everyone who has organized and facilitated change in a more giving them the tools dialogue for community change has been our intentional way; sustaining study circles in a to orgamze productive teacher and our co-learner. community over time; and moving from issue dialogue; re4cmit to issue within a community. diverse'pafticipants, As the study circle network grew, our learning find solutioBs, and challenge became ever greater. The first Though the research has taught us much, the work together for action and change. conunonity-wide program was organized in 1993. circle of learning is not complete until we share SCRC is a project of By 1997, tile number of communities organizing what we have learned. We've spent the past nine the Top. field study circles had grown to more than 100. Today, montb. s incorporating the research findings into Foundation, Inc., a that number is 250. new advice and new tools. A major result is our nonprofit, nonpartisan new gmide, Organizing Community-wide foundation dedicated The range of issties being addressed through Dialogue for Action and Change. to advancing community v.,'ide dialogue has grown as well. To deliberative keep pace with the lessons. we needed more The essence of the conununity-wide study circle democracy and systematic ways of learning. And we thonght it model remains the same - organizations and improving the quality was a critical time for an outside perspective. individuals working together. across divides. to of public life in the The next step was to commission an outside [>ring the whole community into democratic United States. analysis of study circle programs. dialogue and problem solving. The ways to do A this ar~ becoming ever clearer. The powerful In 1998, the C.S. Mort Foundation decided to results hold out a hope for democratic pioneers fund a two-year study of effective study circle and leaZrners everywhere. It is our mission and programs, with an emphasis on study circles that passion to continue the circle of learning ~vith addressed the vital issue of racism and race yoo. ~*> · relations. We contracted with Roberts and Kay, :~t' Inc., of Lexington, Kentucky, to conduct the Martha McCoy is executive director of the Study research. Rona Roberts of RKI led a multiracial, Circles Resource Center In 1999, the Fayetteville Human Relations Commission COMMUNITY VOICES anara tte iUeVnitea-a/aith-haseainte, acialg oap - launched community-wide study circles on race, including one round with lots of young people. While in FAYETTEVILLE STUDY CIRCLES high school, Paul White took part in a study circle, then became a facilitator As a student at Fayetteville State FAYEITEVI III:; NORTH CAROUNA UniversitlA, Paul initiated a campus study circle program; .;~,r~.~ ~.:,tt~ he also facilitates community-police circles, which began i~[;.v '-~'" this year in the city Tom Bergamine is a captain in the .~ ' Fayetteville Police Department, and participated in the ~ , E Our race-relations dialogue has definitely helped some CILITATORe of our young people in our city - and some of my A personal friends - open their eyes to a lot of racist situations. It changed their hearts. personally, study circles have changed my heart because I [Before study circles], we were always overlooked didn't think that young people because you don't walk up to the mayor and say, could speak out and be heard. But "Mayor, I'd like to see this park change," or anything. study circles gave me an open The mayor wouldn't listen to us, not knowing who we opportunity to let the city hear my are, and not having any formaliW. Study circles voice and my opinion about different recognize young people as an important part of the things that I felt, as a young person, city. Because we are a program integrated with the were important. At times, they have Human Relations Commission, the city opened its ears printed what I say in the paper, and it more, and the adults say, "Okay, this is something - made me feel special, it's built up my these are the people we can trust; it's not some crazy self-esteem. Now, I'm one of the person walking up to us." Paul White leading youth facilitators in our city, and I'm going to help every young I hope that my city becomes an example for America person that I can. to follow; a foundation for people to look up to and say, "Hey, they're doing something great." that upfront. The best thing to do is just be CAI~I'e'I~M BERGAMINE straightforward and honest about it, and take it from STUDY CIRCLE there. PARTICIPANT One of the citizens~ greatest ideas was ~r o~ce~ to When I signed up for study take just a couple minutes to stop and talk with circles, I figured that people people - say, if someone's out doing yard work. That were going to slam our would go a long way toward building relations in the department. 1 wanted to be able to community. That's something we've been working on participate, to have a say-so in what's with our officers. You can call it communication, you actual fact and what isn't. I guess can call it dialogue, but if there's no talk, nothing's you could say it was a rather selfish going to get accomplished. CaptTom Bergamine viewpoint from the beginning, but it turned out real well, because I Study circles are not going to be just a big arguing learned folks had some valid points, session. We had discussions on various matters, and I think it gets a lot of misperceptions out of the way. One of the things that people tend to forget is, law Study circles help create better understanding between enforcement is like anything else. Cops come from the folks who are participating in the study circles and society. You've got to look at the way society is made law enforcement representatives. up, things going on in society today, and work on it from there. I think sharing relevant information important points in stud~ I think anybody participating in the process is going to circles we can get going, the word have some tough issues thrown at them and tough a community, we can get on track. questions asked. You've got to go in there knowing News from BUFFALO, NEW YORK Diversity has received operational LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA Tbe United Neighborhoods Center. funding frown local sources, and plans to Lee County Pulling Together is working with the city's Community offer sererift types of assistance to the expanding its efforts to promote Policing Consortlure, organized a study action groups - including staff time, discussions on race and race circle program that already has funding, and prontoting action ideas. relations in Fort Myers aud throughout improved police-community The alliance board will review proposed Lee County. The program's board of relations. More than 350 people have activities and decide what level of directors includes representatives of Lee been involved so far. In each support each may receive. Study circles County govermnent, Florida Gulf Coast neighborhood, one or two key with teenagers began this summer, and University, Lee Memorial Health System. organizations ~ including block clubs, a a second round of community-wide and area churcbes. The group plans to public housing residents' association, a study circles will begin in October. support programs within other Nation of Islam faith community, an organizations in the county, helping historic preservation group, and several DANVILLE~ ILLINOIS ~vith coordinating and facilitator Business Improvement Districts did Over the last nine months, 150 people training, and distributing materials for most of the recruiting and hosted the participated in study circles on race in training and for the study circles. Still in circles. Danville. Melody Ehrlich of the Halo the planning stages for this new role. Project, a "healthy community" initiative One neighborhood circle is using tbe based at Provena United Samaritans slogan. "Putting the Neighbor back in Medical Center, coordinated the 14 the 'Hood," to promote stronger police- circles. At an action forum in May, neighborhood communication. an end participants suggested the following: to racial profiling, and a number of new changes to the school curriculum; joint anti-crime measures. Another group church services: house painting and developed a "Park and Walk" program rehabilitation; funding to hire more where police oft~cers park their patrol teachers of color in the schools; health : cars for an hour a day to visit fairs; more study circles among young neighborhood businesses and people; efforts to prevent racial organizations. profiling by police officers and store clerks; and study circles for inmates and In two neighborhoods, business owners corrections officers at a nearby prison. . ~ ~ · pledged to reduce crime concerns by An eighth grader who participated ,' adding lighting, hiring security guards, reported, "I learned to talk more openly and working closely with police and about race; and I learned how to talk to community members. Finally, in a my parents when they say things I think " neighborhood with a number of are wrong. I learned how to ask them halfway houses for the mentally ill, why they think that way without several citizens, a police officer, and the coming off like a teenager." mental health director came up with the idea of an "emergency team" to handle FRESNO, gALIFORNIA complaints about mentally ill people Study circles in urban Fresno brought loitering and causing disturbances. together builders and developers with environmental activists and other Shakeor Aljuwani, director of United citizens to address the issue of growth. Neighborhoods, says. "The cops are Many of the 70 participants reported beginning to see that they don't need to gaining a better understanding of Lee County Pulling Together already has be defensive, and the citizens can see others' points of view because of the been asked to assist with study circle that the cops really want to work with program. At an action forum, programs for the Lee County Sberriffs them. This has really expanded the participants identified shared concerns Department, hospital staffs of the Lee whole definition of community policing. and named the following priorities: Memorial Health System, teachers of Lec Bet~>re, there were only a few people improving public transportation~ Connty Puhlic Schools, and area Girl working togetber." promoting "in-fill" development on Scout leaders. Tbis interest coukt extensive vacant land; creating quality involve more than 14,000 people in CORVALLIS, OREGON affordable housing; and providing better study circles - a clear indication that Tbe Action Fair last spring concluded educational opportunities for those in Lee County is ready to pull together! the first full round of study circles on low-income areas. race and race relations in Col-/allis, and also marked the beginning of structured support for emerging action projects. The Community Alliance for SOUTH KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT, WASHINGTON G c,rc,es on e..ca.on in ,heetti ng Started South Kitsap School District led to strengthened community relations and CINCINNATI, OHIO police department, businesses, and the passage of a school leW. After The Cincinnati Human Relations faith groups to sponsor a twice failing to pass a Iew/, the school Commission has initiated study community-wide program called district and its supporters decided to circles to build better relationships, "Residents and Police Building use study circles in the hope of winning and establish trust and Relationships That Promote a Safe support from voters. As organizers understanding between residents and Just CommuniW', scheduled to began to see the long-term value of and the police community. In the kick off on Sept. 24. Pilot £ircles building a strong relationship with the wake of community unrest with residents and officers are community at large, their focus shifted. following the shooting of a young under way this summer. Lt. Col. They spent several additional months African-American male by a police Ron Twitty believes it's crucial for planning the first round of study circles, officer, the commission, under the Cincinnati officers - including beat and ran a separate levy campaign. Not direction of Cecil Thomas, invited officers - to participate, and says, "I SCRC to conduct an orientation on think study circles break down a using studyldrcles to strengthen lot of barriers." The goal is to have police-community relations. The one third of the city's 52 commission is patmering with local neighborhoods participating in the community organizations, the program. / at elementary schools - approximately SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 540 people - participated in study Recent classes of incoming police circles. Their discussions helped shape officers and firefighters in Springfield an "equity plan" for each school for have been the most diverse in the city's next year. Study circles for middle and history. Increasing the number of high school faculty are planned for the L officers of color in these departments fall. was identified as a priority by participants in the community's long- running study circles on race, the latest ~ .k round of which involved approximately 100 people. With the support of the www. studycircles.org Race Relations Task Force, which grew is bursting with out of the program, the city has changed its hiring process for both fire and police departments. information. WATERLOO, IOWA The Waterloo Human Rights Be sure to visit only did the levy pass, bnt many former Commission has been sponsoring critics of the school district were snccessful study circles on race for ofterll recruited into the first round of study several years. Last year, the school circles, which concluded in Jnne. A superintendent participated in one of number of participants have the circles, and has been thinking about volunteered to help organize tile next how the process might benefit the round. During the first action forum. school system. Waterloo. like many community pannerships, other mid-western cities, is experiencing communications, and filnding xvere an influx of new immigrants, and identified as the key areas requiring student demographics are shifting attention. dramatically. The district decided to hold study circles for faculty and staff to provide a forum for them to examine issues of race, immigration. and education. This spring, faculty and staff STUDY CIRCLES Two new resources from SCRC: Organizing Community-wide Dialogue for Action and Change: ,-,,u~c. RcL,,A Step-by-Step Guide and What Works: Study Circles in the ................Real World Visit SCRC's website to download these materials. www. studycircles.org ,.. :. ,... ~,. :'.:.. . :: ::,..:. ': ':: '..~ Summer/Fall lO] issue of Focus inside )~ STUDY CIRCLES Helping People Work Toge~her Organizing Conununity-wide Dialogue for Action and Change: ~( A Step-by-step Guide Organizing a community-wide study circle program is a complex undertaldng. Many things will bc happening at the ~:~' same time: coalition building, communication and publicity, .~' rccrniting participants, training facilitators, fund raising, planning for action, and marc. Regardless of whether the prograln in your community is full-~cdged, or just getting :-:, started, you will find that the information in this guide will ................ [ ~. make your work easier and more effective. What is in the guide? , An overview of commnnity wide stndy circles ~;i . Basic steps for organizing programs . Detailed advice on coalition building - · Strategies for recruiting participants and facilitators from every sector of the community ~"-,.. ~, , Guidanceforplanningandconductingstudycircles ~,~_: ~ ,,~.~ , Recommendations for implementing action ideas ~ .-.' ~, ..~- and change · .." ,-- ,..-,- , Community profiles / · Sample documents for all '..' ,i ,. ':. - !? ~ What Works: Study Circles in the Real World Roberrs & Kay, Inc., led a diverse, multi-disciplinary team of researchers in a two-year study of best practices in study circle organizing. This practical, short publication is based on that study. It contains suggestions drawn from effective organizing practices and readable first-person accounts from several study circle organizers. It also contains profiles of community wide study :' .~ circle programs, as told from the organizer's point of view. i..~ Who should use this resource? , Peopleorganizingacommnnity-widestndycircleprogram ..,c, for the first time · Coalitions or organizers looking for ways to improve their program People who are thinking about joining a study circle coalition People who are considering funding study circles !::What Works is available from SCRC for $10 a copy, see order form below. It is also available on our web site, www. studydrcles,org { STUDY CIRCLF:S RESOURCE CENTER }~0. Box 203 Porefret, 17l' 06258 otv stau, Ptlllrle 860 928 2t;lt; Fax 860 928 3713 v~lo.~' v~ t .lall Order today/ Hear'what people have to say about Organizing Community-wide Dialogue for Action and Change Organizing Community-wide Dialogue for Action and Change" The citizen dialogue movement is driven by the reasonable and offers tremendous assistance to orgunizer~ By using this too~time-proven belief that if you create the conditions for people organizers know exactly what it takes to plan and sustainto talk to each other, appreciate each other, and act togeth~ meaningful and productive community-wide dialoguecommunities can be traasformecZ Creating those conditions is Organizers will also realize the importance of being preparedthe scary part In its new manua~ the Study Circles Resource to utilize the ideas for action and change that come out of theCenter has captured practical ways to bring people back to the study circle~ tt community-building table ~ Sandy Robinson Jon Abercrombie Director of the Springfield Department of Community Relations Director of Common Focus Springfield, Illinois Decatur, Georgia i e ~ ~ Everythingyou wanted to know about organizing a community- Re ~ection on What Works: wide dialogue is in Organizing Community-wide Dialogue for Study Circles in the Real World Action and Change!/t~ easy to understand so that novices can immediately benefit from SCRC~ expefience and success. This " We ?e excited to present a practical toal based on exteasive guide tells how to take democracy off the shelf and put it to researck RKf s What Works makes it possible to learn from the ' work for more ribran4 effectz~ and exciting communitie~ ~ ~ real-life practices of experienced organizers of community- wide dialogue for action and change.' Judy White Director of Government and Community Relations : Arkansas School Boards Association Martha McCoy L~ctle Rock, Arkansas SCRC Executive Director 4~y STUDY CIRCLES I'~p'''g'~ew°~'~°g~r .o.-..r.~ _,. R E S O U R C E C E N T E R For Creative Community Change FAIn P,O. BOX 203 Fermit N~. 1] Porefret, CT 06258 -: A project of TopsfieM Foundatio~ Inc SC142137 P194 Stevere KareneP C21 " 63O S GovePnoP St ~pt 3. Iov~a Cj. ty I~ 52240-5663 ht,h,,I,h,IJ,h,llh,,,hh,ll,,,ih,,,lhlh,,,,Ihlh,I requested' '~'" ; ~: ' ~2:46 8EP 10, ~001 ID: ~0~-6~6-3043 TEL NO: ~02-6~6-3043 ~111410 P~GE: 3/6 Examples of Programs for Cities Compiled by the Municipal Reference Service A Member Service of the National League of Cities Example Number 1 of 3 Jurisdiction: Hampton, Virginia Population: 133,793 Form of Government: Council-Manager Address: City of Hampton 22 Lincoln Street Hampton, VA 23669 For more information, contact: City Hall, (757) 727-6000 Program Description: Started in: 1987 Hampton integrated facilitation and consensus building activities into its regular planning process to update its comprehensive plan (comp plan). When · Hampton decided to include a proposed east-west highway in its comp plan, residents forced its removal because of their lack of ability to padicipate in the planning process. After decades of debate, the city manager took steps to involve citizens. Representatives from neighborhood associations, business interests, and the city govemment formed an initiating committee. Hampton hired a professional facilitator to train city staff to partialpate in and run the process. The committee formed a working group, which met once a week for a year to learn transportation planning basics. Because the highway issue was heated, the facilitator established ground rules so that participants "valued each other." When an individual asked a question, the fadlitator tracked down the appropriate city employee or found a consultant to address the issue. Between the joint fact-finding effort and the training, Hampton produced a comp plan that satisfied all interests, Source: Using assisted negotiation to settle land use disputes. by Lawrence Susskind, Using assisted negotiation to settle land use disputes, (1999) pl0, Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Example Number 2 of 3 Jurisdiction: Scottsdale, Arizona Population: 130,069 · The Munldpal Reference SenAce provides libraW and reference services to the menbers of the National League of Cities · 1E:47 SEP 10, 2881 ID: 202--626~3849 TEL NO: 20E-62,6-3043 #111410 PRGE: Form of Government: Council-Manager Address: City of Scottsdale 3939 North Civic Center Boulevard Scottsdale, AZ 85251 For more information, contact: Elizabeth I_arson, (480) 312-7252 Emaih blarson@d.sco~dale.aT_us Program: Scottsdale Voices Program Description: Started in: 1997 Scottsdale Voices convenes small groups of dty staff, elected officials, and residents in residents' homes to discuss community values and issues. "Deliberate dialogue," the discussion of issues by city offidals and citizens in a nonconfrontational manner, underpins the project. Scettsdale Voices encourages a more abstract dialogue about community, dvic responsibility, and factors that build up or tear down the community. Officials feel such engagement is crucial to the future of Scottsdale, a fast-growing city with a transitional population driven by toudsm. In the first two years the program sponsored over 100 discussions with 1,500 residents participating in dialogues. Two-thirds of the conversations occurred in the less affluent southern section of the dty, where residents often feel left out of dty politics. City offidals increasingly use the Voices format as a tool to diffuse controversial situations and to discuss issue-specific matters that need public input. One of the challenges is that citizens often need to vent their anger on immediate concems before they can engage in abstract conversation. Likewise, staff members have differant levels of comfort with a small-group format. Nevertheless, surveys document changing attitudes. The program breaks down barriers and sensitizes staff members to the needs of a diverse community. Source: Scoffsdale meets citizens where they live. by Elizabeth M. Larson, New Public Innovator, n95 (Spring/Summer 1999) p34-35, Washington, DC: Alliance for Redesignin9 Government. Example Number 3 of 3 Jurisdiction: Durham, North Carolina Population: 136,611 Form of Government: CoundI-Manager ]2:48 SEP 10, 8001 ID: 808-G86-3043 TEL NO: 208-6Z6-~043 ,lll4iu PAGE: 5/B Address: Dispute Settlement Center of Durham PO Box 2321 Durham, NC 27702 For more information, contact: Michael Wendt, (919) 490-6777 Program: Dispute Settlement Center Program Description: Durham's Dispute Settlement Center (DSC) is a community mediation program that facilitates public gatherings. Trained mediators work in public gathering seffings, such as town meetings, to help the community reach resolution on a vadety of issues including race relations, long range planning, economic development planning, city manager selection, and zoning issues. Gatherings were held in city buildings, school auditoriums, and convention centers. Some were even held at multiple sites simultaneously with video linkups. The DSC maintains a pool of 75 mediators. It has facilitated more than a dozen town meetings of 200 or more dtizens. Source: Dispute resolution: a mediation tool for cities. by Nathan Ridnouer, Issues & Options, v5 nl0 (Nov./Dec. 1997) p6-7, Washington, DC: National League of Cities. For single issues or yearly subscriptions to Issues & Options call (202) 626-3181 · 11~e Municipal Reference Service provide library and re~erence sentices to the members of the National League of Cities · A Facilitator's Manual Carl M. Moore (VVith Rafael Montalvo) An eadier version of this manual, that included similar (albeit slightly different) descriptions of some of the processes and one of the approaches, was called "The Facilitatofs Manual" and was published in 1992 by Chattanooga Venture. Some of the ideas appearing in this manual, as well as descriptions of Nominal Group Technique, Ideawriting, and Interpretive Structural Modeling, appeared in Group TechniQues for Idea Buildincl (Second Edition), Sage Publications, 1994. An important impetus to this version of the "Facilitator's Manual" came when, in 1995, St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) began discussing ways to train staff in facilitation, negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. Staff turned to consultant Cad Moore and Florida's Conflict Resolution Consortium (CRC) to assist with the project. An initial two-day training session in March 1996 covered facilitation and other collaborative problem solving approaches. After the first session, participants practiced facilitation techniques in over a dozen settings, with CRC providing coaching and design assistance. After "hands-on" experience, a two day follow- up session was held in June i996 that included additional problem solving and facilitation training, plus a three-hour introductory session on mediation. These sessions were attended by staff from SJRWMD, the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, the Suwannee River WMD, and Bravard County. The reason for initiating the training is that the state of Florida is experiencing shifts in the state's growth management system, an increased focus on ecosystem management, a need to develop more partnerships, emerging cross-jurisdictional and multi-agency problems, and a realization that many of these issues can best be addressed through collaborative problem solving. Both the Water Management Distdct Review Commission and the Legislature have made recommendations that water management districts make more use of altemative dispute resolution in resolving rule-making and permitting disputes. In addition, local governments and regional planning councils are embarking on important community planning initiatives that need to be built on collaboration. Collaborative problem solving is needed to effectively link land and water planning. Florida's environmental and planning agencies are seeking better ways to work in partnership with local governments, permit applicants, citizens. and other stakeholder groups. An expanded version of this manual (designed for use by those who participated in the training) was prepared by Cad Moore with substantial contributions by Rafael Montalvo at the Flodda Conflict Resolution Consortlure, under the direction and with the. assistance of Margaret Spontak, of the St. Johns River Water Management Distdct CONTENTS Pacle Introduction 1 PdndOles Role of Ihe Fadlitator 5 Ground Rules- 5 Logistics 6 Perspecf~..s: Preferred Facilitator Contingendes 7 OvercominO Obstacles to Facirdation 8 Nominal Group Technique (NGT) 11 Storyboarding 17 Ideawdeng 19 Interlxetive 8tmduml Modeling (ISM) 25 Single Text NegoUaUons 33 Metration 37 Community Mapping 41 Strategic V'~oning 45 Implementation HowTo Design an Intervention 51 INTRODUCTION We often join a group in order to accomplish a complex task and then are disappointed when the people in the group behave in ways that get in the way of the group working together productively. Some people talk much more than others. Some never talk. Usually when ideas are being generated for consideration by the group, the group members talk a lot about the first idea (or one of the first ideas) and seldom have time to get to others...or at least not to all of the others that might have been considered by the group. Some people, because they do not trust that they have been heard, keep bringing up the same idea over and over again. "'Strategies" have evolved to address unproductive (and occasionally disruptive) behaviors. For example, if you believe that some people will talk much more than others, you can call on people one at a time for their ideas. That same strategy - calling on people for their ideas - is a good way to ensure that everyone present will participate. Another good strategy to gain padicipation from everyone present is to give people time to work silently and independently before you allow anyone to contribute ideas. One of the reasons some people do not contribute to the work of a group is that they are reflective and want time to think before they speak. Because groups are quick to assess, and that gets in the way of the group's consideration of many options, an effective strategy is to collect all of the ideas before permitting discussion of any of them. One strategy for getting people to let go of their idea - so that they do not have to bdng it up over and over again - is to record it on a flip chad in front of the group, "Processes" are collections of strategies. One of the processes this manual presents is Nominal Group Technique (NGT). The four essential steps of NGT are: Silent generation of ideas in writing, round-robin recording of ideas, clarification of ideas (rather than advocacy), and voting. Each of the steps is a strategy that helps to overcome typical behaviors that would occur if NGT were not utilized. Giving people lime to work independently and silently before anyone speaks is very helpful in equalizing willingness to participate. Collecting ideas from each person one at a time - and not permitting discussion of the ideas - is effective in not allowing individuals to dominate the generation of ideas. It also assures that all of the ideas that the group members have in mind can surface before you allow them to discuss any of them. And the ideas are recorded on flip charts in front of the group, so there is a much less repetition of the same ideas. Emphasizing clarification rather than advocacy allows the work of the group to be done effidently and is effective at cutting down speech-making and other influences on the group, which could be done by a person of high status and distort the preferences of the group. Voting is a way to bring closure to the work of the group. [11/2o] I "Approaches" are collections of strategies and processes. Strategic Visioning, as presented in this manual, is an example of how an approach includes a variety of strategies and processes. Some of the Proposed Adivities to Create Strategy or Process? a Strategic Vision Conduct interviews previous to the start of the meeting Strategy [which is a way to hear all ideas and to enable people to feel safe enough to say things they might not say when the group is togethed Review information gathered through interviews Strategy Brainstorm negative images of the future Process Use Nominal Group Technique to generate positive Process images of the future The processes and applications included in this manual are not comprehensive. Them are many others that could have been included. Two that are included in the previous table -- 'Brainstorming' (a process) and pre-meeting interviews (a strategy) - are examples of very effective tools that are not fully described in the manual. Those that are included ware selected because they are good ways to help groups be productive. To be productive, groups nccd ways to generate, develop/arrange and select between ideas. Nominal group Technique (NGT) is a way for a group to generate ideas, Storyboarding helps a group to generate and arrange ideas, Ideawriting is used to develop ideas, and Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) is used to select between ideas. Inteqx'ellve Nominal Group St~ctural Technique (NG'D Sto~ooard'mg Ideawntjng Modering (ISM) Generate Ideas DevelopfAnange Ideas Select Between While there are other ways for groups to accomplish these tasks, the processes presented in this manual are preferred ways because they help overcome typical [l 1/2012 behaviors that get in the way of the group working productively together. For example: Typical NGT Storyboarding Ideawritjng ISM ProblemS; Onlyafewldeas se produced ,/' ~ ~ Thegroupls group merebern do not Statusof one on~%ef~;tldeaor v/' ~ta~wk~ss 0 0 ~ = ~ ~ p~ss to address ~ pmb[~m ~e appeases ~n ~lp groups a~mplish d~lt task. Single Te~ N~otiati~s is a ~y for groups ~ ~ople ~ diedrig ~ ~ ~t ~ld ~ d~e a~ a ~mm0n problem to agree on o~ ~y to address ~e problem. M~iation e~bles ~i~ng p~ es to reso ve ~eir d fferen~s amiably, avoiffi~ ~at h~ns in ~ditional disp~e re~l~ion approa~es - ~at o~ ~ gains at ~e e~ense of ~e offier, and · at at least one of ~e padies is up~t at ~e o~me. Communi~ Resou~ Mapping is a ~y to enable ~nfli~i~ pa~ies to make d~mlt dealsions a~ s~md resour~s. [11/2013 Strategic Visioning is a way for a diverse group of people to agree on a common direction by imagining a desired future, rather than by identifying and solving the problems that seem to be vexing them. Traditional problem-solving bogs down when the participants have diffedng views of the problem. This manual begins with key principles, provides descriptions of the processes and the approaches, and offers suggestions for how to implement them. [11/2014 A Practical Guide to Consensus Poli0, Consensus hitiativc A Practical Guide to Consensus Government officials and agencies increasingly are turning to collaborative decision making processes to resolve difficult policy issues and multiparty conflicts. To do this, agency officials and staff need to understand when and how to use these approaches effectively. This step-by-step guide contains the rules of the road on how to sponsor, organize, hnd participate in a public policy consensus process. The guide helps readers ensure more effective uses of consensus processes, with "before, during, and after" instruc- tions that include how to: · assess whether a situation is appropriate for a consensus process · select a facilitator or mediator to manage the process · plan and organize the process Before After · write ground rules · negotiate issues and reach agreement · forlnalize and implement agreements This guide was developed by experts in the field of consensus building with many years of experience in facilitating and mediating public disputes. It is designed primarily for government agencies or depart- ments, but is also useful for any other sponsor of---or participant in--a consensus process. '7 use consensus processes to resolve public poliey problems simply because it works. The complex nature of issues today requires an integrated collaborative approach to ensure soun~ lasting decisions." Governor John A. Kitzhaber, Oregon 'Tt/s importantJ~r citizens and government to know how to resolve disputes without litigation or resorting to violence." Senator Merle Grace Kearns, Ohio "The old approach gave neither sid~ what it wanted. If you involve the people who must live with your policy, there's a decent chance you'll get buy-in and ownership. I wouldn't hesitate to use a similar approach to som~ other area of conflict." Governor Tom Carper, Delaware "With all due respect to the ancient arts of law and diplomacy, the recent development of systematic, teachable techniques j~r getting at the roots of conflict, and engaging multiple parties in disciplined and voluntary collaborative problem solving, represents something new in the 5, 000 years of recorded history." John W. Gardner, Founder, Common Cause Former Secretary, Health Education and Welfare P I c I I r ] c I z ISBN 0-9678831-0-5 811 St. Michael's Drive Suite 102 1003 E. Interstate Ave. Suite 7 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 · Bismarck, ND 58501 79896718 3106 I 9 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................l Building on the Best Practices Report ........................................................................................................ About this guide ........................................................................................................................................2 CHAPTER 1 CONSENSUS PROCESSES ..................................................................................................5 Stages of a consensus process .....................................................................................................................5 What is consensus? ....................................................................................................................................6 Other names for consensus processes .........................................................................................................6 What is collaboration? ...............................................................................................................................7 How are consensus and collaboration related? ............................................................................................7 Why use a consensus process? ....................................................................................................................7 Focusing on interests is a key to consensus .................................................................................................8 Other ways to engage the public ................................................................................................................9 How consensus processes differ from consultation .....................................................................................9 CHAffER 2 WHEN TO USE CONSENSUS PROCESSES ............................................................................11 When is a consensus process more likely to be appropriate? .......................................................................11 When is a consensus process less likely to be appropriate? ..........................................................................12 Concerns about the use of consensus processes ..........................................................................................12 Concerns about legitimacy ........................................................................................................................12 Concerns about effectiveness .....................................................................................................................13 What ira consensus process is not appropriate? .........................................................................................14 CHAPTER 3 How TO SPONSOR CONSENSUS PROCESSES ......................................................................17 What sponsors do ......................................................................................................................................17 Gain and maintain the publids trust ..........................................................................................................19 CHAPTER 4 HOW TO ASSESS WHETHER CONSENSUS WILL WORK ....................................................... 21 What is an assessment? ..............................................................................................................................21 Who should interview stakeholders? ..........................................................................................................22 What happens as a result of the assessment? ...............................................................................................23 The pitfalls of proceeding without an assessment ..............................................~ ........................................24 Handout: Sponsors' assessment checklist ...................................................................................................25 Handout: Assessment questions for stakeholders .........................Z .............................................................26 CHAPTER 5 How TO ENSURE REPRESENTATWE PARTICIPATION ............................................................27 Participation is the key to legitimacy .........................................................................................................27 Five principles to ensure representative participation ........................................:..i .....................................27 How to decide who participates .................................................................................................................30 Arrange for multiple parties to participate ...........................................................~ .....................................32 Ensure resources are available ....................................................................................................................32 Deal with dilemmas about participation ........................................................... What sponsors can do to deal with dilemmas ...................................................; ........................................34 Handout: A stakeholder's guide to participation .............................................!.~....L ...................................35 CHAPTER 6 HOw TO SELECT AND WORK WITH A FACILITATOR OR MEDIATOR .................................... 39 Basic management tasks ............................................................................................................................39~ What does a facilitator do? ........................................................................................................................39[ Qualifications ofa facilitator .....................................................................................................................40~ Should a facilitator from inside or outside the agency manage the process? ................................................41!~ What qualifications does a facilitator need? ...............................................................................................41: What about style and approach? ................................................................................................................41 Should a facilitator be an expert in the subject matter? ..............................................................................41 How to identifi/and select an independent facilitator ................................................................................42 How contracting with a facilitator differs from contracting with other consultants ....................................43 How to issue a request for qualifications (RFQ) ........................................................................................44 Interviewing potential facilitators: sample questions ..................................................................................44 CHArTEa 7 HOW TO P/AN AND ORGANIZE THE PROCESS ...................................................................45 Organizational tasks ..................................................................................................................................45 Sample work plan ......................................................................................................................................49 Organizational Meeting Sample Agenda ....................................................................................................50 CHAPTER 8 HOW TO WRITE GROUND RULES ....................................................................................51 Primary elements to include in ground rules ..............................................................................................51 Example: Medicaid Reform Workring Group Ground Rules ......................................................................56 Example: Cape Cod National Sea Shore Negotiated Rulemaking Committee ............................................58 CHAPTER 9 How TO NEGOTIATE THE ISSUES AND REACH AGREEMENT ................................................ 61 Create the climate for negotiations ............................................................................................................61 Deal with legal requirements: confldentiality, and sunshine laws ...............................................................62 Collaborative problem solving is cyclical, not linear ...................................................................................62 Use interest-based negotiation ...................................................................................................................63 Inform and educate participants ................................................................................................................63 Six steps to reaching consensus ..................................................................................................................64 CHAPTER 10 How TO FORMALIZE AND IMPLEMENT THE AGREEMENT ................................................. 67 Plan for implementation beginning with the assessment ............................................................................67 Keep decision makers and constituencies informed ....................................................................................67 Ingredients for successful implementation .................................................................................................68 What happens before, during, and after to ensure implementation? ...........................................................68 Best Practice recommendations .................................................................................................................69 CASE STUDIES Consensus on Coastal Zone Regulations in Delaware ................................................................................4 Reaching Consensus on Housing for Homeless Children ..........................................................................11 Facilitating a New City Charter in Massachusetts ......................................................................................16 Laying the Groundwork for Consensus on Medicaid Reform ....................................................................20 Oil and Fishing Industries Resolve Issues in the Santa Barbara Channel ....................................................28 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................................... 71 INTERNET RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................................... 72 FOREWARD WHY PCI CREATED THIS GUIDE Consensus based approaches to problem solving have long been used to resolve policy conflicts. Governments, businesses, interest groups and individuals negotiate decisions every day. These activities are nor new. What is relatively new is building the use of consensus processes into government as an alternative for addressing a wide range of multiparty, multi-issue disputes and controversies. In the 1970s, mediators began employing these approaches to help parties settle environmental disputes. Over the years these methods have been used to address an increasingly broad array of issues. We now know much more about when, where, and how to use these approaches. This book is a practical "how to" guide for sponsors of consensus processes, a role often played by govern- ment agencies. It is produced by the Policy Consensus Initiative (PCI), a national non-profit organization working with state leaders to establish and strengthen uses of conflict resolution and consensus building to enhance government effectiveness. The book distills the best practices for using collaborative approaches to resolve public issues. It is based on the Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution 1997 report Best Practices j~r Government Agencies: Guidelines ~r Using Agreement-Seeking Processes. While this book is written especially for those on the front lines in government, it provides information useful to any agency, department, organization, or individual involved in consensus processes. The more that we, as public officials, can wisely employ the tools of consensus building and collaborative problem solving, the better able we will be to serve the public interest. I hope you find the approaches and methods presented here to be as useful in resolving problems as I have. Greg Wolf PC1 Board Member and Governor~ Advisor]br Dispute Resolution, State of Oregon INTRODUCTION In recent years, many government officials have called for greater collaboration and consensus building to solve complex public problems. They have seen such approaches work. · In Delaware, Governor Tom Carpet convened a group that resolved a long-stand- ing dispute between the chemical industry and environmental organizations over regulations in the coastal zone. · In Washington, advocates for the homeless and local and state offiicials wrote a state plan to address the needs of homeless children and secured funding for it from the legislature. · In Ohio, nursing home representatives, state agencies, and legislators worked together to redesign systems for Medicaid reimbursement, cutting state costs by more than $100 million. · In Santa Barbara, California, fishermen and the oil industry settled disputes over the impact of oil production on fishing, established a liaison office to prevent other disputes, and with public officials investigated complex scien- tific questions to resolve other issues. · In Hampton, Virginia, city officials mediated an agreement between citi- zens, planners, and developers to build a new parkway. These success stories involved issues that no government agency could solve on its own. The many parties in these cases began on opposite sides of the issue and, in some cases, had long histories of conflict. The Delaware Coastal Zone dispute persisted for more than two decades. The Washington homeless children issue went all the way to a 5-4 decision in the state supreme court before the parties sat down together. In each case, the issues lacked simple answers; many involved scientific and technical uncer- tainties and in some, jurisdiction was unclear or divided among several agencies. Yet the participants in each case labored through thoughtful and difficult discussions, reached consensus about what to do, then worked together to turn talk into action. They established a level of trust that built relationships and commitments that made agreement possible How does collaboration happen when people are on different sides of an issue? What will bring them to the table if there is conflict? How can consensus decisions be effec- tive? With all the contending parties in a complex issue, won't consensus just be a watered down compromise? And how can government officials responsibly--and legitimately--share decision making with citizens in a consensus process without violating their mandates? A diverse group of people became concerned about these questions and a committee of experts in dispute resolution from government, academia, and professional practice convened to develop a report and recommendations. Building on the Best Practices Report In a 1997 report titled Best Practices fbr Government Agencies: Guidelines fir Using Collaborative Agreement-Seeking Processes, the Society of Professionals in Dispute Reso- Practical Guide toConsensus 1 lution developed eight recommendations for government officials who sponsor con- sensus processes: 1. An agency should first consider whether a consensus approach is appropriate. 2. Stakeholders should be supportive of the process and willing and able to partici- pate. 3. Agency leaders should support the process and ensure sufficient resources to con- vene the process. : 4. An assessment should precede a consensus process. 5. Ground rules should be mutually agreed upon by all participants and not estab- 7' lished solely by the sponsoring agency. 6. The sponsoring agency should ensure the facilitator's neutrality and accountabil- ity to all participants. ~ 7. The agency and participants should plan for implementation of the agreement from the beginning of the process. 8. Policies governing these processes should not be overly prescriptive. I About this guide This guide provides step-by-step, "how-to1' advice for the first seven of these recom- mendations. It also covers several important topics not fully addressed in the report, such as how to assess whether a consensus process is likely to work. We define a consensus process as an effort in which government agencies and other affected parties seek to reach agreement on a course of action to address an issue or set of related issues. A consensus process is not appropriate for all issues, but under the right conditions, the approach described here can produce effective solutions with broad public support. The book is written especially for government sponsors of consensus processes, but will also be useful to other stakeholders and participants. It offers government leaders and managers guidance on how to use and conduct consensus processes. While the idea for using a consensus process can come from anyone, often a public official or agency makes the decision to sponsor or initiate a process. Throughout the guide, "sponsor" refers to sponsoring governments, departments, or agencies. This guide describes an ideal approach to organizing and conducting a consensus pro- cess. It is not always possible to undertake an ideal process, and modifications or ad- justments are usually required. However, chances of a successful outcome will increase to the extent you follow the principles outlined in the guide. Chapters 1 and 2 lay the foundation; Chapter 1 defines and describes the basics of consensus processes and Chapter 2 explains when consensus processes are most likely to be successful. Chapter 3 outlines the role of sponsors. The remaining chapters describe how to con- duct the basic phases of the process: assessment (Chapter 4), engaging participants (Chapter 5), determining who will manage the process (Chapter 6), planning and organizing the tasks (Chapter 7), writing ground rules (Chapter 8) conducting the discussions and reaching consensus (Chapter 9), and formalizing and implementing the agreement (Chapter 10). These phases are not entirely linear; some will overlap or occur simultaneously. 2 Practical Guide to Consensus While actual cases may vary from the model presented here, this guide cogers the essential elements that sponsors need to address. The guide also includes a number of real-life examples that illustrate how these processes have been used. Stories from around the nation demonstrate how consensus, when used appropriately, really works to help resolve public issues. This guide covers only the basics of consensus building. There are many other publica- tions that discuss these topics in greater detail, some of which are listed in the bibliog- raphy. Our hope is that readers will find this guide a good place to start. ~ ~1 practical GuidetoConsensus 3 PATV BOARD MINUTES - 8/16/01 PreSent: Tc~n Nothnagle, Mike Petersen, Phil Phillips, Michael Bell & John Carhoff Staff: Ren~ Paine Call to Order: 7:25 Approval of July Board Minutes: Moved for acceptance by Michael Bell, seconded by Tcm Nothnagle Phil Phillips read a thank you frcrn Steve Kanner re: PATV'S involv~nent in the "Alternative Transportation Solutions Conference". PATV acted as a fiscal agent. If the City Council approves our proposal to buy the building on S. Dubuque St. on August 21, then we will close on the building on August 22nd. Adam Burke has ccntDiled a notebook that contains a chronological report and related papers involved in the acquiring of the building on S. Dubuque St. that PATV intends to buy. These papers and reports can be found in a notebook in the PATV offices and are available for viewing by anyone who would be interested. We are currently getting bids for various remodeling projects in relation to the new building; e.g., there may be s~ne roof work as well as making the building handicap accessible. Also there will be walls framed up for reans, etc. Rene~is getting bids from various contractors for this. Discussion surrounded the issue of PATV Board member Tim Clancy being on both Board of Directors (the Comer Center & the PATV Board). We are approaching this carefully and will talk to Tim about abstaining from voting in regard to issues related to the new building. Since the Comer Center will be renting space from us in the new building we felt that the public may have opportunity for accusations toward Tim of having mixed interests since the new building involved both parties. The Board discussed the candidacy of John Cashoff as a possibility for a new Board member. Board members bad already been given John's conpleted application form and bad read it previous to tonight's meeting. Since John was present we were able to ask him questions about his qualifications. After talking with John we dismissed him and took a vote upon which he was unanimously apEDroved as a new Board member. Discussion ensued re: what terms new Board members should take over since we have had many vacancies with ,: · people moving out of town or resigning frcrn the Board this past year. Whose terms do new Board members finish out? If they finish out sc~neone's 2 year term, how many terms are they eligible for? The Board will be looking at this issue at our next meeting in September. Rene' has given a Board application to Marsha Morris who has expressed an interest in joining. OTHER BUSINESS & STAFF ANNOYS ICIC meeting for August has been cancelled. TRFASIPt~'S RESORT - Report was distributed, read and aiDproved by the Board. On the financial statement we have a positive balance showing of $10,906.22. MANAG~lvENYP REPORT Rene' - Thank you to the Board r~mmbers for being present at the Johnson County Fair booth prcxnoting PATV. Rene' has been attending meenings and active in the Iowa Shares program. New enloloyee; James Mira is working out well. PATV will have 4 interns studying and working with us this fall. ADJOLPaX1vfNTWASAT 9:10 tin. Respectfully suhnitted, Michael Bell Marian Karr From: Grog Hall [ghall@ammanagement,net] Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 10:40 AM To: rj-winkelhake@iowa-city.org Cc: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Case # 200109565 Mr. Winkelhake: I wanted to contact you concerning the subject case number from Thursday, 10/18/01 (also identified as incident # 2001061961). An envelope that had been placed in our outside mailbox was found to contain a white powder substance. With all the information the public has received over the last few weeks concerning the threat of anthrax we immediately contacted the IC Police Dept. Officers responded and removed the envelope from the office. Wearing protective gloves and masks, they opened the envelope to see the contents. The officers saw the same white powder and called in a supervisor to help determine the appropriate action. Once the supervisor arrived, we were told the protocol was as follows. Since there was no "credible threat", the substance would not be tested by a lab. In fact, the envelope and contents would probably just be destroyed. Even though the contents was not identified by the officers and the contents would not be tested, we were told that no one in Iowa City could get anthrax so we had nothing to worry about. We were instructed to seek medical attention if we felt we were at risk. We asked if further investigation would be done to determine who may have done this (e.g. finger prints). We were again told that since there was no "credible threat" no further action would be taken. We have some very nervous and upset employees. We feel some action should have been taken to determine the contents of the envelope. We made several calls to medical authorities ( a local medical lab and the hygienic lab) and were told that they would not test for anthrax unless instructed to do so by the Police. So now we are just going around in circles. Can you provide us with some information that may help us to understand the Police protocol in these situations? Specifically: 1. What is a "credible threat"? 2. What did we need to experience in order to get the contents tested so our employees know that they are not in danger? 3. Do you really believe that no one in Iowa City can obtain anthrax? That seems to be a dangerous assumption to make. 4. How long will you keep the envelope and its contents before destroying? 5. Have others had similar happenings that this can be compared to? 6. If this had happened in a municipal, county, state or federal building would the substance have been tested? We all understand that this was probably just a sick joke and that the envelope contained no harmful substance. We also understand that the Police have responded to numerous false reports and a judgment is used in each case to determine proper actions. We feel the wrong judgment was made in this case. Someone intentionally placed the envelope in our mail box. We want our employees to feel saXe and secure in their workplace. They will not feel safe and secure until they know without a doubt that the envelopels oontents was harmless. Thank you for your time, Grog Hall ~M Management, Inc. 805 S. Gilbert Street Iowa City, IA 52240 1 Marjan Karr From: Carol DeProsse [cdeprosse@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, October 22.2001 9:10 AM To: jcnews@yahoogroups.com; icprogs@yahoogroups.com; iagp- johnsoncounty@yahoogroups.com; SLP@list.uiowa.edu Cc: cts@avalon.net; jpwhite@co.johnson.ia.us; cthompso@co.iohnson.ia.us; mlehman@co.johnson.ia.us; sstutsma@co.johnson.ia.us; pharney@co.johnson.ia.us; tneuzil@co.johnson.ia.us; carolt@inav.net; Connie_Champion@iowa-city.org; Ross_Wilburn@iowa-city.org; Dee_Vanderhoef@iowa-city.org; Ernie_Lehman@iowa-city.org; Jim Fausett; Harry Herwig; John Weihe; Diana Lundell; Dave Jacoby; Jean Schnake; daily- iowan@uiowa.edu; LindaA@fyiowa.com; krui@uiowa.edu; wsui@uiowa.edu; bsharpicpc@yahoo.com; Mike. Wagner@kcrg.com; lylem@fyiowa.com; patv@avalon.net; erinw@fyiowa.com; bstewart@press-citizen.com; TomW@fyiowa.com; hwoodward@press- citizen.com; daily-iowan@uiowa.edu; krui@uiowa.edu; wsui@uiowa.edu; patv@avalon.net; slangenbergicpc@yahoo.com; Mike. Wagner@kcrg.com; alan-kern@uiowa.edu; newsroom@press-citizen.com; TomW@fyiowa.com; kellie-doyle@uiowa.edu; lisa- livermore@uiowa.edu; daily-iowan@uiowa.edu; slangenberg@press-citizen.com; radical_radio_ic@yahoo.com Subject: [jcnews] Informative Talk Tonight Monday, the 22nd, at the Iowa City Public Library, Room A at 7 p.m. Topic: The Failed War On Drugs: Impacts on Local Communities Speaker will be Washington, D.C. attorney Kevin Zeese, founder and president of the Common Sense Drug Policy Council, and the author of many publications and recipient of several major awards for his work in educating around various aspects of drugs, drug use, and the War on Drugs. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ........................ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ........................ > Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck Monitoring Service trial http://us.click.yahoo.com/GiOtnD/bQ8CAA/ySSFAA/kjOolB/TM To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: jcnews-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Marjan Karr From: Carol DeProsse [cdeprosse@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 7:36 AM To: jcnews@yahoogroups.com; iagp-johnsoncounty@yahoogroups.com; icprogs@yahoogroups.com; robertsonforcouncil@yahoogroups.com; slp@listuiowa.edu; nick-klenske@uiowa.edu; nick-kienske@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu; nick-klenski@uiowa.edu; nick- klenski@uiowa,edu; matt-blizek@uiowa.edu; mbaltutis@cs.com Cc: ipwhite@co.johnson.ia.us; cthompso@co.johnson.ia.us; mlehman@co.johnson.ia.us; sstutsma@co.johnson.ia.us; pharney@co.johnson.ia.us; tneuzil@co.johnson.ia.us; carolt@inav.net; Connie_Champion@iowa-city.org; Ross_Wilburn@iowa-city.org; Dee_Vanderhoef@iowa-city.org; Ernie_Lehman@iowa-city.org; Steve_Atkins@iowa-city.org; Marian_Karr@iowa-city.org; Jim Fausett; Harry Herwig; John Weihe; Diana Lundell; Dave Jacoby; Jean Schnake Subject: [jcnews] Counter-terrorism Tuesday the 23rd, in the Indiana Room, 3rd floor, Iowa Memorial Union at 7 p.m. Topic: The War on Drugs and Counter-terrorism: Lessons and Links Speaker will be Washington, D.C. attorney Kevin Zeese, founder and president of the Common Sense Drug Policy Council, and the author of many publications and recipient of several major awards for his work in educating around various aspects of drugs, drug use, and the War on Drugs. He is also one of the country's foremost authorities on drug reform. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ........................ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ........................ > Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck Monitoring Service trial http://us.click.yahoo.com/GiOtnD/bQ8C~/ySSFAA/kjOolB/TM To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: jcnews-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 5TEVEN KANNER City Councilmember. Zowa City Home Address: 630 S. Governor #I, Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (319)338-8865 Carol Thompson Johnson County Board of Supervisors 913 S. Dubuque Iowa City, Iowa 52240 October 11, 2001 Dear Carol, As you might recall, at our last joint meeting you presented some information about the status of the Johnson County jail. I replied that pursuing a collaborative process that include parties representing all sides of the issue would be a positive way to resolve differences regarding jail problems. Here is some information on different approaches that might be useful for this community debate on the best way to resolve the jail issue. "Study Circles" information was provided by Study Circles Resource Center (SCRC) (697 Pomfi'et St., P.O. Box 203, Porntlet, Connecticut 06248. Tel. #[8601928-2616). They are being recommended by the National League of Cities and are being used by many communities to examine issues of racism. Study circles are used for all types of community issues. Included is information from a statewide Study Circle effort in Oklahoma regarding their criminal justice and jail system, Martha McCoy, director of SCRC, writes, "The SCRC was founded in the belief that everyone should have a voice in our democracy and in solving public problems...SCRC's ultimate aim is that all communities will see the value of diverse, large-scale dialogue on how to do it as a regular part of community life." SCRC has many resources that would be helpful in our county jail discussion. I feel that the Study Circles model has great merit and will urge my fellow Iowa City Councilmembers to consider using some of these resources for such hotly debated city issues as alcohol & drug abuse, building, roads & development and criminal enforcement. Laura Varricchione of the National League of Cities (NLC) (1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 2004. Tel. #[202]626-3000]) supplied information on community collaborative efforts t~om their NLC Examples Database. The NLC provided three examples ofcollaborative efforts. In Hampton, Virginia (pop. 133,793) a professionally facilitated community-wide committee met for a year to work on transportation issues. In Scottsdale, Arizona (pop. 130,069) elected officials and residents met in residents' homes to "discuss community values and issues...Two-thirds of the conversations occurred in the less affluent southern section of the city, where residents oRen feel left out of city politics." And in Durham, North Caroline (pop. 136,611) they have initiated the Durham Dispute Settlement Center. "Trained mediators work in public gathering settings, such as town meetings, to help the community reach resolution on a variety of issues including race relations, long range planning, economic development planning, city manager selection, and zoning issues." The last two resource booklets that I'm giving you were supplied by Annie Tucker of Annie Tucker Mediator Service (220 Laffayette St., Iowa City, IA 52240. Tel. #354-5775). The fncst piece is "A Facilitator's Manual." The second piece is "A Practical Guide to Consensus." Both of these books are helpful in explaining collaborative and decision-making processes. Many successful collaborative efforts that seek to include diverse - and perhaps opposite - voices of the community require a well-trained facilitator and well-established ground rules on how the participants will hope to reach a consensus decision. These books give an introduction to accomplishing the above. I am enclosing full copies of all of the materials for you and also for the City Clerk oflowa City. Highlights from the full copies will be sent to the cc'd parties. I believe it is of supreme importance that all parties with different viewpoints on the jail issue sit down together, listen to each other and work on solutions together. There are many ways to do collaborations. I think that Study Circles would be a good place to start, although the other examples would also work. Please let me know what you think and how I can be of assistance to you and the Board of Supervisors in solving our Johnson County jail problems. Sincerely, Steven Kauner cc: Johnson County Board ofSupervisors Iowa City City Council end: "Study Circles" information; Collaborative examples from the NLC Examples Database; Facilitator's Manual"; and "A Practical Guide to Consensus" STUDY CIRCLES y Basic information about the Study Circles Resource Center What is a study circle? The study circle is a simple process for small-group deliberation. There are just a few defining characteristics: · A study circle is comprised of 8-12 people who meet regularly over a period of weeks or months to address a critical public issue in a democratic and collaborative way. · A study circle is facilitated by an impartial person who is there not to act as an expert on the issue, but to serve the group by keeping the discussion focused, helping the group consider a variety of views, and asking difficult questions. · A study circle looks at an issue from many points of view. Study circle facilitators and discussion materials give everyone "a home in the conversation," and help the group explore areas of common ground. · A study circle progresses from a session on personal experience ("how does the issue affect me?") to sessions providing a broader perspective ("what are others saying about the issue?") to a session on action ("what can we do about the issue here?"). What is the Study Circles Resource Center (SCRC)? SCRC was established in 1990 to promote the use of study circles on critical social and political issues. It is a project of the Topsfield Foundation, a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan foundation whose mission is to advance deliberative democracy and improve the quality of public life in the United States. SCRC operates by creating study circle organizing and discussion materials, distributing those materials free of charge to organizers of large study circle programs, and providing free technical assistance to organizers. What is a community-wide study circle program? Study circles can take place within organizations, such as schools, unions, or government agencies. They have their greatest reach and impact, however, when organizations across a community work together to create large-scale programs. These community-wide programs engage large numbers of citizens - in some cases thousands - in study circles on a public issue such as race relations, crime and violence, or education. Broad sponsoring coalitions create strong, diverse community participation. Participants in study circles have an opportunity to make an impact on an issue they care about. How do community-wide study circle programs come into being? Typically, a single organization such as a mayor's office, a school board, or a human relations commission spearheads and staffs the project. In most communities, an initiating organization takes the first step by approaching other key organizations to build a sponsoring coalition. Most community-wide programs have 10-30 organizations as sponsors or endorsers. Grass-roots organizations such as churches, neighborhood associations, businesses, schools, and clubs ot~en take part. What are the outcomes of community-wide study circle programs? By pax~ticipating in study circles, citizens gain "ownership" of the issues, discover a connection between personal experiences and public policies, and gain a deeper understanding of their own and others' perspectives and concerns. They discover common ground and a greater desire and ability to work collaboratively to solve local problems - as individuals, as members of small groups, and as members of large organizations in the community. Community-wide study circle programs foster new connections among community members that lead to new levels of community action. They also create new connections between citizens and government, both at an institutional level and among parents and teachers, community members and social service providers, residents and police officers. Where are community-wide study circle programs going on? In 1992, Lima, Ohio, became the first city to create a community-wide study circle program. Since then, over 40 communities have followed Lima's lead, ranging in size from Orford, New Hampshire, to Los Angeles, California. Over 100 other communities are in various stages of planning and organizing community-wide programs. SCRC also collaborates with a number of national organizations that are working with the community-wide study circle model, including the National Crime Prevention Council, the YWCA of the USA, the League of Women Voters, the Education Commission of the States, the National Association of Human Rights Workers, and the Alliance for National Renewal. ON 51UDY ClR~'CLES Organizing for action Taking a study circle program to its full potential by Matt Leighninger and Cathy Florin-McDonald Thc opportunity for participants to take action is a key points, particularly the action ideas and main areas of component of a successful study circle program. Many of the agreement or disagreement. This record doesn't have to be people and organizations you involve in your program will scientific or complex, but it does have to fair and take pan because they hope to make a difference on thc issue. objective. At the end of the session. make sure everyone Making people aware that you are planning for an action agrees the summary captures what happened in the phase helps you recruit: when participants know that action is session, The Board of Selectmen of Porefret, part of the program, them is also a more constructive dynamic Connecticut. used study circle records to create a report for the dialogue inside the study circles. on citizens' views on the future of the town; the County Community-wide study circle programs around the Manager's Office in Sedgwick County, Kansas used study country have shown that tremendous progress can be made circle records to develop their solid waste disposal plan for on an issuc when organizers plan for action. From grass- the county, roots projects like the Daily Bread soup kitchen in Lima, 3. Reach out to organizations already working on the Ohio, to state legislation like Oklahoma House Bill 1213, issue. All of these organizations need to know that the study circle participants have proven their capacity for study circle program will produce many energized citizens public problem solving. looking for ways to get involved. Ask the organizations how they could use volunteers and how they would like to How to do it receive citizen input (contact SCRC for a copy of a form developed for this purpose for a study circle program in Organizing for action requires planning ahead. Study Northeast Connecticut). circle organizers who are deep into getting a program off 4. Hold an action forum. The action forum at the end of the ground sometimes say that the action phase feels like each round of study circles is your most important anothcr big task, It is. However, organizers who plan for opportunity to galvanize problem-solving efforts. At the action from the carllest stages find that it is not only kickoff, announce the date of the action forum. Invite the possiblc, it strengthens the entire program and benefits the study circle participants. coalition members, area whole community. Here are some lessons and suggestions: organizations working on the issue, and other community 1. Form an action committee within your organizing members. Use the study circle records to identify themes coalition. Since many organizations are attracted to the which emerged from thc groups. At the action forum, give coalition because they want to help move the community people the opportunity to sign up for task forces on those to action, it makes sense to form an action committee. This themes. For example, the task forces for a program on race committee is responsible for creating the conditions that might focus on themes such as improving police- help participants take action, not deciding what those community relations, reducing bias crime, and dealing actions will be. It will help if the people on your action with race relations among young people. Ask peoplc with committee represent a mix of professions and approaches some professional expertise in each topic to join that task to the issue, since action can take many forms. force. If you are writing a report based on the study circle 2. Create a study circle recording process to track themes. records, the action forum is an cxcellcnt time to release it It is helpful to have a brief session-by-session record of Contact SCRC for copies of study circle reports and the discussion within each study circle. Records from all coverage of action forums around the country. the study circles can be combined into a report for the 5. Support the task forces as they move forward. It is program as a ;vhole; they will be useful in planning action critical for program organizers to stay in touch with the forums for the program; and they can be used to give task forces. Help them get off the ground by identifying updates to public officials and journalists. Ask one of the convenors and setting meeting dates. To keep task force participants to jot down notes on the most important efforts in the public eye, create a newsletter which reports on their progress, and encourage newspapers and television stations to cover their work. Provide ways for newcomers to join task forces as the program moves along. The study circle program in Lima, Ohio, went even further, winning · a grant from the Ohio Bureau of Justice Services to fund a Violence Prevention Center. The Center was designed to provide staff time to support the eleven task forces which arose from the study circle program. Finally, it is important to celebrate the task force achievements and build on them. One way to do this is through periodic large-group meetings. Democracy in action One of the most common action ideas voiced by study circle participants is the need for more study circles· Take advantage of this opportunity to strengthen your program by involving more people as facilitators, organizers, and coalition members. The task forces may also want to revisit the first session of the study circle materials, so that their members can better understand one another and work as a team. It is vital to maintain the spirit of deliberation as citizens and organizations plunge into the action phase. Your participants will benefit by opportunities to work together in small groups and celebrate their achievements at large forums. With careful planning, your study circle program can exemplify democracy in action. ~ Balancing Justice in Oklahoma by Matt Leighninger, SCRC Program Director The state will spend $247 million on corrections this Nothing illustrates Oklahoma's current obsession fiscal year. with criminal justice like the image of Timothy While rising costs intensified the battles over the McVeigh, wearing a bulletproof suit and handcuffs, state budget, other controversies have plagued the being led to a police vehicle through a crowd of corrections system. This summer, a prisoner ~vho was shouting people. The accused Oklahoma City bomber put on emergency release because of overcro~vding in has become a symbol for an intensely emotional, the prisons went home and murdered three people. In multi-faceted issue. the last session of the state legislature, proposals for Nineteen months after the bombing, citizens in truth in sentencing and community corrections failed commtmities all over Oklahoma are meeting in study amidst raucous debate. Even the most basic facts are circles to talk about criminal justice in their state, to in dispute: corrections and law enforcement officials set priorities for their corrections system, and to have been unable to agree on how to count the decide how they should move forward at the local offenders who are in the system. and state level. Due largely to the efforts of the Community-wide organizing, state-wide scope League of Women Voters of Oklahoma (LWVOK) The LWVOK heads a team of state-wide and the support of the Edna McConnell Clark sponsors which includes the Oklahoma Conference of Foundation, the "Balancing Justice" study circle Churches, the Oklahoma Academy for State Goals, program is an example of how public dialogue can and the Citizen's League of Central Oklahoma. The thrive even in an atmosphere of great tension and coalition has been assisted by SCRC. conflict. In each community, members of these state-wide "This program has been very positive on several organizations met earlier this year to begin forming levels," says Jacqueline Duncan, a judge in Okla- broad-based local coalitions to support study circles. homa's Second Judicial District who has been attend- They've enlisted PTAs, Chambers of Commerce, ing the study circles in Weatherford. "The study cir- cles have brought together people from many differ- ent walks of life to think hard about this issue. The New study circle guide on Corrections process engenders respect - so, even though the participants don't always agree, the discussions have The study circle guide being used in Oklahoma, been civil and productive. Most importantly, the Balancing Justice.' Setting Citizen Priorities for the program is also helping the conunity as a whole Corrections System, is now available. In size and format it is similar to SCRC's Busy Citizen's Guides on race, generate ideas on how to handle the prison popu- education, violence and youth issues. Contact SCRC for lation and how to sentence offenders in a meaningful free copies if you are organizing a large-scale study circle way." program; for other uses, the price is $1.00 per copy. Tulsa Mayor Susan Savage, recognized by Newsweek magazine as one of the 25 most dynamic churches, community action groups, court systems, mayors in the country, proclaimed October to be Bal- police and sheriffs departments, corrections ancing Justice Month in the city, saying "Oklahoma's employee unions, victims' groups, inmate support corrections system should mirror the values and pri- groups, colleges and universities, and local orities of Oklahoma citizens." government officials, as well as chapters of the Constant crisis management Christian Coalition, AALvvV, NAACP, and AARP. "Oklahoma's criminal justice system has been in As a basis for the discussions, the study circles a constant state of crisis management in the '90s," are using Balancing Justice.' Setting Citizen Priorities says LWVOK Executive Director Trish Frazier. "The for the Corrections System (see box). The guide's cost of the system is skyrocketing and public three sessions are designed to help citizens work confidence in it is dwindling." In 19951 Oklahoma through what the goals of the justice system ought to had the third-highest incarceration rate in the country. be, consider the current corrections dilemma, and talk about what they can do to affect the way we deal with criminals. ~vay in Tulsa, Weatherford, Muskogee, and Lawton. study circle participants then worked together with Over the next four months, those programs will be Judge Richard Miller to implement such a program. joined by Ardmore, Bartlesville, Edmond, Enid, The Madill citizens who attended the study circles Norman, Oklahoma City, Pontotoc County, Pottawa- also recommended and helped create a peer tomie County, Rogers County, and Stillwater. These mediation program at the local high school. communities range in size from 10,000 to over Building civic infrastructure in Oklahoma 400,000; numbers of participants in each place are expected to range from 100 to roughly 500. The successes of Balancing Justice are due in large part to the yeoman efforts of three people: Trish Study circles and the state legislature Frazier, Clark Foundation consultant William The Balancing Justice sponsors hope not only to DiMascio, and LWVOK President Carol Woodward. create local dialogue and action, but also to connect Frazier has visited every study cimle site in the citizen voices to policymaking at the state level. A state at least once, putting over 2,000 miles on her car recorder in each study circle is compiling a written in the process. She's spent most of 1996 speaking at report on that group's discussions, to capture areas of press conferences, brainstorming with local organiz- agreement within the group, action ideas for that ers, and meeting with public officials and other community, and input for state-level policy making. potential program supporters. SCRC Program During the final session of each study circle, the Director Matt Leighninger has joined her on many of group works to refine and approve the final report. those occasions. Frazier is energized by this The ideas generated by the study circles and re- "oppommity for the League to help build a civic fleeted in the reports will be put before the state legis- infrastructure of study circle organizers, facilitators, lature when it convenes in the new year. The League and active citizens across Oklahoma. We envision and the Academy for State Goals will base their using this network to organize study cimles on other lobbying efforts on that citizen input. issues in the future." Apart from whatever state-wide impact the pro- As Frazier and the other Balancing Justice organ- gram will have, it has already affected criminal izers can tell you, the process of building civic infra- justice at the local level. In tiny Madill, Oklahoma, structure is difficult, unglamorous, and often conten- study circles piloting the Balancing Justice guide tious - as well as invigorating, innovative, and trans- were held in January and February. Citizens attending forming. And as the McVeigh trial proceeds, we can those sessions agreed that one of the priorities for all see that, in Oklahoma as in every part of the coun- their community was a "drug court," a part-time try, this kind of civic work is urgently needed. The lessons of Balancing Justice By Patricia P. Frazier. League of Women Voters of justice system in the history of the state, was passed in Oklahoma. and Matt Leighninger, SCRC the first weeks of the legislative session and enacted Citizen education has been a central mission of into law. the League of Women Voters throughout its history.. "The Balancing Justice study circle program "Balancing Justice in Oklahoma," the most ambitious made a huge difference because it helped to create an project the Oklahoma League has ever attempted, atmosphere where we could try new things in the turned out to be as educational for its organizers as it state of Oklahoma," said Senator Ca3 Hobson, who was for the citizens. The project demonstrated that sponsored the legislation. Corrections reform bills had people didn't just want to recommend solutions to failed in the two prior legislative sessions; this one their state's corrections crisis: passed the House and Senate they were ready and willing to be by a total vote of 140-2. part of those solutions. "The Balancing Justice study circle in their discussions, study The primary reasou the prOgranq made a huge difference circle participants identified League initiated this program because it helped to create an at- two major goals for the cor- was to bring the input and ideas mosphere where we could try new rections system: incapacitation of citizens to bear on state things in the state of Oklahoma." of violent offenders, and re- policymaking. David Mathews of - State Senator Cal Hobson habilitation of all offenders. the Kettefing Foundation lists Those values were behind their four situations where poli- support for two policy ideas: cymakers need direction from the public: when values truth in sentencing, the idea that offenders serve all or are at issue and conflict erupts; when trade-offs have most of their sentences; and community corrections, to be made; when the nature of the problem is un- the notion that locally-controlled intermediate sane- clear; and when there is political gridlock (Mathews. tions are often more effective and more economical Politics for People, 1994). than prison or probation. These two ideas turned out It could be argued that all of those conditions to be the two main components of the legislation. were true of the state's corrections system during the The bill mandates that after July 1, 1998, violent summer of 1996. In the Balancing Justice study cir- offenders will serve 85 percent of their sentences cles, Oklahomans rolled up their sleeves and got to before being considered for parole. This will result in work. Over 1.000 citizens were joined by judges, increased time served by violent offenders in many sheriffs, and legislators in productive deliberation categories. The bill also allocates $5 million for alter- about how to handle the twin challenges of skyrocket- native sanctions at the community level, which might ing corrections costs and falling public confidence in include options like intensive supervision probation, the system. The study circles occurred in thirteen substance abuse treatment, day reporting, and halfway communities. and over 50 state and local civic organi- houses. The allocation will rise to $30 million over the zations and churches co-sponsored the project. next decade. Following each meeting, participants gave sum- A mandate for community involvement maries to local coordinators who compiled a report In addition to the reasons cited by Mathews, for that community. At the completion of the pro- Oklahoma's legislative leaders turned to the people gram, those reports were made into a final Balancing for another important purpose: the implementation of Justice report for the entire state (contact SCRC for a the community corrections sections of HB 1213. copy). HB 1213 is a devolution bill which gives local House Bill 1213 governments the responsibility for dealing with many The public dialogue generated in part by the low-level offenders. The decisions regarding the local study circles made an impact even before any of the implementation of this legislation must be m~tt~by participants' conclusions were in print. House Bill commtm,ty oards ~!~z~.~m~i~ 1213, one of the most radical revisions of the criminal : Volume 12, Number 2 r SUMMER I FALL 2001 / f q ON STUDY CIRCLES Best Practices Community-building principles from effective study circle programs CONTENTS By Rona goberts Roberrs & Kay, Inc. Best Practices .............. I Alittle while ' - Decatur, Georgia, Community-building ago, a ~ ........ ~ resident~ participate in a principles from effective respected .~ Roundtable study circle programs colleague called me ~ discussion. and said, "Quick! I ./ ;, / Decatur was one Director's Note ............ 2 need a crash course r_, "~ , i2 r ~'j~;' , of the 17 Community Voices building." She (m~ studied in a two- Fayetteville Study continued, "I know i year research about the steps and project to Circles, Fayetteville, about getting people North Carolina .............. 3 to the table and making the table as organizing - ~111' community-wide News from community- large as possible and W' "' study circles. wideprograms ............ 4 deciding on action , plans and carrying that." diversity within the smallest Pt.~st s~ core group at the very "THE 'BEg As we laughed, I told my colleague that she beginning ~ particularly in oN PAGE 8 FOR needed some of my secret stash of "Operating terms of race, ethnicity, and ADDITIONAL Principles of Community Building and Civic gender - have an advantage ~NFORMA~0N. Change." I began thinking through what I had all the way through. learned, both as one who has attempted these The secret fuel of community building is the things in my own neighborhood and networking capacity that each person brings to conmmnity, and as a researcher. the effort. That fuel is fired by the passion and energy of the key organizers, who make things From 1998 to 2000, I was privileged to senle on happen by activating personal and professional study of citizen-driven community4>uilding allies strongly reflect the core group members' efforts for the Study Circles Resource Center. own race, age, gender, ethnicity, cultural This study involved comnmnity-wide study background, or neighborhood. An example: circle programs in 17 sites throughout the Consider a diverse core group of four people United States. As i talked with my colleague, I that includes men, women, people of color, principles that emerge from this study. decide to expand their numbers to build a larger working group for their study circle I. Diversity at the very beginning yields program, they will draw from their own diversity all the way through. constimencies. The resulting working group In community work, diversity brings strength, will reflect that diversity. good ideas. and workable tactics. When we the looked carefully at 17 places where people had The trend continues as the program grows. newsletter of the done a good job of organizing community When the time comes for the working group to Circles ~ide study circle programs, we sa~x that those create task forces and carry out one-to-one Center (Best Practices cominued fi'om page 1} participant recrtfitment, working group to members will turn In these progralns, we found'organizers who can envision to people they know and trust to get things done, and that the power of a whole community engaged in dialogne. Their larger gronp will naturally reflect some of the community's vision includes a way of carrying out the planning work so diversity. that it, too, builds a sense of connection and power among those who are involved. 2. Four~faceted leadership helps people know what to do and how to succeed in improving their communities, The working teams in these communities intentionally extend Successful community-building initiatives have four-faceted hospitality and welcome to people from all backgrounds, and leadership: work hard on collaborating across differences. They sham · leaders with vision about ways communities can improve ownership of work and the credit for results. They hold out · leaders with power, resources, and connections to make confidence and optimism that citizens can and will make things happen important changes in their cormnunities. They blur some of · leaders with administrative ability to make things function the lines between vision, planning, and implementation by well taking a "study circle" approach to all these activities. The · leaders with marketing and promotion skills to make sure result is that even the planning work changes the community people show up and take part because of the values on which it is based. Some people bring morn than one of these leadership ~;. Success depends on realistic assessment and qualities to community work, but rarely will any person reassessment of how a particular community works. exhibit all foul The bottom line: Communities need to attract In study circle programs that succeed in organizing large- and cultivate all four kinds of leadership. That's the only way scale, diverse participation and in linking dialogue to change, to ensure that a community-change effort benefits from each the organizers are people who understand locaI conditions. of these essential leadership facets. The most effective study Beyond the usual understanding of opportunities, resources, circle programs we observed include and value all these and needs, they understand their community's change history kinds of leadership. and habits. They tailor their community-wide study circle process to key factors in their communities, and they learn 3. Linking established and emerging leaders yields a and adapt as their efforts unfold. potent increase in both power and energy. Established leaders offer access to power and resources. As they make key decisions, they ask themselves: "x.Vhat Emerging leaders offer exciting new energy, new works here?" "How do we make change happen here?" When connections, and a sense of what wifl "fly," based on clear- something works, they add to it. When something doesn't headed understanding of the community's real assets, needs, work, they learn from that and move on. No maker how and people. Beyond the four leadership facets, and diversity much these good organizers know about their community, based on personal and cultural characteristics, this additional they remain open to learning something new or even dimension of leadership diversity stems from the different contradictory to what they originaIly thought. gifts and experience that traditional and emerging leaders bring to shared projects. * * '* · · Every successful community-w!de study circle program we These common-sense principles are not technical or complex studied bene~ted from the active, enthusiastic participation of ideas. On the other hand, they are not easy to implement. known, visible leaders along with capable, lesser known, These tactics call for sustained effort. They cannot be carried emerging leaders. We saw that it is worth the work to find out by individualsl they require group effort. When citizen the established leaders who view linking with emerging groups bring these suggestions to life in real commnnities, leaders as a compelling way to accelerate change. In the the repayment for their hard work will be increased programs we studied, this blending of experience with new, effectiveness, improved outcomes, and accelerated results. energetic leadership yields powerful results within the The evidence from the study circle sites suggests the organizing coalition for the program. and within each investment will be more than ,worth it. individual study circle - thus multiplying the power throngbout the whole community. (A version of this article was~rst published in the 4.Vision becomes reality at every stage when organizers Kentucky Journal.) use study circle principles and values throughout their work. Vision can seein "pie-in~the-sky" - abstract, and unlikely to yield tangible results. Planning, on the other hand, can seem too earthbound, leaving little room for adaptation or imagination. The strongest programs do not get stranded in either of those incomplete activities. Instead, they always seem to be doing work in a study circle-like way. 697 Porefret St. P.O. Box 203 DIRECTOR'S NOTE ' THE CIRCLE OF cross-disciplinary team in a study of 17 study TIMES A YEAR circle sites. In the tree spirit of study circles, the LEARNING "best practices'* research team learned with communities. Through interviews and focus PHONE: by Martha McCop 860.928.2616 ' ' groups, the team explored the impacts of study ELX: The Study Circles Resource circles and the most effective practices for 860.99,28.3713 Center was rounded in achieving those impacts. E-MAIL: the belief that everyone scrc@studycirdes.org should have a voice in our democracy and in In brief, the research shows us: WEB S~TE: solving public problems. To further this idea, our · that the community wide study circle process wwcw.studycircles.org founder, Paul Aicher, charged us to create tools yields clear and powerful results. Organizing that would help bring together all kinds of for community-wide dialogue is challenging Editor:. people in face-to-face dialogue for problem and difficult, but it is more than equally Amy Malick solving and connnunity change. rewarding. It yields powerful individual, Assistant Editor:. institutional, and community change. Molly Holme Barrett SCRC's ultinmte aim is that all communities will that there are con:n-non practices across Edlmrtalt~ssistance: see the value of diverse, large-scale dialogue on different communities that yield those results. Meg Bishop critical public issues, and will have the know- No one should have to reinvent what has cartie Boron how to do it as a regular part of community life. already been learned - though each Production Manage. In order to fulfill such community will learn its Francine Nichols ambitious goals, we own unique lessons knew we had to become "The advice and tools we along the way, and The Study Circles a learning organization continue to contribute to Resource Center and the catalyst of a provide come from the trials, the storehouse of (SCRC) is dedicated to learning network. The know'ledge. ftnding ways for all advice and tools we errors, and successes of real · that there is still kinds of people to engage in dialogue provide come from the learning to do. The and problem solving trials, errors, and people in real communities." cutting edges of the work on critical social and successes of real people are: connecting dialogue political issues. SCRC in real communities. to action and institutional helps Communities by Everyone who has organized and facilitated change in a more giving them the tools dialogue for community change has been our intentional way; sustaining study circles in a to organize productive teacher and our co-learner. community over time; and moving from issue dialogue, recruit to issue within a communiW. diverse participants, AS the study circle network grew, our learning find solutions, and challenge became ever greater. The first Though the research has taught us much, the work together for action and change. community-wide program was organized in 1993- circle of learning is not complete until we share scP, c is a proiect of By 1997, the number of communities organizing what we have learned. We've spent the past nine the Topsfield study circles had grown to more than 100. Today, months incorporating the research findings into Foundation, Inc., a that number is 250. new advice and new tools. A major result is our nonprofit, nonpartisan new guide, OCganizing Community-wide foundation dedicated The range of issues being addressed through Dialogue for Actio, and Change. to advancing community-wide dialogue has grown as well. To deliberative keep pace with the lessons, we needed more The essence of the community-wide study circle democracy and systenratic ways of learning. And we thought it model remains the same organizations and improving the quality of public life in the was a critical time for an outside perspective. individuals working together, across divides. to United States. The next step was to commission an outside bring the whole commtmity into democratic analysis of study circle programs. dialogue and prohlem solving. The ways to do A this are becotning ever clearer. The powerful In 1998, tire C.S. Mott Foundation decided to results hold out a hope for democratic pioneers fund a two year study of effective study circle and learners everywhere. It is our mission and programs, with an emphasis on study circles that passion to continue the circle of learning with addressed the vital issue of racism and race you. 2~ relations. We contracted with Roberts and Kay, ,~e Inc., of Lexington, Kentucky, to conduct the Martha McCoy is executive director of the Study research. Rona Roberrs of RKi led a multiracial. Circles Resource Centen -2- C 0 M M U N I T Y V 0 1C E S,,,he a,, ,te ilte ,,urnart e,atio, Com,nission and Fayetteville United - a fatth-based interracial group - launched communl~wide study ~rcles on race, FAYETTEVI LLE STUDY C I RC LES ~,ci.ai.~ o,~ ~.,a ~i,~ ~o. q~.,~ ~op~. ~a~ m high school, Paul ~ite took part in a stay circle, then became a faalitaton As a s~ent at FaFBevtlle State ~~ ; ~ ~~ Uni~rsi~ Paul initiated a ~mp~ study ~rcle program,' .~ :,~.~ ~/ . he a~o fa~litates communt~-police circles, which began ~'~ ~.~,;"' thB 3ear in the ci~ Tom Betamine is a captain in the ~,~' ~,:~ ,,.~? ~ "'. FaFUeville Police ~pagent, and partidpated in the ~ ~[ Our race-relations dialogue has definitely helped some fr/~~~FA of our young people in our city - and some of my CILITATORt~ personal friends - open their eyes to a lot of racist situations. It changed their hea~. personally, study circles have changed my bean because I [Before study circles], we were always overlooked didn't think that young people because you don't walk up to ~ae mayor and say, could speak out and be heard. But "Mayor, I'd like to see this park change," or anFhing. study circles gave me an open The mayor wouldn't listen to us, not knowing who we oppo~uni~ to let the city hear my are, and not having any formality. Study circles voice and my opinion a~ut different recognize young people as an important pag of the things that I felt, as a young person, city..Because we are a program integrated with the were impogant. At times, they have Human Relations Commission, the ciW opened its ears printed what I say in the paper, and it more, and the adults say, "Okay, this is something - made me feel special, it's built up my these are the people we can trust; it's not some crazy self-esteem. Now, I'm one of the person walking up to us." Paul White leading youth facilitators in our ciW, and I'm going to help eve~ young I hope that my city becomes an example for America person that I can. to follow; a foundation for people to look up to and say, "Hey, they're doing something great." that upfront. The best thing to do is just be CAPTeTOM BERGAMINE straightforward and honest about it, and take it from STUDY CIRCLE there. PARTICIPANT One of the citizensI greatest ideas was for officers to When I signed up for study take iust a couple minutes to stop and talk with circles, I figured that people people - say, if someone's out doing yard work. That were going to slam our would go a long way toward building relations in the department. 1 wanted to be able to community. That's something we've been working on participate, to have a say-so in what's with our officers. You can call it communication, you actual fact and what isn't. I guess can call it dialogue, but if there's no talk, nothing's you could say it was a rather selfish going to get accomplished. Capt. Tom Bergamine viewpoint from the beginning, hut it turned out real well, because I Study circles are not going to be just a big arguing learned folks had some valid points. session. We had discussions on various matters, and l think it gets a lot of misperceptions out of the way. One of the things that people tend to forget is, law Study circles help create better understanding between enforcement is like anything else. Cops come from the folks who are participating in the study circles and society. You've got to look at the way society is made law enforcement representatives. up, things going on in society today, and work on it from there. I think sharing relevant information important points in study circles. I think anybody participating in the process is going to circles we can get going, the have some tough issues thrown at them and tough a community, we can get on track. questions asked. You've got to go in there knowing -3- News from BUFFALO, NEW YORK Diversity has received open~tional LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA The United Neighhorhoods Center. fnnding from local sources. and plans to Lee County Pulling Together is ~vorking with the city's Community offer several types of assistance to the expanding its effoffs to promote Policing ConsoHium, organized a study action groups including staff time, discussions on race and race circle program that already has grading. and promoting action ideas. re~tions in Fog Myers and throughout improvedpolice-community The alliance board will revie~v proposed Lee County. The program's board of m~ttons. More than 350 people have activities and decide what level of directors includes representatives of Lee been involved so far. In each suppo~ each may receive. Study circles County government, Florida Gulf Coast neighborhood, one or two key with teenagers began this summer. and University, Lee Memorial Health System. organizations - including block clubs, a a second round of community-wide and area churches. The group plans to public housing residents' association, a study circles will begin in October. suppoH programs within other Nation of Islam faith community. an organizations in the county, helping historic prese~'ation group, and several }lg~ltt[. IttlgOI8 with coordinating and facilitator Business Improvement Districts ~ did Over the last nine months, 150 people training, and distributing materials for most of the recruiting and hosted the participated in study circles on race in training and for the study circles. Still in circles. Danviii.. Melody Ehrlich of the Halo the planning stages for this new role, Project, a "healthy community" initiative One neighborhood circle is using the based at Provena United Samaritans slogan, ~'Putting the Neighbor back in Medical Center, coordinated the 14 the 'Hood," to promote stronger police- circles. At an action fo~m~ in May. neighborhood communication, an end paaicipants sugested the following: to racial profiling, and a number of new changes to the school curricuhtm; joint I anti-crime measures. Another group church se~wices; house painting and devdoped a "Park and Walk" program rehabilitation; funding to hire more where police officers park their patrol teachers of color in the schools; health cars for an hour a day to visit fairs; more study circles among young neighborhood businesses and people; efforts to prevent racial organizations. profiling by police officers and store clerks; and study circles for inmates and In ~o neighborhoods, business owners corrections officers at a nearby prison. pledged to reduce crime concerns by An eighth grader who panicipated adding lighting, hiring securi~ guards, reposed. "I learned to talk more openly and working closely with police and about race; and 1 learned how to talk to communi~ members. Finally, in a my parenks when they say things I think neighborho~ with a number of are wrong. I learned how to ask them hal~ay houses for the tnentally ill. why they think that way without several citizens, a police officer, and the coming off like a teenager." mental health director came up with the idea of an "emergency team" to handle FRESNO, ~LIFORNIA complaints about mentally ill people Study circles in urban Fresno brought loitering and causing disturbances. together builders anti developers with environmental activists and other ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D ~ ~ ~ ~m~d~ ~ ~ ~u~ ~H~ ~ ~d~ h~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~R~ ~ ~ ofi~~ ~ o~ ~ ~u~ ~ ~ b~ that the cops really want to work with program. At an action fognn, programs for the Lee County Sherriff's ~m~ ~ ~ ~H~ ~ fi~ ~ ~ff~ ~ ~o~ D~a~m~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L~ whole definition nf cmnmunity policing. and named the following priorities: Memorial Health System, teachers of Lee Beff>re, there were only a iZ.w people improving public transportation: County Public Schools, and area Girl working togett~er." promoting "in-fill" devdopment on Scout k'aders. This interest could extensive vacant land; creating quality iuvolve more than 14,000 people in CORVALLIS, OREGON affordable housing: and providing hett~q' stody circles a clear indication that the first full round of study circles on low-income areas. and also marked the beginning of . ~u~ ~u~ fi~ ~m~ ac~km SOUTH KITSAP SCHOOL D,sTH,CT, W, H,NGTON G etti ng Started Study circles on education in the South Kitsap School District led to strengthened conmmnity relations and CINCINNATI, OHIO police department, businesses, and the passage of a school levy. After The Cincinnati Human Relations faith groups to sponsor a twice failing to pass a lex3% the school Commission has initiated study community-wide program called district and its supporters decided to circles to build better relationships, "Residents and Police Building use study circles in the hope of winning and establish trust and Relationships That Promote a Safe support from voters. As organizers understanding between residents and Just Community", scheduled to began to see the long-term value of and the police community. In the kick off on Sept. 24. Pilot circles I~uilding a strong relationship with the wake of community unrest with residents and officers are community at large, their focus shifted. following the shooting of a young under way this summer. Lt. Col. They spent several additional months African-American male by a police Ron Twitty believes irs crucial for pkmning the first round of study circles, officer, the commission, under the Cincinnati officers - including beat and ran a separate levy campaign. Not direction of Cecil Thomas, invited officers - to participate, and says, "I SCRC to conduct an orientation on think study circles break down a using study circles to strengthen lot of barriers." The goal is to have police-communt{y relations. The one third of the city's 52 [ \, commission is partnering with local neighborhoods participating in the / 3 community organizations, the program. / at elementary schools - approximately SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 540 people - participated in study Recent classes of incoming police circles. Their discussions helped shape officers and firefighters in Springfield an "equity plan" for each school for have been the most diverse in the city's next year. Study circles for middle and history. Increasing the number of high school faculty are planned for the officers of color in these departments fall. ~ was identified as a priority by participants in the community's long- running study circles on race, the latest round of which involved approximately 100 people. With the support of the www. studycircles.org Race Relations Task Force, which grew out of the program, the city has is bursting with changed its hiring process for both fire and police departments. information. WATERLOO, IOWA The Waterloo Human Rights Be sure tO ViSit only did the levy pass, but many former Commission has been sponsoring critics of tile school district were successful study circles on race for often! recruited into the first round of study several years. Last year, the school circles, which concluded in June. A superintendent participated in one of number of participants have tbe circles, and has been thinking about vohmteered to help organize tile next how the process might benefit the round. During the first action l~rum, school system. Waterloo, like many community pannerships. other mid-western cities, is experiencing communications, and funding v, ere an influx of new immigrants, and identified as tile key areas requiring student demographics are shifting ' attention. dramatically. The district decided to hold study circles for faculty and staff' to provide a forum for them to examine issues of [ace, immigration, and education. This spring, faculty and staff ON STUDY CIRCLES Two new resources from SCRC: ~Organizing Community-wide Dialogue for Action and Change: - A Step by-step Guide and What Works: Study Circles in the Real World Visit SCRC's website to download these materials. www. studycircles.org · ->--_ - - Summer/~all '01 issue : STUDY CIRCLES ~,p~,~op,~,~-o~h~ ., R E S 0 U R C E C E N T E R For Creative Community Change _~..'.~ ~Organizing Community-wide Dialogue for Action and Change: A Step-by-step Guide -- :5 Organizing a community-wide study circle program is a ~ complex undertaking. Many things will be happening at the same time: coalition building, communication and publicity, recruiting participants, training facilitators, fund raising, planning for action, and more. Regardless of whether the program in your community is full-~edged, or just getting started, you will find that the information in this guide will ................ make your work easier and more effective. What is in the guide? · Anoverviewofcommunity-widestudycircles · Basic steps for organizing programs ~'~ · Detailed .advice on coalition building · Strategies for recruiting participants and facilitators from,; every sector of the community . Guidance forplandiogandconductiogstudycircles and change · Community profiles · What Works: Study Circles in the Real World ;lnc.,ledadiverse, multi-disciplinaryteamof '~--~_~_ practices in study circle · ' publication is based on that study. It contains suggestions drawn from effective organizing practices and readable first-person accounts from several study circle organizers. It also contains profiles of community-wide study circle programs, as told from the organizer's point of view. ~ Who should use this resource? ~,~ -i * Peopleorganizingacommunity-widestudycircleprogram :i ' for the first time ~i. Coalitions or organizers looking for ways to improve their 'i/program '~ People who are thinking about joining a study circle i. coalition "'. People who are considering funding study circles www~~ "'at Works is available from SCRC for $10 a copy;, ! Order form below It Is also a~lable on our web site tudyctrcles org Please return this form to.' STUDY CIRCLES Study Cffcles Resource Center RO. Box 203 Pom[reI, CT 0625~ city Phone 860-g28-2616 Fax 860-928-3713 Phone Fax E-mail E-mail scrc@stu~circ]es.org Web site wv, w. stuciycircles.org Hear what people have to say about Organizing Conununity-wide Dialogue for Action and Change Organizing Community-wide Dialogue for Actjon and Change " The citizen dialogue movement is driven by the reasonable and offers tremendous assistance to organizers. By using this too~time-proven belief that if you create the conditions forpeople organizers know exactly what it takes to plan and sustain to talk to each other, appreciate each other, and act together, meaningful and productive community-wide dialogue communities can be transformed Creating those conditions is Organizers will also realize the importance of being preparedthe scary par~ In its new manua~ the Study Circles Resource to utilL~e the ideas for action and change that come out of theCenter has captured practical ways to bring people back to the study circles.' community-building table. ' Sandy Robinson Jon Abercrombie Director of the Springfield Department of Community Relations Director of Common Focus Springfield, Illinois Decatur, Georgia " Everything you wanted to know about organizing a community- Reflection on What Works: wide dialogue is in Organizing Community-wide Dialogue for Study Circles in the Real World Action and Change ! lt ~ easy to understand so that novices can. immediately benefit from SCRC~ experience and success. This We ?e excited to present a practical tool based on extensive guide tells how to take democracy off the shelf and put it to researd~ RKI's What Works makes it possible to learn from the work for more vibrant effective, and exciting communities. ' real-life practices of experienced organizers of community- wide dialogue for action and change ' Judy White Director of Government and Community Relations Arkansas School Boards Association Martha McCoy :'. Little Rock, Arkansas 5CRC Executive Director A STUDY CIRCLES[ R E S O U R C E C E N T E R P~it No. 13 B0. Box 203 P0mfret, ~ 06258 A project of Topsfield Foundatio~ 5C142137 P~94 Steven Kanneu 630 S GovePnoP St Apt Iowa City IA 52240-5663 I,hh,,hh,l,l,l,,lll,,,.I,l,,Ih,,ih,,,Ihll ......II,lh,I Mdress se~ce requested , . 12:46 SEP 10, 2001 ID: 202-626-8043 TEL NO: EO~-BEB-~043 ~lll410 PAGE: Examples of Programs for Cities Compiled by the Municipal Reference Service A Member Service of the National League of Cities Example Number 1 of 3 Jurisdiction: Hampton, Virginia Population: 133,793 Form of Government: Council-Manager Address: City of Hampton 22 Lincoln Street Hampton, VA 23669 For more information, contact: City Hall, (757) 727-6000 Program Description: Started in: 1987 Hampton integrated facilitation and consensus building activities into its regular planning process to update its comprehensive plan (comp plan). When Hampton decided to include a proposed east-west highway in its comp plan, residents forced its removal because of their lack of ability to participate in the planning process. After decades of debate, the city manager took steps to involve citizens. Representatives from neighborhood associations, business interests, and the city govemment formed an initiating committee. Hampton hired a professional facilitator to train city staff to partialpate in and run the process. The committee formed a working group, which met once a week for a year to learn transportation planning basics. Because the highway issue was heated, the facilitator established ground rules so that participants "valued each other." When an individual asked a question, the facllitator tracked down the appropriate city employee or found a consultant to address the issue. Between the joint fact-finding effort and the training, Hampton produced a comp plan that satisfied all interests. Source: Using assisted negotiation to settle land use disputes. by Lawrence Susskind, Using assisted negotiation to settle land use disputes, (1999) pl0, Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Example Number 2 of 3 Jurisdiction: Scottsdale, Arizona Population: 130,069 · The Munldpal Reference Senile provides libraP/and reference services to the members of the National League of CIties, Form of Government: CoundI-Manager Address: City of Scottsdale 3939 North Civic Center Boulevard Scottsdale, AZ 85251 For more information, contact: Elizabeth Larson, (480) 312-7252 Emaih blarson@ci.scottsdale.az. us Program: Scottsdale Voices Program Description: Started In: 1997 Scettsdale Voices convenes small groups of dty staff, elected officials, and residents in residents' homes to discuss community values and issues. "Deliberate dialogue," the discussion of issues by city officials and citizens in a noncenfrontational manner, underpins the project. Scettsdale Voices encourages a more abstract dialogue about community, civic responsibility, and factors that build up or tear down the community. Officials feel such engagement is crucial to the future of Scottsdale, a fast-growing city with a transitional population driven by toudsm. In the first two yearn the program sponsored over 100 discussions with 1.500 residents participating in dialogues. Two-thirds of the conversations occurred in the less affluent southern section of the dty, where residents often feel left out of dty politics. City offidals increasingly use the Voices format as a tool to diffuse controversial situations and to discuss issue-specific matters that need public input. One of the challenges is that citizens often need to vent their anger on immediate concerns before they can engage in abstract conversation. Likewise, staff membem have different levels of comfort with a small-group formal Nevertheless, surveys document changing attitudes. The program breaks down barriers and sensitizes staff members to the needs of a diverse community. Source: Scetfsdale meets cib~ens where they live. by Elizabeth M. L, arson, New Public Innovator, n95 (Spring/Summer 1999) p34-35, Washington, DC: Alliance for Redesigning Government. Example Number 3 of 3 Jurisdiction: Durham, North Carolina Population: 136,611 Form of Government: CoundI-Manager 1~:48 SEP 10, ~001 ID: ~0~-6~.6-3043 TEL HO: ~02-6~6-3843 ~11141B PN6E: 5/6 Address: Dispute Settlement Center of Durham PO Box 2321 Durham, NC 27702 For more Information, contact: Michael Wendt, (919) 490-6777 Program: Dispute Settlement Center Program Description: Durham's Dispute Settlement Center (DSC) is a community mediation program that facilitates public gatherings. Trained mediators work in public gathering settings, such as town meetings, to help the community reach resolution on a vadety of issues including race relations, long range planning, economic development planning. city manager selection, and zoning issues. Gatherings were held in city buildings, school auditoriums, and convention centers. Some were even held at multiple sites simultaneously with video linkups. The DSC maintains a pool of 75 mediators. It has facilitated more than a dozen town meetings of 200 or more citizens. Source: Dispute resolution: a mediation tool for cities. by Nathan P, idnouer, Issues & Options, v5 nl0 (Nov./Dec. 1997) p6-7, Washington. DC: National League of Cities. For single issues or yea~y subscriptions to Issues & Options call (202) 626-3181 A Facilitator's Manual Carl M. Moore (with Rafael Montalvo) . ;! P.O. Box 31155 i: . Santa, Fe~;:NM 87594 .~- A Facilitator's Manual Carl M. Moore (With Rafael Montalvo) An eadier version of this manual, that included similar (albeit slightly different) descdptions of some of the processes and one of the approaches, was called "The Facilitator's Manual" and was published in 1992 by Chattanooga Venture. Some of the ideas appearing in this manual, as well as descriptions of Nominal Group Technique, Ideawriting, and Interpretive Structural Modeling, appeared in Group Techniques for Idea Buildin~l (Second Edition), Sage Publications, 1994. An important impetus to this version of the "Facilitator's Manual" came when, in 1995, St. Johns River Water Management Distdct (SJRWMD) began discussing ways to train staff in facilitation, negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. Staff turned to consultant Cad Moore and Flodda's Conflict Resolution Consortium (CRC) to assist with the project. An initial two-day training session in March 1996 covered facilitation and other collaborative problem solving approaches. After the first session, participants practiced facilitation techniques in over a dozen settings, with CRC providing coaching and design assistance. After "hands-on" experience, a two day follow- up session was held in June i996 that included additional problem solving and facilitation training, plus a three-hour introductory session on mediation. These sessions were attended by staff from SJRWMD, the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, the Suwannee River WMD, and Brevard County. The reason for initiating the training is that the state of Florida is experiencing shifts in the state's growth management system, an increased focus on ecosystem management, a need to develop more partnerships, emerging cross-jurisdictional and multi-agency problems. and a realization that many of these issues can best be addressed through collaborative problem solving. Both the Water Management District Review Commission and the Legislature have made recommendations that water management districts make more use of alternative dispute resolution in resolving rule-making and permitting disputes. In addition, local governments and regional planning councils are embarking on important community planning initiatives that need to be built on collaboration. Collaborative problem solving is needed to effectively link land and water planning. Flodda's environmental and planning agencies are seeking better ways to work in partnership with local governments. permit applicants, citizens, and other stakeholder groups. An expanded version of this manual (designed for use by those who participated in the training) was prepared by Cad Moore with substantial contributions by Rafael Montalvo at the Florida Conflict Resolution Consortium, under the direction and with the assistance of Margaret Spontak, of the St. Johns River Water Management District. CONTENTS Introcluction t Role of Ihe Faollitator 5 Ground Rules- 5 Logistics 6 Perspectives: Preferred Facilitator Contingencies 7 Overcoming Obstacles to Facilitation 8 Processes Nominal Group Technique (NGT) 11 Stoqboard'u~g 17 ~deawdt~g ~9 k~erpreUve Structu~ Modeling 0SM) 25 Approaches Single Text Negotiations 33 Matatioo 37 C, ommun~ Map~ng 41 How To Design an Intervention 51 INTRODUCTION We often join a group in order to accomplish a complex task and then are disappointed when the people in the group behave in ways that get in the way of the group working together productively. Some people talk much more than others. Some never talk. Usually when ideas are being generated for consideration by the group, the group members talk a lot about the first idea (or one of the first ideas) and seldom have time to get to others...or at least not to all of the others that might have been considered by the group. Some people, because they do not trust that they have been heard, keep bdnging up the same idea over and over again. "Strategies" have evolved to address unproductive (and occasionally disruptive) behaviors. For example, if you believe that some people will talk much more than others, you can call on people one at a time for their ideas. That same strategy - calling on people for their ideas - is a good way to ensure that everyone present will padicipate. Another good strategy to gain participation from everyone present is to give people time to work silently and independently before you allow anyone to contribute ideas. One of the reasons some people do not contribute to the work of a group is that they are reflective and want time to think before they speak. Because groups are quick to assess, and that gets in the way of the greup's consideration of many options, an effective strategy is to collect all of the ideas before permitting discussion of any of them. One strategy for getting people to let go of their idea - so that they do not have to bdng it up over and over again - is to record it on a flip chart in front of the group. "Processes" are collections of strategies. One of the processes.thiS manua! presents is Nominal Group Technique (NGT). The four essential steps of NGT are: Silent generation of ideas in writing, round-robin recording of ideas, clarification of ideas (rather than advocacy), and voting. Each of the steps is a strategy that helps to overcome typical behaviors that would occur if NGT were not utilized. Giving people time to work independently and silently before anyone speaks is very helpful in equalizing willingness to participate. Collecting ideas from each person one at a time - and not permitting discussion of the ideas - is effective in not allowing individuals to dominate the generation of ideas. It also assures that all of the ideas that the group members have in mind can surface before you allow them to discuss any of them. And the ideas are recorded on flip charts in front of the group, so there is a much less repetition of the same ideas. Emphasizing clarification rather than advocacy allows the work of the group to be done efficiently and is effective at cutting down speech-making and other influences on the group, which could be done by a person of high status and distort the preferences of the group. Voting is a way to bring closure to the work of the group. '"Approaches" are collections of strategies and processes. Strategic Visioning, as presented in this manual, is an example of how an approach includes a variety of strategies and processes. Some of the Proposed Activities to Create Strateqy or Process? a Strategic Vision Conduct interviews previous to the start of the meeting Strategy [which is a way to hear all ideas and to enable people to feel safe enough to say things they might not say when the group is together] Review information gathered through interviews Strategy Brainstorm negative images of the future Process Use Nominal Group Technique to generate positive Process images of the future The processes and applications included in this manual are not comprehensive. There are many others that could have been included. Two that are included in the previous table - 'Brainstorming' (a process) and pre-meeting interviews (a strategy) - are examples of ven/effective tools that are not fully described in the manual. Those that are included ware selected because lhey are good ways to help groups be productive. To be productive, groups nccd ways to generate, develop/arrange and select between ideas. Nominal group Technique (NGT) is a way for a group to generate ideas, Storyboarding helps a group to generate and arrange ideas, Ideawriting is used to develop ideas, and Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) is used to select between ideas. Nominal Group Interpreljve Structural Technique Stot~ooanf~ Ideawn'ljng Modeling OSM) (NG'i') Generate Ideas ~' Develop/Arrange Select Between While there are other ways for groups to accomplish these tasks, the processes presented in this manual are preferred ways because they help overcome typical [ 11/2012 behaviors that get in the way of the group working productively together. For example: TYPical NGT Storyboarding Ideawriting ISM Problems Onlyafewlde~ am ixoduced / ~ ~ inauencesthe 0 ~ Thegmup"~xes" ~lhef~tkleaor ~e~ / = ~e ~st ~ss to address ~e problem ~ = a hel~l p~ss to address ~e problem ~e approa~es ~n help groups a~mplish di~lt task. Single Te~ N~otiati~s is a ~y for groups ~ ~ople ~ d~e~ng vi~ ~ ~t s~ld ~ d~e a~ a ~mmon problem to agree on one ~y to address ~e problem. M~iation e~bles ~i~ ~es to resolve ~eir d~eren~s amiably, avoidfig ~at h~ns in ~di~onal disp~e re~l~ion appma~es - ~at o~ ~ gains at ~e e~ense of ~e o~er, and · at at least one of ~e ~ies is up~t at ~e o~me. Comm~i~ Re~u~ Mapping is a ~y to enable ~nfli~i~ pa~ies to ~ke d~lt d~si~s a~ shared msour~s. - [z zr~o]3 Strategic Visioning is a way for a diverse group of people to agree on a common direction by imagining a desired future, rather than by identifying and solving the problems that seem to be vexing them. Traditional problem-solving bogs down when the padicipants have differing views of the problem, This manual begins with key principles, provides desQ'iptions of the processes and the approaches, and offers suggestions for how to implement them. PRINCIPLES This chapter dadties the role of the facilitator and provides direction for what to do when faced with some of the choices the fadlitator has to make. Role of the Facilitator Afacilitator helps a group of people achieve their goals. The facilitator does riot centdbute to the substance of the deliberations; s/he does not contribute ideas. The facilitator is committed to the process of how the group works together so that the group members can do their work faidy and efficiently, "The facilitator is a meeting chauffeur, a servant of the group. Neutral and non- evaluating, the fadlitator is responsible for making sure the participants ere using the most effective methods for accomplishing their task in the shortest time." From Do~4e and Slraus, How To Make MeelinQ, s Work DO DONq' · Encourage all people to · Criticize or evaluate ideas partialpate presented · Accept all ideas · Allow people to interrupt each · Keep the group on task other · Remain neutral · Let the group get off task · Restate · Let your thoughts and feelings · Summarize influence the discussion · Ask clarifying questions if you · Cut people off too soon don't understand · Let one person dominate the group The primary job of the facilitator is to create a safe environment fpr the deliberation of ideas. Therefore it is beneficial for a facilitator to propose any needed ground rules at the beginning of the session. Ground Rules The following ground rules should be used as a way to start a conversation about ground rules. The one overell rule is to listen and speak with respect. That means: D 1/2o]5 · Listen to understand (before you speak to be understood). · Wait for your turn to speak. · Speak when you have something to say. · Speak as cleady and efficiently as you can. · Speak personally (not for someone else; be responsible for what you say). · Confront respectfully (you can be as hard on ideas as you need to be so long as you are coudeous to people). The Qroup will produce a better product if you take dsks. · Be creatlve...Iook for new ideas. · Don't be afraid to challenge the status quo or any other authority. Put whichever ground rules you agree with (along with any of your own) on a sheet of newsprint and then discuss them with the group. Are they dear Are there any that need to be modified? Do you wish to make any additions? Deletions? Am I authorized to enforce the ground rules? Logistics How to Begin At the beginning of the group session. it is important to explain the process that will be used. Describe the steps in the process in such a way that members of the group have an opportunity to object or make suggestions to medi~j what has been proposed. If no one objects, then proceed as planned, recognizing that you have the authority to sanction behaviors that are inconsistent with the proposed process. Be sure to check with the person in charge of the meeting ahead of time to make sure you know the location of the meeting and have all the supplies that you will need. Tips · Arrive eady to check out the facility. B ~/2016 · Bdng your own kit of basic supplies, even if someone else is responsible for supplies. · Set up your room and supplies before the meeting if possible. For example, tear off short, pieces of tape ahead of time to be used later when hanging sheets of paper · When recording comments on flip charts, alternate colors for ease of reading. Materials Typical equipment and supplies needed by a facllitator include: · A flip chad that helds a large pod of paper with a hard back (so it is easy to write on) 0 Assorted colors of water based markers (the kind that won't bleed through the paper and make permanent marks on walls) · Masking or drafting tape (you want a type of tape that won't take paint off of walls when it is removed) · Post-it notes (3" x 3") or index cards (3" x 5") · Enough markers, pens or pendis for each person in the group · Strips of colored dots (3/4" diameter) · Scissors If a flip chart is not available, several sheets of paper can be taped on top of each other on the wall. After writing on a sheet, it can be moved to another spot on the wall. Room Set-up Some room arrangements are better than others. Probably the most desirable conr, guration, if the group is small enough, is a semicircle of chairs facing a blank wall ~nera there is plenty of space to hang paper. The flip chart would be off to one side, between the group and the wall, dearly visible to everyone. A second acceptable configuration is to have everyone sit around ~ table, with you, the flip chart and the empty wall at one end. A round or oval table is preferable to a square one. Perspectives The following are a few perspectives you might want to keep in mind as you facilitate a 9roup. [ 11/2017 · Allow groups to learn together (and allow the participants to educate each other). · Don't be afraid to allow the foct~s of the group to become larger than initially conceived. · Avoid superficial harmony that glosses over problems. · Make the room user friendly. · Help the parties to safely reveal their interests. · Be committed to the process so that the participants can be committed to the content. · Encourage people to listen to others, · Give people time to think before asking them to speak. Better yet, ask them to write down their ideas before speaking. · Collect all ideas before assessing any of them. · Keep a group memoS/;, use the walls. · Bring the meeting to closure. · Call upon people for their ideas. · T~y and record exactly what people say. · Assign responsibility for decisions to people attending, before the meeting is completed, Overcoming Obstacles to Facilitation The following challenges are common ~hen using facilitation. Physical Environment/Logistics Room Arrangements You are likely to be limited to the spaco available. Nevedheless, it can help to move tables out of the way, pull even large chairs into a semicircle, move into the hallway if the seating there is more flexible. Arrive at any meeting site eady enough to make these before the meeting starts. You may need to ask the participants to help rearrange the meeting space. Some processes and approaches can be abbreviated and still remain useful, some cannot. As you gain experience with them, you will learn how much time they require. A useful strategy is to negotiate the use of time with the participants or with those responsible for the intervention. Explain what might be done within the time [11/2018 available. Explain also what might be achieved with more time. and explore whether they are willing to look for additional time. Materials Bdng your own. Better yet, put together a "facilitation tool box" that includes everything you need and take it with you whenever you might be asked to facilitate. See the section on "Logistics." Process Challenges Unclear Goals/Questions This sometimes happens because there was simply not enough time to prepare, and sometimes because the problem is not clear. If this happens, say so at the beginning of the meeting. Ask the group to help dadfy or define the problem. Be sure to identify appropriate goals for this and subsequent meetings. Changing or Inappropriate Representatives This can best be addressed before or between meetings. Conducting a situation assessment before a meeting (or sedes of meetings) can help you identify which groups or individuals should (or should not be) at the table. If you know that organizations will be represented by more than one person in a sedes of meetings, work with that organization to help ensure that information about each meeting is disseminated and explained to those who will attend subsequent ones. People Understanding of the Process Either before or at the beginning of the meeting, particlpents should receive a clear explanation of the goals of the meeting (or meetings). and of the processes and/or approaches you are proposing. It will be worth the time to discuss, clarify, and if necessary refine these with the participants. Participants Who May Undermine the Process This is the pdmary reason to use processes such as those described in this manual. They have been designed to reduce the negative impact of unceoperative or domineering participants. Group Dynamics [i tr2o]9 2 Power and Egos in the Meeting The processes described in this manual can be used to minimize the ability of those with power or dominant personalities to influence the outcome of a meeting through statements or argument. The facilitator's commitment to facilitate and not contribute to the substance of the meeting can help build trust when participants do not trust each other. As the group starts to accomplish substantial work, that will also help build trust. [11/2o110 NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE Nominal Group Technique, or NGT, provides a way to generate ideas and to organize those ideas into a priodtized list. It is extremely useful when the time for a meeting is limited but it is important that all the ideas of a group are heard. NGT can be completed in 60 minutes. Step One - Meeting Preparations: NGT works best with small groups of 5-9. If your group consists of more people, plan to divide the group in a random way into smaller groups. A facilitator will be nccded for each group, so part of your meeting preparation will be recruiting and training enough facilitators for each small group. The room(s) should be set up so that each small group has a place to gather. Because each group will be talking, noise may be a factor to deal with if all the groups are in one room. Therefore, think about the location for the meeting ahead of time. If possible, allow for one large room for the group to gather initially and then break out into smaller separate rooms. Each group facilitator will need: a flip chart, assoded colors of water-based marker, drafting/masking tape, strips of dots and enough pencils and paper for each person in the group. For NGT to be successful, it is important that the meeting organizers, together with the meeting facilitator, discuss ~ahat question the group will be asked to consider. Keeping in mind v/nat the meeting is expected to accomplish, design a question that is simply stated and allows for creativity of ideas but also is specific enough so everyone's thoughts are channeled in the same direction. For example, a poor NGT question ~tould be: "VVhat can you as an individual and we as a community do to ensure funding suppert for public education beth in the long-term and shod-term?" This is a poor question because it is too complex and requires responses to be given such that it would be difficult to determine for which port of the question ideas were given. A better question would be: "What can be done to ensure funding support for public education?" [ 11/2o]1 Step Two - Conductincl the Meeting: Describing the purpose for the meeting Ideally, a chairperson will clarify the purpose of the meeting, the context for the meeting (how this meeting fits into the history of the group and their ongoing work) and the facilitator's role. You should be prepared to describe your role if it is not done by someone else. You should outline the steps of the NGT. You might say something like this. "Given the session's purpose, we as a group will consider the following question (read the question which has been previously written on a flip chad). "First, everyone will work silently end independently for four minutes. You should take time to jot down all of your responses to the question, "Next, I will go around the circle, calling upon you one at a time so you can give one of your ideas (responses). I will write them down on the wall sheets. I will go around the group several times until I get down most of your ideas. "After I have recorded your ideas, we will revisit each one to make certain that its meaning is dear to everyone in the group. "The final step will be a voting procedure whereby the people in the group will identify what they believe are the best responses to the questions." Then ask the group, "Do these steps appear to be a reasonable way to generate ideas?" Beginning the Actual Process Rrst: Ask The Question, Pass out sheets of paper with the triggering question at the top of the page. Tell the group, "For the next four minutes, please work silently and independently. Please write down your ideas. The paper will not be collected." If anyone dues start to talk or to do anything else that is likely to be disruptive to the others in the group, remind them: [1 lt2.0]12 "This is the time for each of you to do your own work. You will get a chance to talk to the other members of the group in just a moment." Dudrig the time that the group is working silently, tear off making tape for hanging wall sheets and prepare strips of "dots" for the voting. You will need one strip of dots for each participant. Second: Collect Ideas. After the group has finished silently writing, begin the collection of ideas. You might begin by saying something like: "1 want to go around the table and collect one idea at a time from each of you. I will cell upon each of you more than once, so you will have a chance to contribute at least a few of your ideas. "Listen to what others in the group say, to make certain that you do not give me exactly the same idea. I do not need to wdte down an idea more once. Another reason to listen is because someone may say something that ceuses you to remember something that should be contributed and you might not have thought about it had you not listened. "You may pass at any time if you do not have an item to contribute when I cell on you. I will cell on you again when I come back to you the next time." As an item is given to you, record it on the flip chart. Wdte down exactly what they say. Do not ask them to say it in a few words (unless it is extremely long). Resist the temptation to say, "Don't you really mean" and then provide your idea. It is very important that the group feel that it is their list, and the most important thing that cen be done to assure they believe that the list is theirs is to use their language. Number each item in consecutive order. Start numbering about (6) inches from the left edge of the page, to allow room for the voting. Alternate the colors of each item. That will enhance the readability of the items. Speed is the most important factor in getting down the items. Do not belabor your handwriting or worry about your spelling. Get the items down quiddy. You should coiled all of their items, if possible. But there Ls a point of diminishing retum if the list gets too long. Experience suggests that a list of 20-30 will include almost all of a group's important items. If it is a very large group, 12 or more, tell [11/20113 them that your are going to go around the group two times. That will encourage them to give you their best items. After two passes, you can ask if there are any more items that have to be on the list. If it is a very, very large group, 25 or more, and you were not able to do the best thing, which would have been to break them up into more than one group, you should not try to go around the group more than Third: Cladfy Ideas. Once all of the ideas have been collected, and are written down on sheets in front of the group, the task is to dadfy the meaning of the ideas, The way to do this is to read each of them, in order, and ask if the meaning of the item is dear. If it is, if there are no comments about the meaning of the item, move on to the next one. Do that until you work your way through the entire list. You need to be dear with the group that this is not an occasion to argue about the wodh of an item. They will have an opportunity in the next stage, with their vote, to indicate which items they believe are most important. There are occasions when it is important for the group to argue about the worth of the items on the list, but only if they have allocated suffident time to do that. You job as fadlitator will be to keep the group to the time they have allocated. One suggestion for how to allocate time is to allow 15 minutes for voting and to divide the remaining time by the number of items. For example, if you have an hour left at the point when you are about to bogin discussing the items, that will give you 45 minutes for the discussion. If you have 20 items to consider, you might announce to the group that they have a li~le over two minutes to discuss each item. It is often the case that someone will fry and reduce the complexity of the list by grouping items in broad categories. Your rute should be to consider a request only if the items are identical. Someone gave you the item with the knowledge they were only to contribute it if it was different Sometimes group discussion can determine that two (or even more) items mean the same thing, and you should do something about that, such as create a single item and eliminate the duplicates. But make changes in the list very cautiously and with respect for the original. language. Check with the group. Ask them, "Do items 11 and 18 mean exactly the same thing?" if not, allow them to stay in the odginal form, Fourth: Vote. Once the group is dear about the meaning of the items, they can vote =., to determine which are the most important items. Voting will allow the group to select those items which are tt~e most important to them. [11/20]14 Pass out a strip of five colored dots to each person and then instruc~ them as follows: "1 am going to give you four minutes to select the five most important items and to put the numbers of the five items on the colored dots." It is a good idea to illustrate what you want by putting a sample on a wall sheet. Once everyone has selected five items and written the numbers on the dots, have everyone get up, go to the sheets posted on the wall and place their dots by the appropriate item. This will allow for a visual representation of the group's preferences. The items with the most dots next to them will be the most important items to the group. If the small group is going to reconvene in a larger group, ask for a volunteer from the group to report the "top" items to the larger group. At ~ts point, the actual Nominal Group Technique process is finished. Whoever is in charge of the meeting should take over and discuss the next steps with everyone. [./20115 [11/20] 16 STORYBOARDING "Storyboarding" provides a way to generate and arrange ideas. It gets its name from the Disney Corporation using fie process to develop "story beards" for feature length cadoons. Storyboarding can be completed in 30 minutes. NOTE: Them is a formal, more detailed approach fo using 'Storyboarding." The approach described below is an adaptation of that more formal approach and requires far less technology. As such it probably loses some of the power of the formal approach but if is more flexible to use. Step One - Meeting Preparation: Storyboarding wonks best with very small groups of 3 or 4 people. If your group consists of more people, divide the group into groups of 3 or 4. The room should be set up so that each small group has a place to meeL Storyboarding is a relatively quiet process and many groups can meet in the same large space. Each group needs a space to place their items - either a flip chart or a wall (the items can be placed onto a piece of flip chart pepar taped to the wall), and a supply of "Post-it" notes (at least 2"x2") and a water-based marker for each person. Step Two - Conducting the Meeting: The best way to describe the process is to illustrate it. If you are working with a large group, divide it into small groups. You might have them count off, or allow them to select the question they wish to work on (if there are different questions), or assign them to groups a,c~ording to some criteria. Invite one of the small groups into the center of the room. Pass out the supplies; each parson gets "Post-It" notes and a ma~-ker. Ask them the triggering question and instruct them to write down as many responses to the question as they can think of, one response for each "Post-It" note. [! 1/20117 After about two or three minutes of work, ask one of the participants for one of their items. Read off the item and ask whether any of the other people have a similar item. Cluster similar responses together on the flip chad (or wall or sheet of newsprint taped to the wall). Read off one item for each person, duster similar responses as you go, and then instruct them to continue clustering items on their own. Pass out supplies to each of the small groups and instruct them to do the following: (It is helpful if these steps are listed on a sheet of newsprint) 1. Wdte down your responses to the question, one item per note. 2. After about five minutes, compare and duster items. 3. Develop categories based on the dusters and the single items. If a number of groups are working on the same item, it is productive to ask everyone to walk around the room and read the categories created by each of the small groups. You can then facilitate a discussion where people report what seem to be common categories that can be found in the work of most of the groups, what surprised them, what they believe is missing. [1 i/20118 IDEAWRITING Ideawriting, a group method for developing ideas, is particularly helpful in expanding upon - 11eshing out" - the general ideas that result from group interactions. Ideawriting typically includes four steps: (1) Group organization: A large group is divided into small working groups. (2) Initial response: Each participant reacts in wdting to a stimulus question or item and then places his or her Ideawriting Form (with the initial response} in the canter of the group. (3) Wdtton interaction: Each participant reacts, in writing, to what is written on each of the other Ideawriting Forms. (4) Analysis and reporting: Each participant reads the comments made in reaction to his or her initial response, the small working group discusses the principal ideas that emerge from the written interaction, and the group summarizes the discussion on newsprint. Ideawriting focuses on a single topic, requires a relatively brief time, and produces a written product, The process recognizes that (1) certain group goals can be achieved best by writing rather than by discussion; (2) parallel working (each of the members of the group work on the same task at the same time) is productive and efficient; and (3) all members of a group should be allowed an equal opportunity to express their ideas. The process is quite useful when the group is large, the meeting schedule allocates a limited time for group discussion, or differences among group members (in status and verbal aggressiveness) need to be neutralized. An irapod. ant advantage of Ideawriting is that one person can facilitate the work of a large number of Ideawriting groups. This means that the technique is useful for larger cc, aferencc s or meeting=. An Ideawriting session can easily be accomplished in an hour, and an abbreviated version in a half-hour. CAUTION: Do not use Ideawriting unless the participants are willing to express themselves in writing. The legibility of the wdting is not usually an issue, but if participants are self-conscious about their ability to express themselves in writing, they may not cooperate or they may even disrupt the process. [11/20]19 Step One - Meeting Preparations: First, decide whether the group task requires t~at all members respond to the same stimulus, such as a common question, or whether members should select the item they prefer from a list of alternatives. If a single triggering question is used as the stimulus to the group activity, formulate and if possible test the question. An example of an appropriate question would be, '~/Vhat is an effective strategy for generating additional jobs in the private sector?" If the group members are to respond to a set of stimulus items, write those items on newsprint so that they can be displayed before the group. For example, the group might have a previously prepared list of potential strategies for generating additional jobs in the private sector. If so, write the list on sheets of newsprint and tape them to the wall. The question for this group might be, "What are critical considerations that must be taken into account in implementing any one of the potential strategies?" Second, assemble necessary supplies: pads of paper° pendis, pens, tables, and chairs. If the groups are to analyze and repoa their results, at least one flip chart (or easel), newsprint, masking tape, and water-based (rather than permanent) felt-tip pens should also be available. Ideally, each Ideawriting group should have a separate table around which to sit. Step Two - Conducting the Meeting: NO TEL' The follov~ng illustrates Ideawriting being used to help a group develop Action Plans. Obviously Ideawriting is not limited to that use and can be used on any question to develop ideas. Describing the Purpose for the Meeting The group will be together in one large group only long enough for someone, probably you, to explain why the group has been convened, what they will be doing during the course of th~ ,ne~ting, and how the final product will be utilized. You should be prepared, just in case it is not done by someone else, to describe your role and the process that will be utilized dudng the meeting. The process may be explained as follows: [I 1/20120 "In a moment, I am going to ask you to count off so that you break into groups of three and begin to develop action plans for how to achieve each of the goals that you have ident'ted. '~/Ve are going to utilize a process called Ideawriting to develop the action plans. The way that Ideawriting works is... "Using the form titled "Ideawriting Form for Adion Plans,"~ each of you write into the box called "What" the goal that you have been assigned. "Your responsibility then is to wad< silently and independently and fill in the remaining boxes -- "How" you think the goal can be achieved by this organi~ntion, "Who" you believe should be responsible for seeing it accomplished, by "When" it should be accomplished, and "HOW" you will "Know'" it has been accomplished. That should take you about five minutes. 'You will then swap sheets so that each person gets someone else's ideas. Comment on what they have written down. Indicate what you like, what you don't like, and so forth. It won't take you very long to do thaL Then swap again and comment on what was written down originally or what appears in the marginal comments. Keep swapping until everyone comments on everyone else's sheet. "Return the sheets to their original source, so that you can read what the others had to say about your ideas. Then carry on a conversation about what all of you seemed to like, what all of the members of the group apparently agreed en. Try, if possible, to work out any apparent differences you seem to have. "Finally, summarize what you have agreed to on a single shcct of paper and tape the sheet to the wall." Divide the group into small work groups. Your options for this include: 1. In most circumstances, simply have them count off so that they create small groups of three people (two and four are acceptable, but they should be considered the acceptable extremes). For example, if there are ten people, have them count off The form is at the end of this description of the process. [ 11/2012 1 up to three-that creates two groups of three and one of four. If there are 24 people, have them count off to eight which creates eight groups or three people. After they count off, you can assign them topics or they can be allowed, as a group, to select whichever topic they prefer. 2. Ask them to decide which item they prefer to work on. A simple way to do that is to point to-the first topic (it is helpful if all of the topics are listed on a sheet of flip chart paper), read it, and ask for a show of hands as to who wants to work on that topic. Continue on down the list, writing the number of volunteers beside each topic. With a bit of negotiation, a large group usually subdivides in a reasonable fashion. Permit groups as small as two people, but if five or more want to work on a topic, ask them to break into separate groups. For example, if six people want to work on the same topic, ask them to comprise two groups of three, so that each group works independently of the other. 3. Assign people to small groups. This can be done ahead of time by giving each person a number or letter or color-coding their name badge or assignment sheet. If your pdmary concern is the mix of people (e.g., you might want to be sure and mix up staff and board), you can allow each of the groups to pick their own topic. If your concern is to be certain that specific people work on specific topics, you can also assign the topic for each of the groups. If, for example, the group is developing action plans for their organizational goals, there might be six goals and only enough people for four groups. If it is acceptable that work is not done on all of the goals, you have another choice, which is either to assign one of the goals to each of the groups, or to allow each group to select whichever goal they would like to work on. if the small groups only work on four of six goals, you might consider brainstorming ideas with the full group on the remaining two. The best time to do that is after they have completed their small group work on the first four. This is the time for them to work in groups, as outlined in the process explanation above. Your only responsibilities are to: Pass out the form titled "Ideawriting Form for Action Plans." Make certain they write before they speak. Some people will resist writing and want to stad talking right away, so you might go over to them and quietly remind them that initially they are to work silently and independently by ~writing down their ideas. You may want to make an announcement to the full group if a number of groups are [11/20122 talking. Deliver supplies - a sheet of flip chad paper and markers - to each of the small groups when they begin to talk about what is on their sheets. You might bdng the sheet of paper to their table or tape it on the wall near where they are working. You might even put their topic at the top of the sheet. It is also a good idea to have them put on the sheet the names of the people who worked on that topic, should you b7 and reconstruct something later on, It is desirable to save the marked Ideawriting forms along with the flip chart sheets. One way to bdng closure to the session is to have a spokesperson from each small group report on the highlights of their work. Give them a very limited amount of time (one minute) or some people will bore the group with unneeded detail. On occasion, if you want more than reporting, that is, if you would like input from the full group, it may be appropriate to have a bdef repeal from each of the small groups and to allow the full group to add ideas. Keep in mind that you may want to have the full group address topics that were not addressed by any of the small groups. The Ideawriting results rarely comprise an end in and of itself. An individual or a small team will have to edit the work that comes out of such a session. [ 11/20123 Ideawriting Form For Action Plans (Eslim~,d lime) Slep 1: W~te anobjedNe in the box bbeled 'WHAT' Step2: In li(~htofWHATisto bedone, f'dlln the otherboxes:WHO Shoufdbe responsible, by WHEN, HOW can the desired outcome be how vail 3foe KNOW when It has been ACCOMPUSHED (5M~) · Step3: Selectlsheetolhedl~rlyouowxl, Readlfleldeas/ comme, msoalhatsheet. Wdledown3murreaclfofts-whatdo3melace? Step4: Re~dyourod0imlsheet~dthecommems. Discosst,~tu~ltesheefsh~ve Incommo~ndhowlheydiffer. Su~ungdzeyourcollecrzveideasmasinl~le s~eetofBipchanpaper. (15 How?. Know Accomplished? I NTERPRETIVE STRUCTURAL MODELING Interpretive StrUctural Modeling, or ISM, provides a way to establish the relative pdodty of a group of items. The process may take two to three hours, depending on the number of items and the depth of the discussion. It requires good facilitation skills and is best done with three people, a lead facilitator and two assistants. ISM is an excellent follow-up to a process where you have identified a group of items and you wish to fully discuss them and determine their pdodty. ISM enables organizational learning. People become educated dudrig the discussions, especially about the shared values that cause the group to prefer certain items. Step One - Meeting Preparations: In order to conduct an ISM session, you need a set of items and a relationship. The heart of ISM is establishing relationships between items. You can use laqy relationship phrase. Examples include: "should be done before," "reports to," "helps to achieve." In the example that follows, each item will be compared to another by using the phrase, "Is an equal or higher priority than." After you have (1) the items which you want to pdoritize and (2) the relationship, but before you meet with the group, there are codain materials that need to be prepared. You can use a variety of ways to prosent the items to the decision making group. It is recommended that each item be written on a separate sheet of paper or a placard. This will enable you to display two items at a time before the group and allow them to establish a relationship. The following is an example: IS AN EQUAL OR HIGHER PRIORITY.'r~e~N IS. Building a new basketball courL A set of cards with numbers on them - one numbered card for each item to be pdodtized -- is needed to keep track of the group's decision,making. 3 X 5 cards with large numbers written on them work just fine. i _ _ [ t t/20125 Them are three tasks which the fadlitator must perform dudng the meeting. 1. Facilitate the group discussion of the items. 2. Keep track of the group's preferences. 3. Array the items for the groups viewing. It takes an experienced facilitator to manage all of these tasks alone. It is best to have at least two and preferably three facilitators to handle this process. Step Two - The Meeting: Describing The Purpose For The Meeting Ideally, a chairperson will clarify the purpose of the meeting, the context for the meeting (how this meeting fits into the history of the group and their ongoing work) and lhe facilitator's role. You should be prepared to describe your role if it is not done by someone else. The following is a sample of what might be said to introduce the process. "As you know, the priorities which you decide upon will be used by the Board as they prepare their capital budget for the next five years. "This is the third stage in the capital decision making process. The departments have already identified their r',ccds and department heads have presented their cases in hearings. Now, we will prioritize those needs and provide input to the Board as they prepare the budget." You should illustrate the process. You might say somathing like: =1 am about to put up two of the items you will be considedng. I will then ask you to explain why you think one is a higher pdodty than the other. Alter you have completed your deliberation, I will call for a vote. You will continue that procedure until you have considered all the items. When you have made all the compared comparisons that are needed, I wiil show you the pdority structure that you created. *'The rules are: a majority vote derides. A tie vote counts as a yes vote since yes also means equal. If it is not obvious to me from your discussion that you moan higher by your vote, I will have to switch the order of the items and ask you to vote the other way. It may turn out that two items are equal in priority. [11/20126 "All of the items have a high pdodty or we would not be considering them, but the outcome will be useful to you only if you differentiate the relative pdodty of the items. It is important that you make choices between items. Just because you are saying that one item has a higher pdodty than another does not mean that the any item is unimlxxtanL" Beginning The Actual Process The steps in the process are: 1. Show the group a pair of items. 2. Ask them to give their reasons why they would prefer to vote "yes" or "no." 3. Ask them to vote, 4. Record the vote. 5. Start the same sequence again, until the process is complete. An Example The following is an example of the process using five items. The seffing of the example is a school board that is determining the relative pdodty of five potential 1. Adding six science stations at the high school. 2. Paving the access road at west elementary. 3. Repaking lhe roof of the gym. 4. Building an addition at south elemontaW. 5. Building a new basketball court for the junior high playground. What the group school board sees are the items. What the facilitator sees, in order to keep track of the 'group's decisions, are the cards with numbers on them. It is recommended that .the numbered cards be placed on the table so they are viewed only by the facilitator. The first pair of items are shown to the group. IS N~I EQUAL OR HIGHER PRIORITY THAN [ 11/20127 2, Paving the access road. After lhe group has an oppodunity to give their reasons why they prefer one or the other of the options, call for a vote. If the vote is "no", then the group has established that they believe 2 is a higher pdodty than 1. The facilitator should arrange the numbered cards in the appropriate order. If the vote is "yes", which means the group believes that item I is an equal or higher pdodty than item 2, the facilitator should display the two items in reverse order and ask the group to discuss them and vote again, The fadlitator cannot assume that the odginal vote means that 1 is a higher priodty than item 2. Given the way that the relationship is phrased - IS AN EQUAL OR HIGHER PRIORITY THAN, the group may believe that they are an equal priority. Reverse the order of the items. 2. Paving the access mad, IS AN EQUAL OR HIGHER PRIORITY THAN 1. Adding six science stations. If the vote is "no", then the group has established that they believe 1 is a higher priodty than 2 and the fadlitator should arrange the numbered cards: [11/20]28 If the group votes "yes". which means that they have voted "yes" both ways. the group has indicated that the item are of equal value and the facilitator should arrange the cards: Assume that they voted "no" to the odginal choice so the outcome is: The fadlitator should display the next item, 3, so that it is compared with item 1. }3. Repaldngtheroofgym, ~ LS AN EQUAL OR HIGHER PRIORITY THAN I,. ,~,~,~,,~,~o,,. I The fadlitator should take the numbor three and put it next to the numbor 1 on the table for a reference. NOTE: If you place the new item fight next to the item it is being compared with. it will be easier to know that it is not part of the structure. [l 1/20129 If after the discussion, the group votes "no", which means that the group believes that 3 is not an equal or higher priority than 1, the facilitator should arrange the numbers: Them is no reason to compare 3 with 2 since the group already established that they believe 2 is a higher pdodty than 1. If the group voted 'yes", and the items are presented in reverse order and the group votes yes again, then the group believes that the items are of equal pdodty. The facilitator's cards should appeaF. If the group votes "yes" and after the items are presented in reverse order, the group votes "no", indicating that the group believes that 3 is a higher pdodty than 1, the group then should be asked to consider the relative pdodty between 3 and 2. 3. Repaidrig ~e gym roof. IS AN EQUAL OR HIGHER PRIORITY THAN [11/2013o if, after the discussion, the group votes "no", indicating that they believe 2 is a higher priority that 3, the facilitator's numbered cards should look like: [i] ff the group votes 'yes" and the item are presented in reverse order and the group votes 'yes" again, Indicating that the group believes the two items are of equal pdodty. the facllitator cards will appear:. If the group votes 'yes" and the items are presented in reverse order and the group votes *no". indicating that the group believes 3 is a higher priodty than 2, the facilitator cards will appear:. Continue in this fashion. Each new item can be considered in relation to any other item. A good rule of thumb is for the facilitator to begin in the middle of the structure (that is displayed by the facilitater). So, if the facilitator has a structure like the following: [ l U2013 1 She should begin by comparing 5 to 1 or 5 to 3. The vote will tell the facilitator whether to move up the structure or down the structure. For example, if it is established that 5 is a higher pdodty than 1.5 should be compared to 3. If it is established that 5 is a lower pdority than 1, it should be compared to 4. If the group votes yes both ways, the group has established that the two items are on the same level. For example, if they establish that 5 and I are of equal priority, the structure the facilitator sees should look like: Remember, the group only sees the two items that the facilitator displays far them. Once you have completed the process, present the pdodtized list to the group. [I 1/20132 SINGLE TEXT NEGOTIATION "SINGLE TEXT NEGOTIATION" (STN) iS a process that can be used when different individuals or groups have differing views regarding what to do about a common concam. It is especially useful as a way to get the participating padies to base their approach on the shared interests - rather than the respective positions - of the parties. The essential feature of S'IN is .that the parties are able to work out an agreement because they focus on the text rather than on the messenger, NOTE: S TN was first used to enable teams that refused to meet face-to-face to do productive work together, The variation presented below is based on parties meeting in the same room together, W~th some modification, if nccded, the parties could be kept separated from each other, A caution, This is a complex process that can take several separate meetings to complete, Consider the following an outline that will have to be modified to fit most circumstances, The pacing of this approach is critical, and therefore requires practice before used in a potentially contentious setting, Step One - Meeting Preparation: The room should be large enough so that each team has spaca to meet together, The only equipment needed is a flip chart, The only supplies required are water-based markers to record the work of the teams and masking tape to tape the completed sheets on the wall, STN may be used to help existing competing interests (e,g,, different townships) settle on one approach to a common problem (e,g,, location of a new landfill) or to help a group of people decide on the best way to solve a problem, In the first instance the process will begin with well-defined '1,earns," whereas in ,the second situation it may be appropriate to divide the group into teams in order to facilitate the use of STN, If the situation calls for the fadlitator to divide the group into teams, do that by having people count off, Step Two - Conducting the Meeting: The following are the steps to be followed in an STN, [1 If20133 WHO? WHAT? Explains goals, givens, ground rules. 1. Facilitator If appropriate, assigns teams. If people have come to partialpate as teams, they are likely to already have their proposal. It is appropriate to give them time to meet together to go over their proposal. And to identify their values. 2. Teams If people have just been put into teams, ask them to decide on what they propose to solve the problem and what are the values that influence the proposal. To identify values, ask partialpants to consider what they want to accomplish by their proposal. OOtional 3. Teams Each team seeks information from the other teams; that is, they ask questions before the proposals are presented. 4. Teams Each team puts their proposal on newsprint. Each team presents their proposal to the other teams. 5. Teems There is an opportunity to ask clarifying questions of each of the proposals. 6. Fadlitator Inkeduces the following questions: a. What do all the proposals have in common? b. What is possible to achieve, in light of all of the proposals? c. What can you not accept in any of the other proposals d. What one thing do you really care about? Reassigns the teams - so that the new teams, comprised of representatives from each of the odginal teams, are responsible for answering the questions introduced in step 6. 7. Facilitator This is desirable to do, but in some cases may not be possible. Some groups will refuse to continue if you try and break them up. [11/20134 8. Teams In a caucus, each team answers the questions. Each team selects a spokesperson who will represent the 9. Teams team. 10. Facilitator Records ideas (on newsprint) from each team in sequence. For example: "Team A, what is one thing all the proposals have in common? Team B, what is one thing all the prepesals have in commonT' .And so forth, woddng your way - by alternating between the teams - through all of the answerS to all questions from step 6. 11. Facilitator Determines what all of the teams can agree to, by: · Reading the first item recorded and ask the spokesperson for each of the teams, "Does that fail to meet you team's interests?" · Circling each item that the spokesperson tells you does not fail to meet the team's interests. · When you come to an item that fails to meet the interests of at least one of the parlies, asking, "How would the item have to be stated to meet your interests?'' · If you cannot get relatively quick agreement on an item, maddng it so that you can come back to it later. · Adjusting the approach to deal with the items the respendents said they could not accepL 12. Fadlitator Creates final text, 15y:. [I 1/20135 · Achieving agreement on items of difference. One strategy may be to form subcommittees made up of representatives from each team and asking the subcommittees to work out the differences. Form one committee for each substantial difference. · If the text is not achievable in the time available, identifying what still needs to be accomplished. It is useful to discuss the criteda - usually expressed in the items of agreement in the single text - that should guide a final agreement. [11/20136 MEDIATION In mediation, a neutral third party works with disputants to help them create a mutually satisfying resolution of their differences. Agreement to participate in mediation is usually voluntary (unless the mediation occurs at the order of a court, or according to the internal procedures of an organization). Agreement on the resolution of issues within the mediation is always voluntary;, the mediator has no authority to impose .a resolution on the parties. Meditation differs from most of the other processes and approaches in this manual in that it is usually undertaken when there is an active dispute between parties. rather than a problem to be solved. The parties have been unable to work out a resolution on their own. The mediator usually addresses the substance of the issues in a dispute more actively than a facilitator. Mediators employ a wide variety of approaches, and "mediation" encompasses a large number of techniques. This section presents one model of mediation which includes some of the basic tools mediators use. It also outlines the essential components of the process. It may not present enough infom~ation to be usable by those with no exposure to mediation. More experienced mediators may be comfortable departing from the model. Step One - Pre-Mediation Activities Mediation in public contexts is likely to be voluntary. The first step is to inform the parties about the nature of the mediation process and explore with them whether they want to engage in mediation. Only proceed with the mediation if all parties agree that they are willing to try the process. In mare complex cases it may be useful for the mediator to conduct an assessment of the dispute before beginning the mediation. The assessment may be conducted through phone or personal interviews and document reviews and may be more or less formal. However it is done, the object of the assessment !s to identify the issues, parties, and relationships involved in order to ensure that all apprepdate parties are at the table and to help the mediator adapt the mediation process to the characteristics of the case. Step Two - The Mediation Process [11/20137 The following model of mediation has seven stages. Stage One - Introduction The mediator should identify the padies, define mediation, explain the mediation process, and establish ground rules. · Make introductions · Explain mediation · Define the role of the mediator · Establish ground rules Stage Two - Problem Determination The mediator asks each party to relate his/her account of the dispute, The mediators function is to facilitate the flow of this information by using effective communication sldlls. · Usten ¢o the party's description of the dispute · Gather information · Fadlitate communication · Determine the nature of the problem Stage Three - Summarizing After each party has completed his/her description of the dispute, the mediator should summarize. The words used by the mediator in the summary must be neutral and not judgmental. It is important that the summary accurately reflect the content and emotion of each party s description. · Summarize the presentation · Verify the accuracy of the summary · Remove the emotional content from your summary - do not suggest emotional expression is inappropriate for the parties · Evaluate the completeness of the story [Note: Stages two and throe are repeated for each party.] Stage Four - Issue Identification- [11/2013 The mediator assists the parties in identifying all presenting and underlying issues that will be addressed in the mediation. · Clarify the problem as presented by the parties · Identify the underlying problem · Identify negotiable issues Stage Five - Generation and Evaluation of AJtematives The parties are responsible for proposing their own alternatives for resolving their dispute. The parties continue to discuss alternatives that may bring about a resolution of the dispute. · Ask the parties to identify potential solutions · Help the parties evaluate the proposed solutions Stage Six - Selection of Appropriate Alternatives The parties either agree on which alternative(s) will best resolve their dispute or decide that mediation is not the appropriate method for resolving their dispute. · Help the parties selec~ solutions · Help the parties determine workability · Help the padies agree on specific details Stage Seven - Conclusion · Restate resolution · Clarify terms · If appropriate, write down or otheRvise record the resolution · Thank parties for participating [I 1/20139 ~ ~ ', [ t ~r2o14o COMMUNITY RESOURCE MAPPING "Community Resource Mapping" (CRM) utilizes a variety of tools to enable conflicting parties to make economic and management decisions, It leaves the community with skills that can be used to articulate values and resource uses and thereby ensures better representation of their needs in future decision-making. · The tools include ways to gather information (interviews, surveys, focus groups and public meetings) and portray information (non-technical, user4dendly maps), · CRM has been used to make resource allocation decisions such as where to conduct a timber sale and what are acceptable policies about the use of a natural resource, such as a forest or a lake. CRM enables conflicting padies to communicate effectively because they are provided a way to view the shared conflict and because they focus on the maps rather than on the messenger. This is not an approach that can be completed in a single meeting. Rather, it requires considerable time to develop relationships, learn .about how the community (and perhaps other parties) use the resource, develop the "low tech" maps, and facilitate the shared use of the maps. This approach can be used within a single group (such as a community or organization) or between groups. The essential steps for the facilitator are: 1. Secure permission to facilitate. 2. Gather information about how all stakeholders use the resource. 3. Develop maps. 4. Use the information in the maps to make a derision about the use of the resource, The following is a description of how CRM was utilized to facilitate communication between a traditional community in close proximity to and dependent upon a forest and the Forest Service that is responsible' for ~tewardship of the forest res(~urce. in this instance the facilitator took the initiative to start the project as part of a grant, [11/2014 1 An alternative stad would be for one or more communities or organizations to call a fadlitator in to help with an issue for which CRM is the dght approach. 1. Secure permission to facilitate. Extensive efforts were made to gain the full cooperation of the Forest Service, at both the regional and district levels. The Regional Forester was interested in improving the agency's methods of communicating with local communities. A district ranger was identified who would be sympathetic to a project of this type. A community was selected because preliminary interviews indicated that they were receptive, the local district ranger was interested in improved relationships with the community (in pad because he needed their input regarding the management of the forest), and there was not an existing crisis involving environmental activists from outside the community. Even though there was initial interest, extensive work had to be done on-site in order to gain trust for the facilitator and the proposed process. To ensure that all interests participated, community leaders were recruited to educate others about the benefits of becoming involved. 2. Gather information about how all stakeholders use the resource.. This can be done in a vadety of ways. The following sequence was followed in the community: a. Extensive interviews were conducted in the community. b. Local residents were invited to public meetings and asked: How was the forest used in the past (dudng your grandparent's time, what you remember as a child)? How is it being used no¢. How would you like to see the forest used in the future? They were invited to come to the front of the room where there were four maps of the forest - one for each of the seasons - and to tell the person at the map where they used the forest - where did they hunt? forage for wood? pick fruit? camp? etc, Their uses were recorded on the map. c. Attitude surveys were distributed and collected. d. Additional interviews were conducted with people who were unable to attend the public meetings. e. Information about what were the Forest Service's constraints and mandates regarding the forest was collected. [! 1/20]42 3. Develop maps. InformaUon from the meetings, surveys and interviews was synthesized and hand- drawn maps of how the forest resource was being used by the community were produced. Separate maps were prepared reflecting Forest Service constraints and mandates. 4. Use the information in the maps to make e decision about the use of the resource. Meetings were held that enabled citizens to compare the maps, to enter into effective dialogue with the Forest Service, and to make suggestions for how the forest service should modify their policies regarding the forest. [11/20143 [ 11/20144 STRATEGIC VISIONING This approach is used when a group wishes to establish a direction that is shared by all of its members. It requires pre-meeting interviews, analysis of the interviews, putting lhe results of the interviews on well charts, and at least two hours for the group meeting. Step One - Meeting Preparation: Interview each person who will be attending the meeting. Ask the following questions. Them may be others depending upon your task. 1. What are the strengths of the group? 2. What are the weaknesses of the group? How is it vulnerable? 3. What are the opportunities that the group could capitalize upon in the near future ? 4. What are potential threats to the well-being of the group? 5. What is the mission of the group? What is it that the group exists to do? 6. What do you hope to accomplish at the meeting? Display the results of the interviews on flip chart paper. Make certain the printing is readable. Alternate colors to enhance readability. Develop a system to designate the frequency of responses for an item. For example, list the items by the order in which they were mentioned; that is, the first item would be the one that wes mentioned most frequently. If an item is mentioned by just about everyone, undedir~e it If it is mentioned by a large percentage of the respondents, give it a star (*), Use a check-mark (/) to designate an item that got a few respensee. Include all items. People will distrust you if they do not see something they said. What are t~e Streng(hs of the Group? The QuatY of the b'taff Good Advocates for Crents V ay Craeat R espondve * Board of Dkec:~or~' Hotfree / .~vk:esAv"a~lable24Hou~aDay/ Uniqueness of Se~,ces Provided [I I/'20145 Arrive at the meeting site eady to make certain that the materials you need are there and that the room is setup to your satisfadion. Step Two - Conducting the Meeting: Describe the Purpose for the Meeting Ideally, a chairperson will dadfy the purpose of the meeting, the context for the meeting (how this meeting fits into the history of the group and their ongoing work) and the facilitators role. You should be prepared to describe your role if it is not done by someone else. Before actually implementing the process, you should briefly describe what will happen. It is helpful to put a diagram of a strategic planning process on a sheet of wall paper, to describe what the process entails and to be dear about what portions of the process will be completed in the meeting. STRATEGIC PLANNING ENVIRONMENT S INTERNAL W O EXTERNAL T Begin the Approach First: Review the information that was leamed as a result of the interviews. Begin by saying that it is not necessary for items to be attributed to any individuals. You are [11/20146 not going to say who said what and they do not need to identify items they contributed. Tell them that you may have misunderstood what someone said or may have forgotten to include something that is important. So they should not be shy about correcting items or adding items. Read off the responses for each question. Then ask if there are any additions or corrections. Second: Creafe a negative image offhe fufure. Ask the group, in light of what you reported they said about strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, what they can imagine to be a potential but undesirable future? Give them at least a few moments to thing and jot down ideas before anyone speaks. Do not let one person, or even a few people, monopolize the contributions. Rather, go around the table, calling upon them for one idea each. This is not a very positive question and you should not spend a lot of time with their responses, especially if they begin to repeat the same ideas. When you are done with this segment, it is a good idea to ask one of them to summadze what it is they believe is undesirable. Third: Create a positive image of the future. Ask the group, '%'~/hat do you expect the group to be like in the year 2005 (o~whatever they decide should be the target date) if everything goes right? What would a desirable future look like?" To give focus to their thinking, divide them into three groups and give a slightly different question to each group. Group One: "What would you like to say that the group has accomplished by the year 2005?' Group Two: 'V~/hat should the group be doing differently in the year 2005 from what they are doing now?'.' Group Three: "What would you like to be distinctive about the group in the year 2005? How should it be acting that will distinguish it from other similar organizations?" Give the group some time to think about the questions, and then call on a spokesperson for each of the groups, one at a time, so that everyone contributes to the list. i [| 1/20147 "Group one, what is one thing you would like to see the group accomplish by the year 2005? Group two, what is one thing you would like to see the group doing differently by the year 2005? Continue unti/ you have recorded a// of their ideas. Number the items, alternate co/ors. Fourth: Secure agreement. After you have completed the list, read each separate item and ask the group whether they agree that the item should be a pad of a desirable future. An alternate way to phrase it is to ask, "Is there any one who would not want this item to be a part of the future of this group. Put a check mark beside each item that everyone agrees with. If someone disagrees with an item, you might ask how it should be phrased so that he/she can agree with it. Your goal in this step is to identify what most of the members of the group agree should be pad of the desirable future. Fifth: Identify goa/s. Ask the group to identify 'lhemes" that characterize the desired future. No matter how large the list of items. the group is likely to identify from three to six themes. Their task should be to express each of the themes as "strategic directions" or as "goals." A goal is a desirable end-state, expressed in fairly broad language. For example, goals for a United Way might be: · For most of the programs we fund to be preventative in nature. · To be in the top quadrant nationally of Comparable United Ways in terms of money raised and money allocated. · To utilize less than 10% of the money we raise for operating costs. · To have a more active and informed Board of Trustees. One way to arrive at the goals is to give them examples of what you want, to divide them into small groups (one group for each theme) and then ask the group to express one or more goals for the theme. The preceding five steps is a productive and sufficient amount of work for a planning meeting. A good way to conclude such a meeting is to explain that what the group needs to do is to create task forces to develop action plans for each of the goals. An action alan includes for each goal: [ 1 I/'20148 Objectives - specific outcomes that, when achieved, help to accomplish the goal. The objective should be expressed in concrete terms. It should be clear from the statement of the objective what needs to be done and how someone will know that it has bccn accomplished. For example, objectives for the United Way goal, "The have a more active and informed Board of Trustees, "might include: · To have an annual Board of Trustees planning retreat. · To have at least four beard meetings in 1992 at an aff'diated agency. · To have each member of the Board of Trustees visit at least three affiliated agencies in 1992. Accountability - who should be responsible for seeing that each of the objectives is accomplished, and who they will need to worl< with to accomplish to objective. Deadlines - by when the goal should be accomplished. [11/20149 [~2o]so How TO DESIGN AN INTERVENTION The following guidelines and questions can guide you if you are starting from a "blank slate" in designing an intervention. The word "intervention" is used here to suggest the activity of the facilitator, which may involve one or more meetings, personal interviews, and the use of one or more processes and approaches. DERNE THE PURPOSE OF THE INTERVENTION Why are you calling people together? The reasons should be deady stated, preferably in writing, in a way that does net assume a particular outcome. The following are common reasons for designing an intervention. They are not mutually exclusive. · To respond to a regulato~ or statutory mandate. · To work on a common problem. · To exchange information or perspectives. · To identify issues. · To provide input to decision-makers. · To develop options. · To provide a range of acceptable recommendations to decision makers. · To agree on a single preferred option or ,Solution. · To create a shered vision. It can be very useful to interview participants before defining the objectives. Interviews can help you identify the issues that are important to the participants as wall as which individuals or groups should participate. You should exped that the participants may want to redefine objedives as the intervention progresses. Identify Who Needs to Participate Identify who has a stake in the outcoma, and determine, in consultation with them, appropriate ways for them to be involved. Should the intervention involve representatives of the group, or be open to all members of the group? Is there a need at various stages for broader public participation? If ,So, how can it he done meaningfully? [11/20151 identify the Tasks the Group Will Have to Perform The four processes described in this manual are especially helpful in getting groups to generate ideas, develop or arrange ideas, and select between ideas. The key to knowing which process to use depends upon the task that the group has to accomplish. The following table indicates which process is preferred depending upon the task. If you need to GENERATE If you need to DEVELOP or If you need to SELECT IDEAS, preferred processes ARRANGE IDEAS, preferred BETWEEN IDEAS, the include... processes include... prefeffed process is... Brainstorming (not desce'bed in ~ts manual) Storyboarding InterpreUve Structural Modeling Nominal Group Technique ~tG'[) Ideawrffing (ISM) Stolyooarding Often processes are linked together to enable a group to perform two or three of the tasks. For example, a facilitator may have a group: Use NGT to generate ideas, Use Ideawriting to have the group develop - '1]esh out" - the high priority ideas (from the results of the NGT), and Use ISM to have them select between the high pdority ideas. Different combinations of processes and approaches will be used depending'upon the purpose of the intervention. The following examples suggest how you can combine processes and approaches to design an effective intervention. if your purpose is to provide a range of acceptable recommendations to decision makers, you could: Use NGT to generate potential recommendations Use Ideawriting to refine the high priodty recommendations (from the NG'r) Use Single Text Negotiations to identify the group's recommendations [11/20152 ff your purpose is to agree on a single preferred option or solution (or at least a pdodtized list), you could add Interpretlye Structural Modeling (ISM) to the previous t~'ee steps. Plan Individual Meetings Once you have identified the tasks the group will have to perform, and the combination of processes and approaches you will use, consider the amount of time available, and the amount of time needed to do each process well. Estimate the number of meetings you will nccd to accomplish the purpose. Plan the individual meetings around the processes and approaches you will use to accomplish each task. ,Identify What Will Need to Be Done Between Meetings Will task forces or individuals develop ideas further between meetings, or will all work be done dudrig the meetings? Will information be gathered or analysis done? Logistical and Other Considerations Will the intervention be under the direction of a facilitator or mediator? Where will the parties meet (if this might be contentious)? How will the parties fund the intervention? Who will provide the necessan/meeting space and materials? How will "staff" the intervention (e.g., type up the notes of the meeting)? Special Situations The previous sections ware based on you having control over the design of the intervention. That may not be the case. There are still useful - "facilitative" - things you can do, even if you are a participant in a group fadlitated by someone else, or if you are asked to run a meeting designed by someone e!se. When You Are a Participant in a Group Run by Someone Else As a perticipent, you can introduce facilitated perspectives in a vadety of ways. You may have an appertunity to recommend the process or approach you have in mind and ask the group to consider using iL [11/20153 · You can offer to facilitate the meeting. · When the situation permits, recommend pads of processes that do not require pdor authorization from the group. The following example shows one way the components of Nominal Group Technique might be introduced by you as a participant in a group having trouble generating ideas. Situation: The group has not heard from all members about a crucial question. You could say the following. 'You know, we have not heard from everybody on this. It would help me if we could just go around the table and everyone comment on the question. Pass if you don? have anything to add.' Situation: A number of solutions have been discussed, but no closure is in sight. You might say the following. 'We have talked about a number of possibirdies. It would help me to write them on the board (or flip chart) in front of the group, so we can see all the options under discussion. I'll be happy to do the wrffing if you will remind me of the items we have discussed.' If the group responds positively, you might suggest the rest of NGT. After the options are wdtten and clarified, you can say the following. 'Would it help to pick the top five items, perhaps by a show of hands?' Most of the processes in this manual can be introduced this way. When You are Running a Meetings Called or Designed by Someone Else In most cases, u~e objectives and produds of a meeting called by someone else have been decided by whoever calls the meeting. If so. it is very important to be dear with participants about this and any limitations this implies. For example, if the ultimate decision will be made by whoever called the meeting, tell participants that their conclusions will be input to the derision, not the decision itself. [1 t/20154 Once lhe objectives are established, you can then decide whether they entail generating, developing and arranging, or selecting among ideas, and choose 1/20155 Practical Guide to Consensus t'.'~'~ P C 1 Polic), Consensus hiliative A Practical Guide to Consensus A Practical Guide to Consensus COLLABORATORS Jim Arthur Christine Carlson Lee Moore Policy Consensus Initiative Santa Fe, New Mexico Bismarck, North Dakota A Practical Guide to Consensus Copyright © 1999 by The Policy Consensus Initiative. Editing and design by Kate Kopischke Printed by Roller Printing Santa Fe, New Mexico Photocopying worksheets from this guide is encouraged for the purpose of ensuring the most effective uses of consensus processes. Photocopying portions of the book for any fee-for-service activities requires written permission from the publisher. Inquiries regarding requests to reprint all or part of A Practical Guide to Consensus should be addressed to: Policy Consensus Initiative or Policy Consensus Initiative 811 St. Michael's Drive, Suite 102 1003 East Interstate Ave., Suite 7 Santa Fe, NM 87501 Bismarck, ND 58501-0500 (505) 984-8211 (701) 224-0588 To order directly from the publisher, send $15 per copy plus $2.50 for shipping and handling (for up to 10 copies). Contact PCI for quantity discounts. Send check or money order to: Policy Consensus Initiative 1003 East Interstate Avenue, Suite 7 Bismarck, North Dakota 58501-0500 (701) 224-0588 P[C]I Policy Consensus Initiative The Policy Consensus [nitiative's mission is to improve governing and public decision making by enabling state leaden to use conflict resolution and consensus building when appropriate. Through the generous support of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, PCI was established in 1997 to fulfill this mission. PCI serves as a resource to strengthen existing state conflict resolution programs, and to help more states develop their capacity to use collaborative problem solving and consensus based approach~. As much as states may want to use these approaches, the infrastructure for doing so is only partly developed. We provide education, training and consultation to state leaders on how to manage, prevent, and resolve public policy conflicts. PCI offers a variety of materials to assist public officials, including a website with information about methods, guidelines, and developments in the field. The website provides up-to-date information about existing resources within states, as well as links to state programs. For more information, contact PCI or visit the website at <www. agree.org>. ABOUT THE COLLABORATORS Jim Arthur has held dispute resolution jobs in state government in both Oregon and Washington. As a consultant in the 1970s, he helped rural communities in Washington write comprehensive plans. In the 1980s he mediated environmental disputes for the Mediation Institute and the New England Environmental Mediation Center. Chfis Carlson is Co-Director of the Policy Consensus Initiative (PCI), a national non-profit organization that works with state leaders to establish and strengthen consensus building and conflict resolution in states. Formerly the Executive Director of the Ohio Commission on Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management, Chris has been active in the conflict resolution field for more than 15 years, serving as mediator, facilitator, trainer, and consultant. She has written several articles and publications in the field of public policy dispute resolution. Lee Moore served as Communications and Program Coordinator for the Policy Consensus Initiative (PCI) in Santa Fe, NM. She has organized a number of projecu and provided information and assistance to the various state programs of dispute resolution. She also has been involved as a facilitator in several community visioning projects. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many talented professionals contributed significantly to the writing and production of this book. PCI gratefully acknowledges the following people for their valuable insights in reviewing and commenting on this book: Peter Adler Ann Gosline Mary Barrett Dick Gross Juliana Birkoff Bob Jones Dale Blanton Carl Moore Andrew Bowman Bill Potapchuk Bill Breslin Larry Spears Susan Carpenter John Stephens Reesc Fullerton Karen Tarnow We are indebted to those who contributed to and developed the recommendations contained in the Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution's Best Practices JSr Government Agencies: Guidelines j~r ~ing Collaborative Agreement Seeking Processes. Special thanks also to our funder--the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation--who made this project possible. To all of these groups and individuals, for their dedication to the principles and practice of consensus building, we express our gratitude. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ Building on the Best Practices Report ........................................................................................................l About this guide ........................................................................................................................................2 CHAPTER I CONSENSUS PROCESSES ..................................................................................................5 Stages of a consensus process .....................................................................................................................5 What is consensus? ....................................................................................................................................6 Other names for consensus processes .........................................................................................................6 What is collaboration? ...............................................................................................................................7 How are consensus and collaboration related? ............................................................................................7 Why use a consensus process? ....................................................................................................................7 Focusing on interests is a key to consensus .................................................................................................8 Other ways to engage the public ................................................................................................................9 How consensus processes differ from consultation .....................................................................................9 CHAPTER 2 WHEN TO USE CONSENSUS PROCESSES ............................................................................11 When is a consensus process more likely to be appropriate? .......................................................................11 When is a consensus process less likely to be appropriate? ..........................................................................12 Concerns about the use of consensus processes ..........................................................................................12 Concerns about legitimacy ........................................................................................................................12 Concerns about effectiveness .....................................................................................................................13 What ifa consensus process is not appropriate? .........................................................................................14 CHAPTER 3 HOw TO SPONSOR CONSENSUS PROCESSES ......................................................................17 What sponsors do ......................................................................................................................................17 Gain and maintain the publics trust ..........................................................................................................19 CHAPTER 4 HOW TO ASSESS WHETHER CONSENSUS WILL WORK ....................................................... 2I What is an assessment? .......................................... .....................................................................................21 Who should interview stakeholders? ..........................................................................................................22 What happens as a result of the assessment? ...................................................,, ...........................................23 The pitfalls of proceeding without an assessment .......................................................................................24 Handout: Sponsors' assessment checklist ...................................................................................................25 Handout: Assessment questions for stakeholders .......................................................................................26 CHAPTER 5 HOW TO ENSURE REPRESENTATIVE PARTICIPATION ............................................................27 Participation is the key to legitimacy .........................................................................................................27 Five principles to ensure representative participation .................................................................................27 How to decide who participates .................................................................................................................30 Arrange for multiple parties to participate .................................................................................................32 Ensure resources are available ....................................................................................................................32 Deal with dilemmas about participation ....................................................................................................33 What sponsors can do to deal with dilemmas ............................................................................................34 Handout: A stakeholders guide to participation ..........: .............................................................................35 CHAPTER 6 HOW TO SELECT AND WORK WITH A FACtLITATOR OR MEDIATOR .................................... 39 Basic management tasks ............................................................................................................................39 What does a facilitator do? ........................................................................................................................39 Qualifications ofa facilitator .....................................................................................................................40 Should a facilitator from inside or outside the agency manage the process? ................................................ 41 What qualifications does a facilitator need? ...............................................................................................41 What about style and approach? ................................................................................................................41 Should a facilitator be an expert in the subject matter? ..............................................................................41 How to identify and select an independent facilitator ................................................................................42 How contracting with a facilitator differs from contracting with other consultants .................................... 43 How to issue a request for qualifications (RFQ) ........................................................................................44 Interviewing potential facilitators: sample questions ..................................................................................44 CHAPTER 7 HOW TO PLAN AND ORGANIZE THE PROCESS ................................................................... 45 Organizational tasks ..................................................................................................................................45 Sample work plan ......................................................................................................................................49 Organizational Meeting Sample Agenda ....................................................................................................50 CHAPTER B HOW TO WRITE GROUND RULES .................................................................................... 51 Primary elements to include in ground rules ..............................................................................................51 Example: Medicaid Reform Working Group Ground Rules ...................................................................... 56 Example: Cape Cod National Sea Shore Negotiated Rulemaking Committee ............................................ 58 CHAPTER 9 How TO NEGOTIATE THE ISSUES AND REACH AGREEMENT ................................................ 61 Create the climate for negotiations ............................................................................................................61 Deal with legal requirements: confidentiality, and sunshine laws ............................................................... 62 Collaborative problem solving is cyclical, not linear ...................................................................................62 Use interest-based negotiation ...................................................................................................................63 Inform and educate participants ................................................................................................................63 Six steps to reaching consensus ..................................................................................................................64 CHAPTER 10 HOW TO FORMALIZE AND IMPLEMENT THE AGREEMENT ................................................. 67 Plan for implementation beginning with the assessment ............................................................................ 67 Keep decision makers and constituencies informed .................................................................................... 67 Ingredients for successful implementation .................................................................................................68 What happens before, during, and after to ensure implementation? ........................................................... 68 Best Practice recommendations .................................................................................................................69 CASE STUDIES Consensus on Coastal Zone Regulations in Delaware ................................................................................ 4 Reaching Consensus on Housing for Homeless Children .......................................................................... 11 Facilitating a New City Charter in Massachusetts ......................................................................................16 Laying the Groundwork for Consensus on Medicaid Reform .................................................................... 20 Oil and Fishing Industries Resolve Issues in the Santa Barbara Channel .................................................... 28 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................................... 71 INTERNET RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................................... 72 FOREWARD WHY PCI CREATED THIS GUIDE Consensus based approaches to problem solving have long been used to resolve policy conflicts. Governments, businesses, interest groups and individuals negotiate decisions every day. These activities are not new. What is relatively new is building the use of consensus processes into government as an alternative for addressing a wide range of multiparty, multi-issue disputes and controversies. In the 1970s, mediators began employing these approaches to help parties settle environmental disputes. Over the years these methods have been used to address an increasingly broad array of issues. We now know much more about when, where, and how to use these approaches. This book is a practical "how to" guide for sponsors of consensus processes, a role often played by govern- ment agencies. It is produced by the Policy Consensus Initiative (PCI), a national non-profit organization working with state leaders to establish and strengthen uses of conflict resolution and consensus building to enhance government effectiveness. The book distills the best practices for using collaborative approaches to resolve public issues. It is based on the Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution 1997 report Best Practices ~r Government Agencies: Guidelines )~r Using Agreement-Seeking Processes. While this book is written especially for those on the front lines in government, it provides information useful to any agency, department, organization, or individual involved in consensus processes. The more that we, as public officials, can wisely employ the tools of consensus building and collaborative problem solving, the better able we will be to serve the public interest. I hope you find the approaches and methods presented here to be as useful in resolving problems as I have. Greg Wolf PCI Board Member and Governor ~ Advisor ~r Dispute Resolution, State of Oregon INTRODUCTION In recent years, many government officials have called for greater collaboration and consensus building to solve complex public problems. They have seen such approaches work. · In Delaware, Governor Tom Carpet convened a group that resolved a long'stand- ing dispute between the chemical industry and environmental organizations over regulations in the coastal zone. · In x,Y&ashington, advocates for the homeless and local and state officials wrote a state plan to address the needs of homeless children and secured funding for it from the legislature. · In Ohio, nursing home representatives, state agencies, and legislators worked together to redesign systems for Medicaid reimbursement, cutting state costs by more than $100 million. · In Santa Barbara, California, fishermen and the oil industry settled disputes over the impact of oil production on fishing, established a liaison office to prevent other disputes, and with public officials investigated complex scien- tific questions to resolve other issues. · In Hampton, Virginia, city officials mediated an agreement between citi- zens, planners, and developers to build a new parkway. These success stories involved issues that no government agency could solve on its own. The many parties in these cases began on opposite sides of the issue and, in some cases, had long histories of conflict. The Delaware Coastal Zone dispute persisted for more than two decades. The Washington homeless children issue went all the way to a 5-4 decision in the state supreme court before the parties sat down together. In each case, the issues lacked simple answers; many involved scientific and technical uncer- tainties and in some, jurisdiction was unclear or divided among several agencies. Yet the participants in each case labored through thoughtful and difficult discussions, reached consensus about what to do, then worked together to turn talk into action. They established a level of trust that built relationships and commitments that made agreement possible. How does collaboration happen when people are on different sides of an issue? What will bring them to the table if there is conflict? How can consensus decisions be effec- tive? With all the contending parties in a complex issue, won't consensus just be a' watered down compromise? And how can government officials responsibly--and legitimatelyshare decision making with citizens in a consensus process without violating their mandates? A diverse group of people becajne concerned about these questions and a committee of experts in dispute resolution from governn~enr, academia, and professional practice convened to develop a report and recommendations. Building on the Best Practices Report In a 1997 report titled Best Practices ~r Government Agencies: Guidelines j~r Using CollaborativeAgreement-SeekingProcesses, the Society of Professionals in Dispute Reso- Practical Guide to Consensus 1 lution developed eight recommendations for government officials who sponsor con- sensus processes: 1. An agency should first consider whether a consensus approach is appropriate. 2. Stakeholders should be supportive of the process and willing and able to partici- pate. 3. Agency leaders should support the process and ensure sul~cient resources to con- vene the process. T 4. An assessment should precede a consensus process. 5. Ground rules should be mutually agreed upon by all participants and not estab- [~ lished solely by the sponsoring agency. ., -:, 6. The sponsoring agency should ensure the facilitator's neutrality and accountabil- ity to all participants. ' ) 7. The agency and participants should plan for implementation of the agreement from the beginning of the process. 8. Policies governing these processes should not be overly prescriptive. About this guide This guide provides step-by-step, "how-to" advice for the first seven of these recom- mendations. It also covers several important topics not fully addressed in the report, such as how to assess whether a consensus process is likely to work. ~.~ We define a consensus process as an effort in which government agencies and other N affectedpartiesseektoreachagreementonacourseofactiontoaddressanissue°rset of related issues. A consensus process is not appropriate for all issues, but under the right conditions, the approach described here can produce effective solutions with broad public support. The book is written especially for government sponsors of consensus processes, but will also be useful to other stakeholders and participants. It offers government leaders and managers guidance on how to use and conduct consensus processes. While the idea for using a consensus process can come from anyone, often a public official or agency makes the decision to sponsor or initiate a process. Throughout the guide, ~ "sponsor" refers to sponsoring governments, departments, or agencies. This guide describes an ideal approach to organizing and conducting a consensus pro- cess. It is not always possible to undertake an ideal process, and modifications or ad- justments are usually required. However, chances of a successful outcome will increase to the extent you follow the principles outlined in the guide. Chapters 1 and 2 lay the foundation; Chapter 1 defines and describes the basics of consensus processes and Chapter 2 explains when consensus processes are most likely ro be successful. Chapter 3 outlines the role of sponsors. The remaining chapters describe how to con-~ duct the basic phases of the process: assessment (Chapter 4), engaging parricipants5 (Chapter 5), determining who will manage the process (Chapter 6), planning and organizing the tasks (Chapter 7), writing ground rules (Chapter 8) conducting the: discussions and reaching consensus (Chapter 9), and formalizing and implementing the agreement (Chapter 10). These phases are not entirely linear; some will overlap occur simultaneously. 2 Practical Guide tO Consensus While actual cases may vary from the model presented here, this guide covers the essential elements that sponsors need to address. The guide also includes a number of real-life examples that illustrate how these processes have been used. Stories from around the nation demonstrate how consensus, when used appropriately, really works to help resolve public issues. This guide covers only the basics of consensus building. There are many other publica- tions that discuss these topics in greater detail, some of which are listed in the bibliog- raphy. Our hope is that readers will find this guide a good place to start. Practical Guide to Consensus 3 CASE STUDY / Consensus on Coastal Zone Regulations in Delaware '~ In 1971, Delaware enacted a Coastal Zone Act, a sweeping piece of legisla- tion for managing air, water, and land along neatly the entire sweep of the states coastline. There was one notable hitch, however, in applying the law--no regula- tions existed to implement it. For more than 25 years the state's natural resources ~ department used an informal, undefined regul.atory system, having failed at sev- eral attempts to adopt formal regulations. Industrial and environmental interests differed sharply over the departments efforts to interpret and apply the law to permit applications. Industry said the department's case-by-case approach was working, but envi~onmentalists 'werenot pleased. In an attempt to draft regulations, department officials hired a facilitator to assess whether a consensus process would be beneficial. The facilitator interviewed key parties and conduded that the situation was not ripe for negotiation--some parties were reluctant to come to the table because they were satisfied with the status quo. Governor Tom Carpet announced that the state would move ahead to establish new regulations, either by negotiating with stakeholders or through tra- ditional rule making procedures. At that stage, the reluctant parties realized they were more likely to achieve the best results through negotiations. They agreed to try to develop the regulations through consensus. After several months of organizing the process, representatives of an army of interests, induding the Sierra Club, the Delaware Nature Sodety, the Dupont CorpOration, the Chemical Industry Council, unions, the farming community, and th~ states natural resourcedepartment, began attending fac'ditated meetings. Representatives fi~st discussed :heir indMdual intere. sts, then brainstormed op- . dons~:~meet those intert~sls.~.~,,dustr)"s i,,~g[.~o maintain the econon~ic viabil!.tSt,'ofcompani.es in a vl~yTch~,ai~g~ff~'~(g~!~ketplac~.:Environmental- ists' rfi~ interest was the 10~g:Z.~'grm fieakh Of ~h~ ~:6a~tal zone. The states natural resot~e departmea~' wanted ~con'c~i~'*'tg~~ aii~erb~ces and finally be able to ? ~;ir~sult 6ftli~ aegot~ NbT~s,-th~ parties ~eEd :to termg that allow industry tans~:~!~at continual= imV~ye~m~nts Will be. made t9 the coastal environment. In- dus~;l,~m ificrease-i, rodU~,~&y ~,~'lOng as fi'does so within its existing foc;4~nts'in the c~//~ zon~,~:ffill~,ubli~ comment process followed the negoti- ated ridemaking. Regulation~.~were f_6rmallTadopted and are now being enforced. This fiise demonitChes how a..long standing dispute 4nvolving strongly opposed partieS can be sueee~fully addressed by using a consensus approach. Polleymakers JSund that ds~'ult policy issues could be resolved by involving the aa~cted stakeholders in fashioning the decision. 4 Practical Guide to Consensus CONSENSUS PROCESSES What is a consensus process and how does it di~rj~om other methods of engaging the public? It is important to understand what di~rentiates consultation ~om consensus and what enables diverse interests to move a~om conflict to collaboration. A consensusprocess is an effort in which government agencies and other affected parties seek to reach agreement on a course of action to address an issue or set of related issues. In a consensus process, representatives of all necessary interests with a stake in an issue work together to find a mutually acceptable solution. Each process differs because in each case the parties design it to fit their circumstances. However, successful consensus processes follow several guiding principles: Consensus decision making Participants make decisions by agreement rather than by majority vote. Inclusiveness--All necessary interests are represented or, at a minimum, approve of the discussions. Accountability--Participants usually represent stakeholder groups or interests. They are accountable both to their constituents and to the process. Facilitation An impartial facilitator accountable to all participants manages the pro- cess, ensures that ground rules are followed, and helps maintain a productive climate for communication and problem solving. Flexibility--Participants design a process and address the issues in a manner they determine most suitable to the situation. Sharedcontrol--Participants share responsibility for setting the ground rules for a pro- cess and for creating outcomes. Commitment to implementation The sponsor and all stakeholder groups commit to carrying out their agreement. Stages of a consensus process A consensus process moves through three stages, each with its own set of activities. N~~iA~e~r · Be~re Assess whether or not to initiate a consensus pro- cess and how to bring diverse interests to the table, then Before During work with a facilitator to plan and org, mize the process and write ground rules (Chapters 4 through 8 cover these stages.) · During--Engage in the problem solving discussions: ex- change information, frame issues, conduct the discussions, """' ""' ..... generate and evaluate options, develop mutually acceptable solutions, and secure the endorsement of all constituencies and authorized decision makers. (This stage is de- scribed in Chapter 9.) Practical Guide to Consensus 5 · After Implementing the agreement: formalize the decision, carry it out, and moni- tor the results. (Chapter 10 covers this final stage of the process.) What is consensus.~ A practical definition for consensus in the public policy setting is: · the parties have reached a meeting of the minds sufficient to make a decision and carry it out; · no one who could block or obstruct the decision or its implementation will exer- cise that power; · everyone needed to support the decision and put it into effect will do so. This definition does not mean unanimity of thought or abandonment of values. In- deed, one of the characteristics of a well constructed agreement is that it represents i diverse values and interests. Given the mixture of issues and values in public conflict, the ~ resulting agreement often is a package with varying levels of enthusiasm and support for different components, but on balance one that each party or stakeholder can accept. In a consensus process, the parties or stakeholders must define consensus for them- selves and include their definition in the ground rules. Most definitions imply accep- tance, an acknowledgment that things can move forward, that people support a deci- sion, or at least can live with it. Even if only most participants like the decision, at least all of them are willing to accept it. Other names for consensus processes Consensus processes as an explicit way of making public decisions have been develop- ing during the past three decades. The number of cases, consultants assisting them, and academics studying them has grown exponentially and produced a variety of la- bels. Some arose out of land use planning, others out of labor-management media- tion or community dispute · collaborative agreement-seeking · joint problem solving resolution programs, and · collaborative consensus-based forums · mediated agreement-seeking processes still others out of manage- · collaborative decision making · mediated approaches ment and organizational · consensus-based processes · mediated negotiation velopment. A number of · consensus building · multi-party negotiations these labels, as printed in · cooperative decision making · negotiated processes the Best Practices Report, are · environmental conflict resolution · negotiated rulemaking listed in the table here. · environmental mediation · policy dialogue , · facilitated consensus forum · public policy mediation Some of these terms refer to · facilitated joint decision making · regulatory negotiation the use of consensus in a · facilitated negotiations · shared decision making processes speciflccontext, suchasne- · joint decision making gotiared rule making and environmental mediation. Others are more general. One term not on the list, alternative dispute resolution or ADR, usually refers to the use of mediation within the legal and judicial systems. Participants in a consensus process often refer to it by some name they associate with the problem they are ad- 6 Practical Guide to Consensus dressing, rather than a generic label about process. For example, people working to clean up a polluted harbor in Massachusetts called their effort the New Bedford Har- bor Community Forum. Participants in a Colorado effort to prevent the spread of HIV called their group Coloradans Working Together: Preventing HIV/AIDS, which came to be known as CWT. What Is collaboration? To collaborate means to work together. A number of recently published books discuss this new era of collaboration in government and business and explain how to build collaborative working relationships (see bibliography). Generally, collaboration includes: · A sharedpurpose--collaborators work together to achieve a common objective. · A shared need--accomplishing the objective requires a combination of skills, re- sources and ideas that one party alone does not have. · Authentic conversations--people must be able to speak frankly and listen carefully. · Reciprocit)~cooperative give-and-take enables a group to negotiate effectively. How are consensus and collaboration related? Working together is a consistent theme in many labels for consensus processes. "Joint," "shared," "cooperative," and "collaborative" all stress the importance of recognizing one another's needs, interests, and concerns. Here, we emphasize consensus because that is how decisions are made. However, these processes are also called collaborative because people do not achieve consensus without working together. During a consensus process, collaboration often develops slowly. Parties begin their collaborating by planning and organizing. Their mutual acceptance of a set of proto- cols or ground rules can be an important milestone toward working together. When participants move on to the actual issues, their interaction may be adversarial at times and collaborative at other times. Often a shift occurs when people physically move to the same side of the table, to work together on a specific problem or to develop options or proposals. Once the parties reach agreement, they may collaborate on supporting the agreement through the public review process. This may indude meeting with the public or briefing the media to explain their reasoning, or testifying at legislative committees. Dur- ing implementation, they may collaborate on monitoring committees or other bodies es- tablished to help carry out the agreement. Why use a consensus process? For a government agency, department, or official who is charged with solving a com- plex issue, a consensus process may make sense for several reasons: An issue is not getting addressed and the costs of indecision and uncertainty are mounting a6r everyone. The agency and other parties may need to work together to break such a stalemate. No concerned party, not even a government department with solo jurisdic- tion, can accomplish its objectives by acting alone. Even if the department makes a decision, the conflict may simply move to another forum (such as a court or political body) and escalate. When parties can agree on an outcome, the department's decision will be final and the parties can then direct their resources toward implementation. Practical Guide to Consensus 7 Decision makers in otherd~rums may not address the real issues. In Oregon, for example the land-use appeals system has many cases remanded for procedural issues that bear' little relationship to the interests of government agencies and citizens. The striki advantage of consensus processes is the ability to look at the key issues to find solutior~2 rather than fault. The department could make an unpopular decision and no one would j~llow it. Because o} the nature of certain problems, decisions can be unenforceable unless people compl]g voluntarily. Consensus outcomes can build the broad support necessary to carry o~ actions that would otherwise be difficult to enforce. ? Theparties may needeach other} continued cooperation. With some issues a governm~ tal decision is merely the start. Turning talk into action requires the ongoing coope~j~ tion of other agencies, levels of government, and interest groups. A consensus p~ can build public support, working relationships, and commitments necessary for going collaboration--and for obtaining the funding to implement the agreement.~ Consensus agreements can result in better solutions. Parties outside of state governre/', may have knowledge and perspectives that could help bring about more effective s~,l~-. tions. Regulated industries, for example, might think of ways to address a probl, .. more efficiendy if they engage in crafting the solution rather than strategize about ho~.' challenge it. Parties who expect to be harmed by a proposed development might ways to protect their interests that would not have occurred to others. Consensus processes can shorten the list of disagreemenu or clarij~ issues fir decision mal~ . many cases, parties have defined or narrowed their issues, even though they unable to reach an agreement. Consensus processes can enhance the sense of ~irness and equigy in the decision.~ process. Government agencies and other parties can spend considerable tim~l~-. about and trying to meet the concerns and needs of all interests. A consensus pro~'.~ ~; on identi~ing and addressing these interests may lead to a more equitable soluriC,. acknowledgment that all parties had a fair opportunity to influence the ou ten Focusing on interests is a key to consensus Z.~ Interest-based negotiation is one of the keys to consensus processes. } collaborate using this approach, they identify and frame issues, study thetg.?~ options to address them, and select and package the options in ways ~ interests of the diverse parties. In interest-based negotiation, an effectiv~ , discovers why a person or group wants something, rather than what their p~. A classic illustration of this point is the mother whose barn children are the last orange in the house. The mother takes the orange, cuts it in two ..~. half to each child. She watches one child eat the fruit and th ow away the ~. ' r other grate the rind for cupcake icing and throw away the fruit. Seeing the_'. = realizes if she had asked the children why they wanted the orange, she solution that satisfied them both. By communicating and sharing information in ways that develop a sha/~ of understanding, participants can work toward mutually acceptable~" meet their individual needs and interests. 8 Practical Guide to Consensus Other ways to engage the public Government officials are increasingly turning to the public to help them make better decisions. In addition to consensus processes, two other methods that are frequently employed are communication and consultation. Communicatior~All public involvement includes some strategy for communicating about the issues. Most strategies focus first on gathering or exchanging information. In~rmation exchange refers to processes in which agencies meet with various parties to give or obtain information or to clarify issues. Exchanging information can help a department or agency improve communication and understand and clarify problems and issues. For example, a government agency may ask various parties for their views about a problem or issue, how it affects them, or ways the problem or is- METHOD POSSIBLE OUTCOMES sue could be addressed before formulating COMMUNICATION · Information exchange action plans. This is · Lists of interests, concerns, and/or options usually done through meetings with indi- · Improved understandingof the issues viduals or groups. The CONSULTATION · Opinions or suggestions for action information gathered can then be conveyed · Plans developed and refined to the public through CONSENSUS · Agreements reached on actions or policies the available commu- nication channels. · Strengthened relationships Consultation--Public officials consult the public to get advise. They solicit comments and appoint citizens to committees. Consultation includes onetime events, such as public hearings, as well as ongoing groups such as task forces, citizen review boards, and advisory committees. Consultative processes are interactive activities that can pro- duce recommendations from the public for government officials to consider before making a decision. How consensus processes differ from consultation The most significant differences between consultation and consensus processes are how decisions are made and what happens to the product of the discussions. In a consensus process, the parties share decision making about both process and outcome. By contrast, in a consultative process the sponsoring agency decides whether to initiate a process and how it will be organized. In a consensus process, the product of the discussions gets translated into official decisions, ~vhile in a consultative process the agency formulates the decisions. In both approaches the agency retains final decision making authority, but in a consensus process the agency puts the product of a consensus process out for official review as the proposed decision. In consultation, the agency receives input from the participants, then staff members formulate the proposed decision. Because stakeholders and government officials together are the decision makers in a consensus process, participants must try to educate and persuade one another about their needs and interests. They must also listen carefully to determine how the solution can meet the needs of the other parties. Majority voting induces a different kind of Practical Guide to Consensus 9 interaction than does consensus decision making. When participants know they can revert to a majority vote if they cannot agree, they may focus more on building coali- tions for such a possibility rather than trying to meet all the parties' needs. Sometimes because of legal requirements, sponsoring agencies refer to a process as "consultative" or "advisory," even when the intent is to agree with stakeholders on an outcome. Federal agencies that sponsor regulatory negotiations must charter the pro- cess as an advisory committee under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. A legislature or administrative policy making body that authorizes a consensus process may designate the group as advisory in order to make it clear that the formal decision will still be made by government officials. Again, the most important distinctions among these processes are how decisions are made and what happens to the outcome. Ira sponsoring agency treats the committee's final agreement as advice and picks and chooses parts to include in the official deci- sion, the process is consultative, If it participates along with other parties in formulat- ing the agreement, then accepts it as a package consisting of trade-offs that cannot be detached (and is committed to implementing the package), then the process is consen- sual. According to the authors of Building Consensus Jar a Sustainable Future, who first pointed out this distinction, "Consultation is designed to inform decision makers who will ultimately make the decision. Consensus involves the participants as decision makers .... In a consensus process, the participants must address and persuade one another and find solutions acceptable to all." lO Practical Guide to Consensus WHEN TO USE CONSENSUS PROCESSES Consensus may sound like a great idea.' bring everyone together, learn what interests they have, then negotiate their diffbrences. But the truth is, a consensus process is not always appropriate. G'rtain conditions make consensus more likely to happen. It is important to becomeJ~miliar with the )~ctors that lend themselves to reaching consensus and those that do not, so that time and energy are not wasted trying to negotiate isstees that just won? budge. When is a consensus process more likely to be appropriate? Most issues are in some sense negotiable--at some time. Public issues are dynamic and usually have more potential for agreement than the parties may perceive. A consensus process is more likely to be appropriate when: ·The issues are negotiable, of high priority, and do not focus primarily on constitu- tional rights or fundamental values. ·The interests are known and organized well enough so that spokespersons can represent them. · There is a relative balance of power. No one party can get what it wants on its own. The parties recognize that because each could block a decision from being made. they need one another's support, or in some cases acquiescence, for action to be taken. This uncertainty, combined with the appeal of having a direct role in the decision making process, can make a consensus process look attractive. · A sponsor may have the authority, but not the power, to make an effective deci- sion. It would rather try to reach an acceptable solution with contending parties than make a decision and have to defend it in another government forum, where other officials could change it. · There are enough resources to support a consensus process. The sponsor can afford the staff time and the cost of hiring a facilitator and technical experts. CASE STUDY: Reaching Consensus on Honsing for Homeless Children in Washington State With the recent rise ofhomdessness in Washington state, advocates for homeless children wanted the state to take a greater role in providing housing for homeless children and their families. They interpreted a 1930s statutory reference to housing homeless children to mean the state social service agency had a mandate to address this need. The agency claimed that the old language applied to orphans and that the legislature had not provided funding for homing of homeless children and their families. A local court ruled in favor of the advocates for children, and the state supreme court upheld the decision by a one-vote margin. The social services agency and the agency that now has jurisdiction over housing for homeless families began working on the plan, but a number of difficulties emerged. The agency decided to ask a mediator to assist the group. The agencies and other parties--including advocates for the homeless, the governor's office, and local officials--began meeting with the mediator. Even before reaching agreement on the plan, the parties developed enough consensus to obtain funding and clarification from the legislature. They then reached agreement on the plan and reported their success back to the presiding judge. This case illustrates several of the important elements that need to be in place for a consensus process to succeetL The issues were both ripe and urgent. It was clear who the parties were and they were organized and representet~ The agencies were willing to use a consensus process because they could not have imple- mented a plan without the cooperation of other agencies, levels of government, service providers, and advocacy groups. Practical Guide to Consensus I 1 --' · Political leaders support both the process and the timing with regard to elections or other political events. · Relevant laws allow enough latitude for the parties to negotiate an agreement. V/hen is a consensus process less likely to be appropriate? A consensus process is not likely to succeed or be appropriate when: · The interests are too diffuse to be identified and negotiations could substantially affect people who cannot be represented. : · The range of potential solutions is too limited; some mandates may prescribe! solutions that are too narrow for negotiation. · The situation is an emergency and there is not enough time for consensus build-~ s-~!~' ~ ing (bearing in mind, however, that a sense of urgency can sometimes bring~ ~ about efficient negotiations). ,' ,,'~ · One party may have sufficient power to get the solution it wants without having ~' to negotiate; it has a better alternative to a negotiated agreement. However, pat.- s .... ties can sometimes be overconfident about their chances before a judge or othei government decision maker and incorrectly assume they will prevail. · One or more parties may frame the issue as a matter of rights to be decided by the courts, rather than through a process of give and take. Or they may believe~. fundamental principle is at stake, one they believe would be compromised ifth~e~ were to participate. · There may be a need for a court to clarify a legal question or set a precedent.: · Some stakeholders may want to appear open but have no interest in coopera'Li~ They may believe that reaching consensus is impossible but want to a id b~..'- blamed for failing to try. They may also conclude that attending meetingsly- acceptable price to pay for good public relations--and for staying on good t~,.- ,~ with public officials they work with on other matters. · A party may seek delay and hope that a consensus process will bog things · The level of concern about the issue is not great enough for people to be to commit their time and energy to participate. · Not all governments or agencies with decision making authority will ~... to implementing an agreement (if one is reached) that satisfies the mii~.' Concerns about the use of consensus processes Agency officials, as well as citizens, often raise questions about the legiti~j~' effectiveness of consensus processes. Issues about legitimacy often have t~?'- whether consensus decision making is an abdication of government authorit. affects the publids ability to have input, and whether there are adequate re?..- conduct a process. Issues about effectiveness also have to do .with one parrye.i ': block an outcome, and the quality of the outcomes produced. Below are re~ ~ some of the most commonly expressed concerns. Concerns about legitimacy Issues about legitimacy have to do with: · How government agencies can share control over the process and ouj- retaining their mandates · The effect of consensus processes on prescribed public review procedures '~ · Deciding who participates 12 Practical Guide to Consensus Complying with government mandates-~Legislative bodies pass statutes charging agen- cies or departments with achieving certain public goals and objectives. An agency must not exceed the authority conferred on it by statute. It must correctly interpret and apply the law and pertinent regulations. In addition, it must follow prescribed decision making procedures, decide all issues it is required to address, support the decision by evidence and reasoning, and not delegate its authority to a private group. To comply with these requirements during a consensus process, agency representa- tives should explain the basis for their decision to employ a consensus process, then confirm that all parties agree on that interpretation and, during the process, inform participants when options being considered exceed the agency's authority and respon- sibilities. Officials should describe to all parties the formal decision making proce- dures they are required to follow. Opportunities J~r public review and commentsMost products of consensus processes require public comment regardless of how a proposed decision was reached. Often, when all interested parties have participated in the process and arc satisfied with the outcome, traditional opportunities for public comment arc proJ~rma--all essential concerns have been addressed in the agreement. But sometimes there are stakeholders who were not represented in the process, either because no one realized they would be affected or, more likely, because they learned late about the agreement and are con- cerned that it will adversely affect them. This occurred in the case of a harbor cleanup in New Bedford, Mass., when a plan to clean up the harbor identified sites for dispos- ing of contaminated sediments, and neighbors of those sites objected. It may also be the case that a constituency who accepts an agreement may have dis- senting members who want a forum in which they can express their objections di- rectly to public officials. An agreement reached by a representative of a constituency does not necessarily satisfy all members of that constituency. If critics raise significant issues, thesponsoringagencyorotherstakeholdersmaywanttoreconvcnetoconsider modifiZing the agreement. Deciding who gets to ?artici?ate The parties themselves should agree on the interests that must be represented, then those involved in each interest should select their own representatives. This is essential to building commitment and ownership of a process. If the interests are too diffuse to be identified or cannot be organized for meaningful representation, a process that depends on representatives negotiating a consensus agree- ment is, by definition, inappropriate. Concerns about effectiveness Concerns about effectiveness have to do with: · Limited resources and expectations · A minority's ability to veto a ma}ority view · Watered down results Limited resources~-Many government agencies struggle to meet high expectations with inadequate resources. The costs of conducting consensus processes can be time consuming and expensive. The agency and other stakeholders must be realis- Practical Guide to Consensus 13 tic about these expenses, while also weighing them against the contiuued conflict or inaction. Sponsoring a consensus process for one issue can divert resources Iroj serving problems, tempting agencies to cut costs by skipping step,,, ..: the beginning of a process. Those first steps, however, are the achieving consensus. Agencies sometimes spend a great deal of time ,~ ternally whether to conduct a consensus process, then try to get back by abbreviating the crucial step of assessing the situation with other Skipping the assessment is a proven method of reducing the chanc~ (See Chapter 4 on assessing prospects for consensus and Chapter 7 and meeting resource needs.) Watered-down compromise--Because parties have different needs and i must be satisfied, participants must invent so{utions that integrate ~: spectives. Rather than resulting in the lowest common denominator, ,' creative solutions that no one had contemplated before. Parties con.' producing an ineffective outcome can take preventive measures at the process. Before negotiating, they should be asked to explore their try to devise effective solutions. Their ground rules can specify inter' checking to see whether sufficient progress is being made to continu{ party can veto an outcome that it does not think is acceptable. (See Cha} about ground rules.) Veto by minori~This ability of one party to block a consensus is sit~ flaw of consensus processes. Ground rules should explain how decisions parties cannot agree. They may, for example, stipulate that the agency decision after the traditional public review procedures. They may also ~. the agency, when formulating the decision, can incorporate any progt,' the talks ended. Farties dissatisfied with the agency decision can then ~ What if a consensus process is not appropriate? If the situation does not seem appropriate for consensus, sponsors Use an alternativeprocess---Consider other approaches, such as consul~~ be more appropriate for the issue. By using consultation, sponsors c insight from the affected parties while retaining decision making side of consultative processes is that the participants may have less decision because they have not played as active a role in crafting Address the reasons why consensus is not appropriate and ch, ange the ;i:_ worksAddressing the reasons consensus is not practical may ahct C make it appropriate. For example, ira consensus approach is n,,l ~ cause the negotiations may affect people who could not be useful to brainstorm with various groups on how to achieve Ih.xt · find a way to assist a group to get organized. It also may be p,,,sil~ incentives to participate, as was done in the Delaware case nounted his intent to establish regulations with or without stakch~{ Additionally, the scope of the discussions can be enlarged to which the parties are interested in negotiating. 14 ~r~t~tic,d Guide to Consensus Do nothing and wait--The timing may not be right or the level of concern not great enough for people to commit their time and energy. Circumstances may eventually change so that the issue becomes more of a priority. Or the conflict may need to con- tinue until some parties are organized enough to participate effectively or even to be taken seriously. Practical Guideto Consensus 15 CASE STUDY / Facilitating a New City Charter in Massachusetts Chelsea, Massachusetts, is a city of 28,000 just north of Boston and is made up of a number of diverse immigrant groups. The city was $10 million in debt and had been placed in receivership because of financial mismanage- ment and corruption among municipal officials. In 1994, the city was required to develop a new charter. After one failed attempt to produce the charter, the receiver and the city council decided they needed help. Because of the com- plexity of the issues, the number of parties, and Chelseds past history, they sought the help of an independent facilitator. The facilitator was asked to as- sess whether a consensus process could be used to develop a proposal for a new city charter that would be put before the public for a vote. The receiver involved several members of the council in selecting a facili- tator. After the facilitator was selected, she interviewed community leaders to learn how they viewed the situation in Chelsea. When the assessment inter- views were finished, a list of 70 potential participants emerged! The sponsor and facilitator then decided the list should be narrowed to about 20. Three of the most highly regarded people in the community were selected to help make the choices. This selection committee identified criteria for membership on the charter preparation committee, then chose the 20 members. The commit- tee had to make tough decisions about how to involve politicians and how to fairly represent the ethnic diversity of the community. When they completed their work, the list was published in the local newspaper and the public was i ' invited to call and give input if they believed an important point of view or interest was missing. There were no calls. ~ W The city council made clear to the committee that if they reached consen- sus on the language for the city charter, the council would adopt that language ~ :~ ~ Th and put it on the ballot. The committee reached consensus, the charter was placed on the ballot and, ultimately, was passed. ~ 5 ~ nee not to propose a eonsensus prOcess, selecting a facilitator, engagingpartlcipants, ~ ~'~the, and providing the resources and support to proceetL It also illustrates that the ~ ~ .}~ · spousoring ageney wus elear about its purpose and made the commitment about -I ~ ~Thc how it would j~llow through on the agreement ! ~ g of a k ~ ~ out BEF -~ses.~ ! ~pon ~skin 16 Practical Guide to Consensus HOW TO SPONSOR CONSENSUS PROCESSES ~4sp~ns~risthepers~n~r~rganizati~nthatinitiates~rend~rses(andusua~ypays~br)ac~nsen- sus process. Often the sponsor is a government agency that has jurisdiction over the subject of the discussion. This chapter outlines the roles and responsibiliHes of a sponsor. More detail about these tasks is provided in subsequent chapters. Before _ During · Assess whether or not to '~ After Use 8 Consensus process (Chapter 4) onduct the · Engage participantsc I . . mplement stun and the agreement · 5elect a facilitator (Chapter 6) (Chapter 9) · Plan and organize the process (Chapter 7) tWfi~e ground rules (Chapter 8) -~' '~ .... ~X, rhat sponsors do This chapter includes steps a sponsor should take heFore, during, and aEer a consensus process. Often these processes are initiated and paid For by governments whose offlciaJs nc~d to make a decision. However, in a consensus process the sponsor aJone does not decide whether there should he a proross or how it should operate. The cote principle is that parries share decisions ahouc process and outcome. Fven though the parties make these decisions ioindy, the sponsot plays a key role as leader, partner and st~Lkeholder. The illustration above is used throughout the hook to guide sponsors through the steps oFa consensus process. The following outline oFche sponsor's respoosihi]icies is fleshed out ~rther in the following chapters. BEFORE discussions bcg~n, sponsots should work with the parfi~ to: · Assess whether or not to use a consensus~hased approach · Ensure the ptoccss is representative · Select and work with a facilitator · Plan and organize the process Assess whether or ~Iot to use a consensus-based approach Sponsors should determine their own willingness and ability to use such a process by asking the following questions: , Is the situation appropriate for consensus building? · Is a consensus process compatible with the agency's objectives and responsibilities? Practical Guide to Consensus 17 · Does leadership support the use of a consensus process? If agency leaders arc not willing to consider such an approach, sponsoring agencies should decide to in- volve the public in some other way. If leadership is open to implementing a consemus pmcess, and if the situation seems appro- priate, sporeors should then assess other stakeholders' willingness · Interview stakeholders to determine what they think about the prospects for con- r~ sl sensus. (In some cases, an agency staff member can conduct these interviews. In others, the interviews should be carried out by an independent facilitator.) · Review the results of the assessment with agency leadership to reconfirm leadership's .:~ commitment and willingness to proceed. i~ Engage participants to ensure the process is representative and inclusive · Identi6, the parties who should be consulted and involved to ensure the process is .:> legitimate. · Both sponsors and participants decide which interests should be represented at the table. Interest groups then select their own representatives. · Provide training or orientation for participants, as well as financial support. $ M~ co- Select and work with a j~cilitator ~ 7 tici · Decide together with the other parties, if possible, on a facilitator from inside or .~': prc outside the sponsoring agency who will manage the process. ~ [ del · Work with a facilitator or staff member to conduct the assessment. ~ ~ the ,~ ~Ci[ Plan and organize the process (~ . · Work with the facilitator and other parties to design the process and write ground? ~fs,t rules. ,.~ · Identi6' and provide the necessary resources. These may include staff and logistica~ · o support. pen · Identifr and provide needed information. · As sponsor, define your role in the process. Wtll you participate in the negotia.~. ~he tions? Clearly define how the outcome will be linked to the agency's official ded~ ~nd. sion making process. If several governments or agencies will make decisions, ~! clear about procedures for each and how they will be coordinated. DURING the discussions, sponsors play a leadership role. Although leadership ma~ also come from other stakeholders in the process, the sponsor has a special responsib~ ity to keep abreast of the discussions and their implications for translating agreemen~ into formal decisions and eventual implementation. Sponsors should select their representatives carefully. Representatives should be bo~ good communicators and negotiators. They should have stature in the agency, t~. trust of agency leadership, and the ability to communicate with them and know whi.~.- solutions they are most likely to accept. A sponsor's representatives have some spec~- responsibilities to: · Set the tone of collaboration by modeling good listening, being willing to coop.' ate, and acting in good faith · Keep the group informed about the agency's statutory authority and barriers might preclude some options · If necessary, bring in field staff (as options are developed) to ensure that soluriC" 18 Practical Guide to Consensus are practical · Work with the other parties to find mutually acceptable solutions Keep agency leadership advised of progress, as well as discussing any tentative agreements with them and bringing suggested changes back to the parties AFTER the discussions, the sponsor should forrealize and implement the consen- sus agreement: ·When an agreement is reached, solicit public review and comment in accor- dance with agency procedures. ·]if the public expresses significant concerns about the agreement during the formal review, meet with the other parties to consider changing the agreement. · Carry out other tasks that may be specified in the agreement. If the final agreement calls for efforts involving other stakeholders, organize those efforts. : · Develop benchmarks so the agency and all other stakeholders can stay up- dated on progress of the implementation. Gain and maintain the public's trust Many citizens, already mistrustful of government, view attempts to reach consensus as co-optation, especially when government officials frame the issues and select the par- ticipants and facilitator. To demonstrate their commitment to making a consensus process open and impartial, government sponsors should consider whether they are genuinely committed to trying to reach consensus-- whether they will give it suffi- cient time and resources, share control over the process and outcome, and implement the results if they comply with the mandates. When they do, they can overcome par- ticipants' concerns about being co-opted. If sponsors intend only to seek advice or input, they must be clear about that, too. By convening an advisory group without being clear about what will happen to the group's recommendations, sponsors risk public cynicism if the group reaches consensus and then the sponsors don't carry it out. The remainder of the chapters guide sponsors in carrying out their roles before, during and after a consensus process. Practical Guide to Consensus 19 CASE STUDY Laying the Groundwork for Consensus on Medicaid Reform H In 1992, in an effort to control soaring Medicaid costs, Governor Voinovich and the Ohio legislature created a special committee to study reimbursement of costs for long-term care in nursing homes. The existing payment system used a complicated formula for calculating how the state would reimburse nursing homes for services to Medicaid-eligible patients. The committee was asked to come up with a new approach to the issues after negotiations failed between the state budget office, human services agency, and the nursing homes. This committee was organized like a legislative committee, comprised of Wh legislators, directors of state agencies, representatives of nursing homes and the An governor's office. The legislature mandated the committee to draft cost-cutting dete~ recommendations in time for incorporation in the state budget. With only to w nine months to complete their work and agree on a solution, the committee mize began meeting without an assessment, a facilitator, or a plan. After a number this i of frustrating meetings, members decided to seek help from the Ohio Com- cess- mission on Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management, which provided a ..~ withe facilitator. The facilitator gathered information from each committee member about L'~ for re. the issues. She then met with the committee co-chairs and representatives ~ .~ from the other groups ~and, based on the results of her interviews, proposed a · ~'~7 There structure and ground rules for representatives to consider.: Because the formal-: ~ 1. Th ity of the committee's legislative for~t'did not lend itself to developing ! ~ :~: se consensus, th~ facilitltor ~&0mmefi~b_kl setting up a working group. That ~2. Tht group, :made up of all organizations 6~i the committee, 'would devdop recot~ .~[ stz mendations for the full committee to 'consider and adopt~ This approach alsi helped accommodate ~he busy schedfiles of the iegislata~s and agency direc:! [/'an 1 The facilitator then presented her assessment and proposed a process ~ ency' the full committee, which accepteCldlem. Working grOUp' members develop. ake t and approved ground rules'and ~ig~cl they would try to i~.ch consensus 6g ful a all re ' . ' . ' :i: were scheduled between the group and the committee to keep everyone ~ informed about the discussions. Within three months, the group achieved~ ~you d consensus on aJl but one recommendation The committee accepted the r~. .'ensy and recommendations unanimously and the legislature passed the bill pu~tt~,t- ~ situ~ them into effect. The group continued to meet to iron out the details of~ ,~ext, yo agreement. The results were fully implemented and the changes saveA th~ ¢dght re more than $100 million in the fn:st biennium. '} '-'consk Thts case dlustrates that wtthout a good assessment, a proc~ jy ..~ headtdj~r ~ilure. But ~y taking the tlm~ and ~rt to learn rio ~ rm~.,. '~er which kind of approach wouM work bestJ~r them, the committee was abe-. "*le~ts · structure its proceedings more ~ctively to reach consensus. :~_ '~ncept s ~. ~. '~r, risl ' 'fi do, yl ~ 20 Practical Guide to Consensus ; HOW TO ASSESS WHETHER CONSENSUS WILL WORK Assessment is an essential activity with two parts. First, the sponsor considers whether consensus will help to accomplish its objectives. Second, other stakeholders consider whether they are willing to try and reach consensus. This chapter describes how to evaluate whether a public issue is suitablej~r a consensus process. Before What is an assessment? An assessment is a diagnosis of a situation or conflict to' Assess whether determine whether a consensus process is feasible or likelyor not to use e to waste time and ener . Some spo.sors try to econo- mize by skipping this stage, but experience shows that ' i ~Durin · Selec~ a facilitator this initial diagnosis is the most essential part of the pro- · Plan and organize cess. Because some issues lend themselves to consensus the process and others don't, it actually wastes resources to proceed 1 · Write ground rules without first determining whether the situation is ripe ~1~.""" for reaching consensus. ;~m~.~. ,-. ......... There are two parts to an assessment: 1. The sponsors' assessment--determining whether sponsors are willing to use con- sensus, and if they are, 2. The stakeholders' assessment~iscussing the prospects for consensus with the other stakeholders before proceeding. Par~ I--Sponsors' assessment It is essential to take a hard look at whether decision making by consensus will fit your agency's objectives and responsibilities. (The checklist on page 24 can be used to help make this determination.) At this stage, an expert in consensus processes can be a =;useful advisor. States with dispute resolution programs have knowledgeable staffmem- 'bers who can answer questions and help evaluate prospects for negotiation. When the Ohio Medicaid Reform committee needed help, they turned to their state's dispute resolution program, which provided them with a facilitator to assess the situation. [fyou decide to use a consensus process, it is important to determine exactly what the agency wants to accomplish. Examine the context, history, and present dynamics of ~the situation, then create a description of the issues from the agency's perspective. ~'Next you can beg n to dent fy the other stakeholders and consider how those groups ~ m ght respond to the notion of working together to resolve the issues. It is important 7 to consider the potential obstacles to reaching agreement and evaluate what is likely to ~happen ifa consensus agreement is not reached. '! cr taking these steps, prcscnt the idea to the agency leadership to lay out both the ~benefits and the costs of this approach. It is important that leadership endorse the ~ concept so the idea can then be presented and discussed with other stakeholders. How- ~ ever, it is best to avoid overselling the notion of consensus to leadership at this point. If ~you do, you risk spending weeks on internal negotiations to persuade leadership to buy :~! into the idea, often to find out later that other parties are not interested. If an assess- Practical Guide to Consen~u~ 2 1 ment reveals that other parties are not interested, the sponsor may isst Assessment drop the proposal without having to back down from a publicly pal NNN) announced commitment. Either way, the key is to methodi- th~ Part2 tally and objectively analyze the situation so the appropriate pro approach is chosen to address and resolve the issues. not , ~-_ ~ ~ _ , Assessment ~ are ' If leadership agrees to move forward, sponsors can then develop a it statement oudining the purpose of the consensus process and its rela- deu ~""'~,~ .... ~..il~m.~" tionship to the agency's decision making procedure. The person doing the assessment can use this statement in exploratory meetings with other stakeholders. If at his c Part 2---Stakeholden'assessment sus t As soon as you decide a consensus process has merit, the next step is to discuss the idea facib with other parties. This involves learning about each stakeholder's perspective on the shou situation, answering questions about consensus processes, and gauging motivation. An pros1 assessment can also identify issues that are important to stakeholders, the kinds of resources participants will need, and the nature of relationships between parties and If an how they could affect the dynamics and design of the process. Through these indi- impo vidual meetings, the sponsor and other stakeholders learn whether negotiations are order feasible. The checldists on pages 25 and 26 can help make that decision. may facilit It is critical to determine whether parties are genuinely motivated to work together, and that can be difficult to discern. Parties comfortable with the status quo may see a Regar, consensus process as an opportunity to drag out an issue or delay approval of a project interv~ they oppose. Skeptics about consensus may see an opportunity to participate as good intere~ public relations, without ever thinking through what they would do if the process ing thl actually worked. -. consen . consid. Some stakeholders may be familiar with consensus processes and can decide quickly whether they are willing to participate. On the other hand, they may have concerns ~ If you because of flaws in previous processes. For others, the idea may be new and the most .q ~. positiw they can comfortably say is "maybe'--maybe they will, but they need to know more. ~ ~ a succe: ) Tit gives The best approach is to begin slowly, respecting each parry's desire to protect its inted~- ~~for all p ests. In some cases such caution may not be necessary, but often people need a safe way_' ~~dent prl to determine whether a consensus approach is feasible. In practice, the assessment by: ~ Zsomeon stakeholders may carry over into organization of the process, since some parties may ~ Lsomeon not agree to move forward until all procedural questions have been clarified and writ- :~ ten into a set 0fground rules. ;~i ~at ~ ~After tht Who should interview stakeholders? ~' ~ rtstc cess of the assessment. Depending on the degree of conflict and the agency's relati on ~ _can indu people may form a team to carry out the interviews. ~ ~;a~ys to 4/t ~ .~lgn of tt When the issues are complex and involve many parties, when there is a history,of. 'rattles m distrust between th.esponsor and other parties, or when past efforts at resolving ~ :gout wh. 22 Practical Guide to Consensus issues have failed, someone independent of the sponsor should interview the other parties. For example, some parties may be reluctant to tell an employee of the agency that regulates them that they are not interested if they think agency officials want the process to go ahead; people often are more likely to talk openly with someone who is not associated with the sponsor or any of the parties. And in situations where parties are not familiar with these processes (or had a bad experience with a previous process) it will take an experienced independent facilitator to describe the process in enough detail so that parties can make informed decisions. e ~. If an independent facilitator conducts the assessment, it is important to clearly define his or her relationship with the sponsor. The responsibilities offacilitators in a consen- sus process are different from the duties of other kinds of independent contractors. A a facilitator's reporting duties to the sponsor are the same as to the other parties. You e should not ask or expect them to reveal confidences about what others have said about n prospects for consensus or issues in the case. ~f d If an agency staff member plans to conduct the interviews and serve as facilitator, it is i- important to clarify how he or she will be able to act independently and impartially in 'e order to maintain both credibility and accountability to all the participants. A sponsor may want to adopt a policy statement or memorandum of understanding with the facilitator to spell out how confidentiality and impartiality will be achieved. 't1 a Regardless of who conducts the interviews, they should report back to those they have zt interviewed about their assessment and what they suggest doing next. If parties are ,d interested in trying to reach consensus, then the sponsor or facilitator will begin engag- ss : ing them in organizing the process. If parties who need to be involved oppose using a ~ consensus process, or if other obstacles become evident, other approaches should be considered to address the issue. ly . ~ ns ~ If you expect to hire a facilitator anyway, assuming the assessment turns out to be ~st ~ positive, the best time to do so is before the assessment, since this stage is so critical to 'e. ! a successful process. Using an independent facilitator serves another useful purpose-- : it gives the parties a chance to try out the person in that role. In general, it is preferable :r- ~ ~' for all parties to select the facilitator together, but in many complex cases an indepen- ~' dent professional is needed before that can happen. In such cases, the sponsor may hire ay ~ someone and then the parties can either approve of the facilitator or jointly select by ~ ~y someone else. (See Chapter 6 for more about selecting and hiring facilitators.) ~t- What happens as a result of the assessment? After the assessment, either the parties begin organizing the process or the effort stops. Sometimes the sponsor or the independent facilitator pre- ~co pares a report highlighting the results of the assessment as m- the basis for deciding whether to proceed. The report to can include recommendations for how to address ree , any obstacles that have been uncovered as well as ways to respond to stakeholder concerns through de- sign of the process and ground rules. You and the other of parties may use this report to make a 'go' or 'no-go' decision -he about whether to proceed. Practical Guide to Consensus 23 During this stage it is important to recon~rm with agency leadership that they are still open to using a consensus process, since the basis for their earlier endorsement may have changed. Issues may need to be reframed, or the potential participants may be known, and resource needs and other requirements will be more fully understood. However, the decision to proceed to the next step must be acceptable to the sponsor and all stakeholders. The pitfalls of proceeding without an assessment Skipping these crucial steps can result in several problems. Without an assessment, a process might proceed even though some parties are not motivated to see it through in good faith. Another potential pitfall is framing the issues in ways that will keep stake- holders from coming to the table, for example by not defining a scope or purpose that includes someone's issues. Leaving out a key participant is an omission that in itself could jeopardize the whole effort. A process might also get started without full realin- tion of the resources needed to complete it. When parties realize hal~vay through a process that they cannot continue because of lack of resources, it can leave everyone feeling dissatisfied and disillusioned. Thus, the assessment must never be overlooked or bypassed. SPONSORS' ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST ASSESS the situation [] Do the issues appear to be negotiable? Are the interests clearly defined? [] Is the issue a priority, fbr stakeholders? [] Is there enough time for parties to deliberate (or is it an emergency situation)? [] Alternatively, is a deadline "pushing" a decision helping ensure a defined time frame for the process? XX/ho are the parties? ls there a relative balance ofpower or do some have better alternatives than negotiating that might be more attractive than reaching consensus? [] If issues of race, class, culture, and ethnicity could make it difficult fi~r parties toparticipateonequal footing, ~vhat can be done to overcome those differences? [] Are any of the parties framing the issue as one of rigbts or asserting a funda- mental principle they consider to be non-negotiable? [] Are anv of the parties seeking to clari6, a legal question or establish a legal precedent? [] Is it likely that political leaders ~vill support a process? [] What are the relationships among the parties? Is there a history of conflict or is this issue a onetime occurrence? [] Do the parties have political influence that would help the agency implement the decision? For example is funding from the legislature necessary? Iq Will implementation require the ongoing effort of many parties? Should the sponsoring agency try to achieve an agreement that will lay the foundation for productive collaboration? ASSESS the sponsor's objectives [] What is the agency's mandate in this matter? What action is the agency re- uired to take? What decisions does the agency need to make? Does the agency's mandate pertnit a range of solutions? What are the options for making the decisions? If the agency makes a decision without the support of affected parties, what is likely to happen? Might the decision be appealed or difficult to enforce? [] Is the agency willing to share control of the process and formulation of the decision? ~ Does the agency have the time and resources to support a conscnsns process? gl Might the decision be better if the affected parties help develop it? Practica{ Guide to Consensus ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS FOR STAKEHOLDERS What are the issues from your perspective? What would be the purpose of engaging in a consensus process on these issues? [] Are your issues negotiable, or could reaching agreement require you to com- promise your interests or values? [] Do you believe you would have something to gain by participating or some- thing to lose by not participating? Or do you think another process or forum Gm would be better for you? What do you think is likely to happen if you do not ~ trad come to some agreement with the other parties? ister [] Is your group organized in a way that will allow you to participate? Which ~ pate~, spokespersons represent your group? Is there a mechanism for getting input law and feedback from your group in a timely way? utes, tq Do you have enough time, money, and people to participate effectively? Or ernm might you need assistance, either to cover expenses or to gather or under- their stand information about the issues? polic [] Who else do you think should be involved to make the effort successful? throu [] Whatisthehistoryofrelationshipsamongtheparties? Conse IZl Do you feel you have a general understanding of what a consensus process entails and how it works, or do you have questions about such processes? Do : ~t trative you have specific concerns you would like to address before you will agree to . 8- ~collabo participate? [] What kinds of information is needed to resolve the issue? What kinds of ~ '~ive p information can you provide to the group? [] How do you think the other stakeholders would answer all of the above 4: ~1. All m '~ ~2. Partic - ~' 3. Partic {" ~'t. Partic, ,? '5. AH pa · nel .~ue Th. ~'~, oth~ ~d orga~ ~ elected : '~r0posed ~_'the dis !second ;~ - p c ~ay choos ~ brking to %es axe c~ '-%rtheefl ~es may "~-,e absen, HOW TO ENSURE REPRESENTATIVE PARTICIPATION ' The key to a legitimate consensusprocess isparticipation of all necessaryparties. In this chapter, you will learn about the voluntary nature of participation, the importance of selfdetermination, the conditions necessary~r e~ctive participation, and how to ensure that participation is representa- tive. Participation is the key to legitimacy Before Government-sponsored consensus processes are not the traditional forums in which policies are made, admin- · Assess whether or not to~r ,stered, or adiudicated in= democracy. 'n trad'tiona' forums, the mechanisms for determining who partici- pates directly in the writing and administration of · select a facilitator During · Plan and organize the law are spelled out in constitutions, charters, stat- process utes, and rules. In our representative form of gov- ernment, front row seats go to elected officials and I · Write gr0und rules their appointees. Citizens seek to influence public policy by communicating with public officials through public hearings, lobbying, and petitioning. Consensus-seeking processes arc adjuncts to traditional democratic processes; they can shift the locus of public decision making. Although agreements arrived at via these processes usually require formal approval or endorsement by a legislative or adminis- trative body, such approvals may be pro forma; the real decisions were made in the collaborative process. Five principles to ensure representative participation 1. All necessary interests are represented or at least approve of the process. 2. Participants usually represent stakeholder groups or interests and not just themselves. 3. Partidpation is voluntary. 4. Participants share responsibility for both process and outcome. 5. All parties must be able to participate effectively. 1. All necessary interests are represented or at least approve of the process ~Necessary interests" means the categories of persons or groups with a stake in the issue. These stakeholders or parties can include the government that sponsors the pro- cess, other governments with jurisdiction, and affected publics--including citizens and organizations. The interests can also include parties with an indirect interest, such as elected officials who need to be kept informed· Sometimes parties emerge when a proposed solution would affect them. These new stakeholders should then be incIuded in the discussions. Asecondpastofthisprincipleaddresseshowthepeoplewillberepresented. Some interests may choose not to be directly involved, even though they have no objection to others working together to solve a problem. Some may prefer to participate only when certain issues arc considered or if proposed solutions would affect them directly. Others may con- sider the effort a waste of time, but will not object if others try. lfthat is the case, remaining parties may need m decide whether to proceed without those who abstain, especially if ~ose absent interests could block a decision or interfere with implementation later on. · Practical Guide to Consensus 27 / CASE STUDY Oil and Fishing Industries Resolve Issues in the Santa Barbara Channel In 1983 commercial fishermen were fed up with the impacts to their work by the resumption of oil exploration and production in the Santa Barbara channel. Exploratory vessels were sending shock waves into the ocean floor, then retrieving the responses via two-mile long cables. These vessels had to maintain perfectly straight courses and, as a result, crab and lobster fisher- men were losing gear. Hook-and-line fishermen alleged that the seismic shocks changed fish behavior, affecting the catch. Abalone divers feared for their hearing. Pipelines were often run through the traditional fishing areas. Fishing vessels had occasional conflicts with tankers and with small boat traffic motoring between shore and the platforms. When that winter's El Nifio silted up the harbor faster than the Army Corps of Engineers could dredge it, the port-bound fishermen fumed about their common problems and decided to take action. They lobbied public officials and took their issues to the press, intending to hold a forum to air their grievances. The fishermen called a meeting to plan the forum and invited oil companies and public officials. They asked the local sea grant officer to chair it, since he was respected by all parties. He, in turn, asked several media- tors to assist him with the meeting. After a free-ranging discussion that raised numerous concerns, the mediators helped the participants review a range of options for addressing the concerns and then asked if the parties wanted to try to negotiate solutions. The parties agreed to consider negotiating~ and freT,several months the mediators met separately with them assessingpr0spects for constructive talks and halping them design a process. Over the course of several years the parties : reached agreements on a Wide range of issues and also established a liaison' office staffed by a full-time person to resolve dally ~onfllcts a~d improve" communication. The California legislature provided funding to carry out - : relevant parts of the agreements. ~ may c Inth ' the di the industry. The independent commerdal fishermen were ussisted by the raedia~ ~ farme, t°rin°rganizingandselectingrePresentativestof~llthelrJtburseatsat'thetabl*~7~ = develn While different stakeholders used different methi~ds of selecting Who wiuld mpre- ~. : comm sent them, this case illustrates that the choke of paktlcipants wus theirs to make. k ) 3. Par, 2. Participants usually represent stakeholder groups or interests and not just themselvesIn a co Public policy consensus processes usually affect more people than can fit around a should table. Thus, while the number of persons participating direc, tly is limited, they must cess is produce a decision that is acceptable to all affected interests. Participants are the peoplecedure who come to the meetings and sit at the table. In consensus processes for complex : less iml public issues, participants usually represent groups, caucuses, or constituents. In a rep--represe resenrative process, each participant is actually part of two different discussions, one with the other participants at the table itself and the second with their own constitu- This ab ents. This is especially true when a participant represents a collection of parties with drawal. similar interests who may not have worked together before. the parl It is important to distinguish between "representative of" and "representing." The right of4. Part~ interest groups to select their own representatives is central to self-determination. An agencymajol 28 Practical Guide to Consensus may create an advisory committee of people whose views it expects will be representative of the diverse interests--a farmer whom the agency believes can speak for the concerns of farmers, for example. But that approach may not work for processes that are intended to develop workable agreements. Those processes need to have explicit linkages and clear communication channels between participants and their constituents. 3. Participadon is voluntary In a consensus process the most important procedural decision is whether or not there should even be a process. Without a veto over that decision by each interest, the pro- cess is not voluntary. If government agencies are going to step outside traditional pro- cedures and share decision making power--in effect making traditional procedures a less important venue for obtaining public comment--then all affected parties must be represented unless they consent to being absent. This also means that any party may withdraw from the process at any time. The with- drawal of a party calls into question the legitimacy of the process, since by being there the party prestonably was one of the necessary interests. 4. Participants share responsibili.tyj~r both process and outcome ~A major incentive for~articipating in a consensus process is having a direct role in ~ Practical Guide to Consensus 29 making decisions. In a consensus process, the parties must also agree to the structure of A the process, the ground rules that will guide it, and the terms of the agreement. It is essential that ground rules be mutually agreed upon by all participants and not estab- sa fished solely by the sponsoring agency. co 5. All parties must be able to participate e~ctively AS If some key interests are not organized or are too diffuse to be represented in a discus- yo sion, a consensus process may not be appropriate. In general, parties must be organized ne enough to designate spokespersons who can represent them. Sometimes facilitators prl can help parties overcome these problems. In the Santa Barbara case, for example, the pm oil companies let mediators help fishermen organize and prepare for negotiations. ing In other situations, financial or technical assistance may make a difference. Some par- ma ~I ties may be able to participate effectively if experts are available to help them under- to stand complex scientific or legal matters. Others may be able to participate if they are reimbursed for travel, taking time off work, or for child care. As a rule though, if a For necessary party cannot participate effectively, the sponsor should not try to proceed sim with a consensus process. These points are discussed more fully later in the chapter. is a How to decide who participates tim, Deciding who participates is a two-step process--first identifying the interests that prot need to be represented, then selecting the representatives for those interests. Generally, the parties agree on the interests to be represented and then each interest group selects Step its own representative. That sounds simple enough, and for some issues it is. When an Idea issue becomes a dispute, for example, the parties know who they are. They know who inte~ needs to be part of any worthwhile agreement. But when the issues are newly emerging is to it may be harder to identify who the affected interests are. selec neigl Step 1: Identij~ which stakeholders need to be at the table senta To start identifying interests, you should answer three questions: agree · Who needs to be on board to implement an agreement tfone is reached?This indudes Make the people who will actually carry out a decision, as well as those whose political orthe t; financial support is essential. The commitment necessary to implement an agree- ?nakil ment depends on ownership of the solution. That ownership derives from stake- ~ organ holders having a direct role in the decision making. 3likely '~mise. · Who could block a decision t)cthey did not like it? This includes those who must ~culty comply with the outcome and those in position to challenge the decision in court. ~their r ~ What other interests could be af~cted by the action? The list of parties compiled by ~Somel answering the first two questions often leaves out other affected interests, typically~)tatus. those lacking power. Government decisions, after all, may affect people with lira- parties ited resources who lack the clout to challenge an outcome that may harm their interests. This is one reason why consensus processes are not appropriate for all ~,Somet, public issues. When issues affect society at large and not just a subset of identifiableiparties interests, ensuring representative participation can be problematic. If some interests.table are obvious but others are not so dear, there are real dilemmas about the appropriate- 30 Practical Guide to Consensus ~. ~s part of the assessment, stakeholders are asked to determine which interests should ~e represented at the table and whether anyone else should be interviewed. Often the .ame names and groups come up. In fact, this indicates the situation may be ripe for a :ongensus process. ~ssuming that no stakeholder group opposes the idea of trying to reach consensus, .'ou can proceed in several ways. One approach is to propose a list of interests that need to be represented and then conduct a second round of interviews, discussing the proposed list with each parry. You (or the facilitator) can refine the list, review it with the parties, and then ask each invited party to send representatives to an organizational meet- ing. A second approach is to suggest that representatives of several key stakeholders meet to refine the list of interests who should participate, then hold an organizational meeting. It may be required by law to publish notice of these meetings, or of the process itself, in order m solicit interest and participation by stakeholders. For some situations, these two approaches may be more than is necessary. You may simply want to draw up a list of parties to invite to an organizational meeting. But if there is a history of controversy or if the parties have tried to negotiate befbre and failed, it may be necessary to take both preliminary steps before calling an organizational meeting. Some- times having a governor or other high official invite parties can give them a reason-- even protection from some of their own colleagues-- for auending. Step 2: Select participants Ideally, when the parties have agreed on the interests that need to be at the table, each interest selects its own representative. This is relatively straightforward when each seat is to be filled with someone from an organization, but when parties form coalitions, selection is more complex. In a case involving siting of an industry access road, a neighborhood association felt it was in a low power position and asked for three repre- sentatives, while the industry and state transportation department each had one. This was agreeable to the other parties and helped balance the relative power of~he groups. Makeup of the group is important, too. It is often necessary to bring participants to the table who have authority to make decisions for their respective groups. Policy making members of an organization are usually in the best position to represent their organization effectively. When a person serves in a policy making role, they are more likely to speak with authority and have the flexibiliry to seek consensus or compro- raise. When paid lobbyists are designated representatives, they may have more diffi- culry with a consensus process, particularly if they view consensus as antithetical to their role as a strong advocate for the organization's position. Sometimes an issue arises over whether representatives should be of relatively equal status. In intergovernmental negotiations, for example, it may be important that some parties do not designate staff' to represent them when others have named elected officials. Sometimes a diverse committee made up ofstakeholders can develop criteria to guide parties in selecting representatives. This can help ensure that the individuals at the table will be able to work well together. Sample criteria could include individuals who ~re willing and able to operate by consensus, take a long-term view of the issue rather than focus on a narrow agenda, represent the ethnic diversiry of their groups, and are , respected by their constituency. ! ! Practical Guide to Consensus 3 1 There are a number of ways in which both large aud small stakeholder groups can w develop and use criteria to select their own representatives. For example, planners in pa Charleston County, South Carolina, convened a consensus process to develop a plan for building parks and recreation centers. The city of Charleston needed to form a team to represent the community. Two hundred fifty organizations were invited to a So meeting to learn about the process and determine who should be on the team. At the or~ meeting, attended by more than 100 people, audience members were asked to identify Sc~ criteria they would use to determine who should represent the community. They sug- the gested the following: geographic representation; gender and racial balance; knowledge lik~ of community affairs; communications skills; and ability to marshal other citizens. ho< : par After they agreed to the criteria, the audience was divided into small groups represent- thel ing interests---environment, sports, tax reduction, etc. Each group nominated people who tors would meet the criteria for consideration. After the nominations, the facilirator asked whether the nominees adequately represented community interests. No dissension was expressed, 7bc/ so each attendee was asked to vote for the candidates of their choice. The seven people who ject~, received the most votes were selected as members of the community team. may nece Arrange for multiple parties to participate hirec Facilitators are often asked about the optimum number of participants. The answer is, "as few as possible but still including all key stakeholders." A rule of thumb is 12 to 20Fina. individuals at the table. Larger numbers can be involved, but it can take longer to buildmeet consensus with more participants. with time There are ways to minimize the number of seats at the table while actually increasing thesince, number of people involved. One approach allows for constituents of the parties to attendit can the talks as observers. Periodically the discussions can break for caucus discussions thatholder include those observers. Other processes expand participation by setting up working groups~ other or subcommittees, as was done in the Ohio Medicaid Reform discussions. strucn the sol Another method is to phase in the participation of some parties. The Santa Barbara Channel talks started out between Ftshermen and oil companies. Some months later when - Deal the agenda moved to scientific issues, the two industries invited state and federal agenciesWhat i to join the discussions. Negotiations to find a site for unpopular facilities, like dumps and2 process airports, typically create new parties--the neighbors of a proposed site. It may help to view_ depeno such processes as having two stages, one to address the broad issues of criteria and location and another to negotiate with neighbors of the sdccted site--/fthey want to negotiate. ~ ~ !fa key Focusing sufficient attention on the meetings that participants hold with their con- ~with th~ stituencies can also reduce the number of seats at the table. Although having to check ~ ests, pe~ back frequently with colleagues can slow down a process, it 'pays in the long run by ! others p building ownership and broad support for an agreement. '-remains Ensure resources are available ~ 'other ap : particip~ To participate effectively, some parties may need assistance with organizing, developing or ~~tas not understanding information (especially technical and scientific), and with expenses. i ~formal ac ~ ~who live, Assistance with organizing--In some situations the interests are clear, but disorganize~:_~('~oCtB con: Organizing is not normally within the scope ofa facilitator's job description. Howe~ be im 32 Practical Guide to Consensus ( ~ / with the approval of the other parties, a facilitator or mediator may help disorganized parties prepare for the process. Mediators per~brmed this fitnotion in the Santa Barbara Channel case by helping commercial fishermen find a way to select their constituents. Sometimes, someone nor otherwise involved in the case can help an interest group organize. In Washington, numerous communities were concerned about noise at the Seattle-'l~coma Airport. Most were muuicipalities, but as a caucus of similar interests they were no more organized than the fishermen in the Santa Barbara Channel. And like the fishermen, they were in a sense competitors, since each hoped other neighbor- hoods~not theirs--would be under the flight paths. With the approval of the other parties, the sponsor paid for someone to help these communities negotiate among themselves and then prepare [Br the discussion with other interests, where two negotia- tors represented them as a caucus. ~chnicalsupport~Many public issues involve complex technical and scientific sub- jects that some parties may need help in understanding. In some cases agency experts may be able to assist. If they are too busy or lack credibility with some parties, it may be necessary to hire outside experts. In the Santa Barbara Channel case the parties joinfly hired experts to answer agreed-upon questions developed by all participants. Financialsupport Some participants may need financial support to travel and attend meetings, including help with child care. Others may need money to communicate with their constituencics. For some groups the problem is a shortage of people with the time to attend meetings. This is a serious concern for some understaffed organizations since consensus processes can be time consuming. Sometimes a group can participate if it can secure special funding. If funding is provided by the sponsor to a particular stake- holder, all other participants should be made aware of it. Groups may form coalitions with other similar groups and select one person to represent them all. Also, agendas can be structured so that a group may attend fewer meetings and still share in the development of the solution. Deal with dilemmas about participation What if some interests do not want to participate or cannot be represented? Does the process still go forward? If the interests are too diffuse to be represented, a process that depends on having representatives negotiate a consensus may be problematic. What if a key party does not want to participate? Ifa key party is not willing to participate, other parties with similar interests may meet with the stakeholder to determine whether there is some way to represent their inter- ests, perhaps as part of a caucus. If not, and the stakeholder does not object if the others proceed, the others can decide if this arrangement is acceptable. If the key parD' remains opposed to the idea of trying m reach consensus, the agency should use some other approach. There are numerous examples where the sponsoring agency and other participants have decided to proceed, but the consensus agreement they negotiated was not implemented becausc the other parties used their political power to prevent formal adoption of the agreement. In New Bedford, Massachusetts, for example, people who lived along the harbor refused to participate in a discussion over how to deal with PCB contamination in the harbor. The group reached consensus but their agreement Qould not be implemented because residents went to state and local government and blocked it. Practical Gusde to Consensus 33 What about issues of culture and language? Cultural differences are often a component of complex public issues. In the West, for example, natural resource issues frequently involve Native American governments as well as local, state, and federal agencies. Tribes may be wary of sitting down to negoti- ate with government, businesses, or groups that primarily represent the dominant cul- ture, fearing they may be co-opted. Environmental and other public resource issues increasingly intersect with issues of social and political justice. When these factors are combined with cultural differences, significant challenges arise when designing and managing a process. Cultural differences can also occur in less obvious drcumstances. For example, a Cape Cod dispute over use of off-road vehicles pitted working dass Cape Cod fisherman against newcomers who had built expensive homes along the beaches. These ethnically similar groups found themselves in a cross-cultural conflict over appropriate activities on the Cape. ] What sponsors can do to deal with dilemmas A Sometimes interest groups may be reluctant to participate in a consensus process because al of lack of information or fear of being coerced or co-opted. There are a number of ap- vi proaches you or the facilitator can use to address these concerns. In sensitive cases, it is bestin for the facilitator (rather than the sponsor) to take the following steps: ev · Meet with stakeholder groups or interests on their turf to discuss the process and co answer questions. th · Assist stakeholders in thinking through how they want to be represented, how con- stiments should be consulted during the process and the kinds of ground rules they At need to ensure their partidpation. El · Help stakeholders identi6z and dari6z their own interests and alternative courses of actions so they can decide whether or not to participate in the process. · Encourage them to caucus with other groups. · Refer them to similar groups who have experience with these kinds of processes and can advise them. · Ensure the design of the process takes into account language and cultural differences. 5 : the ~ ~ may may : i ,.5 a This ~' : with 34 Practical Guide to Consensus ~ A STAKEHOLDER'S GUIDE TO PARTICIPATION This guide is written J~rparticipants, rather than sponsors. How participants conduct themselves before, during, and after the process can heighten the effectiveness of the process. The following stages of a consensus process are important steps that participants should follow. BeJ~re the discussions beg~n.' 1. Decide whether or nor to participate 2. Prepare for the process Decide whether or not to participate At the beginning, parties assess whether or not to use a consensus-based approach to decision making. During this assessment a facilitator inter- views the sponsor and all stakeholders. A major incentive for participating in a consensus process is having a direct role in making decisions. How- ever, participating in good faith means everyone must make decisions by consensus. It is therefore in each party's interest not only to try to meet their own needs, but also to try to help meet the needs of the others. At this stage, you should: tq Be willing to meet with the interviewer. Refer to "Assessment Ques- tions for Stakeholders" on page 25 to prepare for your interview. tq During the interview, shareyourviewoftheissueandlearnabouthow the process works. Ask questions so that you fully understand the con- sensus option. Then, you and your associates can compare the consen- sus process with other options for meeting your interests. IZI Be frank with the interviewer about whether you are interested in par- tlc~patlng m a consensus process. You may need to meet with the interviewer more than once before decid- ing to participate. For example, you may request that an issue be placed on the agenda which another party objects to, or vice versa. The interviewer may shuttle between you and the other parties until an issue is resolved, or may suggest that the parties discuss it directly. You will not be asked to commit to a process until all your questions have been answered to your satisfaction. In this way you continue to evaluate your options until you and the other parties produce a set of ground rules that you can accept. Prepare ~r the process This step begins when you and the other parties tell the interviewers you are willing to consider a consensus approach. During this phase you work with other parties and the facilitator to plan the process. Depending on Practical Guide to Consensus 35 the circumstances, the facilitator may meet separately with each party or suggest an organizational meeting or orientation workshop. At this stage, you should: Express all your concerns about who, what, where, when, why and how. It is important at this point to be forthcoming about any reserva- tions you may have regarding a consensus approach. Listen to the concerns ofother parties. Work together to design a structure and write ground rules (see Chap- ter 8). Keep your colleagues advised of the discussions and submit any draft ground rules to them for their review and approval. f3 Select someone to represent your interests. In some processes, several organizations form caucuses. In that case not every organization in the caucus will have one of its members directly participating in the dis- cussions. If that happens, make sure you are comfortable with the per- son or persons representing your caucus. Establish clear understand- ings about reporting back and instruct your representative before each session. Clarify your caucus' procedures for making decisions, espe- cially decisions to approve components of an agreement. 171 If your concerns are addressed, commit to using consensus and follow- ing the ground rules. When all parties have made this commitment, the process can begin. But if you are not satisfied after drafting the ground rules, you may decide not to proceed. All parties must approve the process for it to move to the next phase4iscussions. During the dhcussions As a participant in the discussions, you should: [] Explain your interests and concerns during meetings and try to under- stand the interests and concerns of others. Listen carefully to the interests and concerns of the other parties. Work with all parties to develop creative solutions that everyone can accept. [] Share information th~.t can contribute to better solutions. If some in- formation must be kept confidential, consider ways to share the rel- evant parts safely. [] Seek ways to jointly gather information so it is credible for all stake- holders. [] Abide by the ground rules and be willing to ask the facilirator to force them when you think they are being broken. [] Keep constituents informed. Take back tentative agreements for their review. The better informed they are, the more likely they are to sup- port agreements as they develop. Make sure other parties understand 36 Practical Guide to Consensus how your group makes decisions and how much time you need fi~r that to happen. The facilitator can act as a go-between and broker discussions to help parties move beyond impasses. [] View the overall outcome as a package you can support, even if some components arc not what you wanted. [] Indicate your support by signing the final written agreement. After the process ends.' Implementation involves two steps: 1. Transforming the informal consensus agreement into an official decision 2. Putting the decision into effect While the agreement is being translated into an official decision, you should: [] Support the agreement package through the official public review process. Attend public hearings to explain the agreement and an- swer questions. [] Ifa legislative body needs to make any decision regarding the agree- ment, lobby legislators and testify at hearings. ~ If appropriate, hold unofficial public meetings or meet with edito- rial boards to explain the proposal. rq Be prepared to meet again with other stakeholders if the agency finds that some public comments are significant and could justify modifying the agreement. When the agreement is being implemented, you should: ~ Take the necessary steps to uphold your part of the agreement. Such steps could include helping others understand how to com- ply with terms of the decision. [] Serve on oversight committees for monitoring the agreement. Practical Guide to Consensus 37 HOW TO SELECT AND WORK WITH A FACILITATOR OR MEDIATOR A consensus process )~r solving a complex public issue is, in some respects, like an organization. It requires management, but with several twists. For one thin~ the participants, not the manager, make decisions. Also, participants may not have worked together be~re and may even disgust one another. Their expectations about group interaction and decision making may diffbr significant~, and they may J~el more allegiance to their own organization than to the new ad hoc one. This collection of diverse interests j~ces some difficult issues that a j~cilitator or mediator can help them manage. In this chapter you will learn how to find qualified third parties and how to work with them e~ctively. Basic management tasks Bofore In a consensus process the basic management tasks in- dude making an assessment, organizing the process, fa- · Assess whether or not t~~~ cilitating meetings, and brokering or mediating corn- use a concensus process munlcations. Managers of these tasks are usually called · Engage participants , facilitators or mediators. Both are borrowed terms and · Plan and organize the neither quite captures what the manager era consen- process sus process may need to do. Facilitator comes from the · Write ground rules task ofchairing or managing a meeting. Mediatorcomes from the field of dispute resolution and refers to some one who helps people settle their own disputes with- out taking sides. Both must be neutral as to the subject matter and act irapartially toward the parties. They need to be able to earn the confidence of the parties. To be accountable to all participants, facilitators and mediators must withstand influence from the sponsor or any of the parties. They serve at the pleasure of the parties and need to withdraw if their continued involvement is not acceptable. In this guide, we use the termj~cilitator, recognizing that a facilitator may at times need to perform some of the activities typically associated with mediation, such as shuttling between parties to help resolve difficult issues. What does a facilitator do? Before---Facilitators assess prospects for consensus by conducting interviews with the sponsor and the other stakeholders. Based on the interviews, they analyze whether a consensus process is feasible, then prepare their assessment without favoring the spon- sor with strategic advice or recommendations that could harm the interests of another party. Facilitators advise other parties in the same way. Facilitators help stakeholders decide whether to participate by helping them identify their interests and their BATNA, or "best alternative to a negotiated agreement." They also help the parties prepare by teaching consensus-building skills, or assist the parties in designing the process and drafting ground rules. During--Facilitators prepare for and manage the discussions as well as write meeting sum- rnaries. They see m it that information needed for each meeting is assembled and distrib- uted to all participants in time. They may organize and manage a fact-finding process if the parties decide to seek advice from experts. Practical Guide to Consensus 39 QUALIFICATIONS OF A FACILITATOR AR~UTY TO... · Be neutral as to the outcome of the process · Earn the confidence of the parties · Know when to recommend not using a consensus t~ process if conditions are unsuitable h · Be sensitive to cultural, ethnic, and gender differences tt · Maneuver in political situations without st: being manipulative pa · Work for many bosses at once · Be a quick learner If · Demonstrate creativity and be willing to improvise, po since every case is different fac · Deal with unforeseen circumstances abi -7 · Be a good listener, speaker, and writer KNOWtEOGE Or... · The nature of conflict and conditions that motivate go~ people to negotiate If p; · The principles that underlie consensus processes and the variety of structures that parties have devised for perf~ the different processes · The various techniques associated with facilitation and faciL mediation For · The nature of group dynamics to tr) · The skills of interest-based negotiation and consensus- and building, and the ability to teach these skills · How to construct good agreements and link them to Facili, the official decision making process experi · How a successful process proceeds from initial contacts Lessol and exploration of feasibility to organizing the process, time a substantive discussions, and implementation · When steps can safely be abbreviated so the process can What move efficiently The rr ; compll · Resist undue influences by parties and be willing to : _ give pt withdraw if attempts to influence persist ~ knowle PROFESSIONAL · Disclose any associations with the sponsor or other ETNICS participants 2 What · Be willing to withdraw if a party loses confidence in in her/him ' Facdita, directiv, commu : bridge c Facilitators serve as a liaison to parties not at the table, such as elected officials or constituencies. They can transmit difficult messages and serve as an agent of reality. and pers with a Facilitators are advocates of the process once the parties have defined it, and must adhere to the principles that underlie a consensus process. They must protect the con- ! ghould fidentiality of private communications with any of the participants and address situa-: It is usua tions in .which a participant does not appear to be acting in good faith, as defined by They sho~ the parties in their ground rules. {practice ' 40 Practical Guide to Consensus ! I After--Facilitators assist with drafting agreemenu, and, if requested, manage meetings during the implementation period(s). Should a facilitator from inside or outside the sponsoring agency manage the process? In some consensus processes the sponsor and parties share tas'ks, for example by taking rums as chair and recorder. In others, an employee or representative of the sponsor or of the stakeholders may be acceptable to all parties as facilitator. These options will succeed if the parties have good working relationships and the atmosphere is genuinely collaborative. If the facilitator is an agency staff member, the agency should establish an in-house policy or agreement with the "inside" facilirator that specifies the boundaries the facilitator will adhere to in order to preserve his or her impartiality and account- ability to the participants. It is especially important to address how the facilitator will protect confidential information. Inside facilitators may need to remind other government participants to deal with the facilitator as a neutral, not a colleague. If parties distrust one another, a facibtator affiliated with one of them may not be able to perform all of his or her required tasks. Participants may need to reveal infurmation to the facilirator that they would not want other parties to know. They must trust that the facilitator can keep such confidences without having a potential conflict of interest. For example, a crucial first step is getting straight answers about whether people want to t~ to reach consensus. Ira key party, is not interested even in talking about whether and how to organize a process, that needs to be learned promptly. Facilitating consensus processes is a profession, and these facilirators offer the benefit of experience. Knowing what has worked and what has failed in other cases is useful expertise. Itssons learned from sitting in the facilitator's seat can save parties--and the facilitator-- time and aggravation. What qualifications does a facilitator need? The most important qualification is past experience as a facilitator and mediator of complex, public conflicts involving many parties. Most rosters of facilitators, in fact, give priority to past experience. A facilitator should also have the attributes, skills, knowledge, and professional ethics listed in the table on page 38. What about style and approach? Facilitarors vary widely in style and approach. Some are deal makers, others are less directire. Some facilitators are versatile, adjusting to the situation. When parties are communicating well they are low-key, but if an impasse develops they can skillfully bridge communication gaps and restore direct, face-to-face communication. Others tend to operate the same way in all situations. Some facilitators, by force of reputation and personality, can be especially persuasive. Others have ch>ut~they are associated }with a power fill government or organization that can exert pressure or con~r benefits. ~hould a facilitator be an expert in the subject matter? !t is usually not essential for facilitators to be experts in the subject being discussed. They should, however, be familiar with the context of the discussion. A facilitator with iapractice in environmental and natural resource issues, for example, may feel out of ~ l'rll~tz','a{ Guide ta 6~,t.it'~llul4 l ._ place in a labor management negotiatioo and vice versa. Mediators proficient at inter- un personal negotiations (as in contractual issues or divorce settlements where all parties da can fit around a small table) may not know how to manage a public dispute involving ass. numerous constituencies. Some practitioners, however, have built successful practices bm in several contexts. Ab Cases in which the issues are highly technical may need to include a substantive expert RFI as part of the facilitation team. Or, parties might have access to their own experts. If to a during the course of the negotiations parties decide they need independent advice, an an l effective approach is to agree on the specific kind of advice they need and bring in an expert or panel of experts to advise all parties. Agreeing on what questions need clari- 3. h ~cation and who could answer them can build credibility for the result and help to pets, overcome the trauma of "dueling experts." ask n % How to identify and select an independent facilitator All p Once you have decided to employ an independent facilitator, how do you find one? Where select do you look for candidates? What axe the qualifications? What do you really need to know name to select and contract with someone? How do you obtain that information? be pr: There are three basic steps to finding a facilitator: One t 1. Identi~ the pool of candidates assessi 2. Narrow the list of candidates to those you want to interview can th 3. Interview candidates party i: proces! 1. Identi. O the pool ofcandidates~any states now have offices of dispute resolution Often I that maintain lists of professionals who mediate and facilitate public policy issues. The the par usefulness of the information may vary, as some states pre-qualify those listed, others pro- vide verified and detailed information on a practitioner's background, experience, approach,How · and fees, while still others keep facilitators' promotional materials on from · file. The same is tree ofnationai listings and rosters. The National The leg: Identify the Roster of Environmental Dispute Resolution and Consensus tators di pool of Building Professionals, maintained by the U.S. Institute for En- tators at, candidates vironmental Conflict Resolution, has pre-qualified listings. The tant exc< _ addresses and phone numbers of state and national programs such the cont, NarrOw!the as these and other organizations can be found on the World Wide contract pool to tho. se Web pages listed in Appendix A. should b I you Want to interview governme 2. Narrow down the list of candidates~ome states with dis- and facili pute resolution programs can quickly connect you with a facili- pant as a Interview' the tator. In Oregon, the sponsor describes the case to someone from candidates the state program who then sends the parties information about several qualified practitioners. The parties can then interview ' - - them or ask for more names. Many jurisdictions solicit information by issuing either a Request for Proposal (RFP) or ' a Request for Qualifications (RFQ). An RFQ is simpler and avoids some of the problems associated with the RFP procedure The most significant problem with a gYP s that it a~ks candidates to propose how they would facilitate a case befire they consult with the parties. Asking practitioners to supply such information forces them to violate an important 42 Practical Guide to Consensus underlying principle of cousensus processes--self-design by the participants. If candi- dates do contact parties, it also puts them in the questionable position of doing an assessment for their own purposes (responding to the RFP) which caa~ also be an added burden on parties. A better approach is to request a statement ofqualificatim~ through the RFQ process. RFQs can supply all the information you need to narrow down the pool of candidates to a subset to interview. The guidelines on page 42 can be used to help sponsors issue an RFQ. 3. Interview the candidates--In an interview you will be able to observe each candidate's personality, style of interacting, and ability to communicate effectively. You may want to ask more detailed questions, such as the sample interview questions listed on page 42. All parties must have confidence in the facilitator and in the process by which they are selected. In some situations it may be possible for the sponsor and all parties to review names, check references, and interview leading candidates, In other cases, this may not be practical and the parties may agree to let a subgroup make the selection. One useful approach is to divide contracting with the facilitator into two phases: (1) assessing and organizing the process, and (2) facilitating the discussions. The parties can then, in effect, consider the merits of the facilitator during the assessment. If a party is unhappy with the facilitator who did the assessment but nevertheless favors the process, the parties can select someone else to manage the substantive discussions. Often the facilitator hired in the first stage is retained for the rest of the process because the parties are satisfied. How contracting with a facilitator differs from contracting with other consultants The legal constraints and requirements for government entities contracting with facili- tators differ widely. xX/'hat must be taken into account is that while contracts for facili- tators are essentially the same as contracts for other personal services, there is an impor- tant exception. Personal services contracts usually define a special relationship between the contractor and the client. Since a facilkator works for all of the parties equally, the contract must protect confidential information that any party divulges. The facilitator should be able to destroy or protect confidential records or notes that would become government property under most consulting contracts. The contract between the sponsor and facilitator should be written in such a way that it could be shown to any partici- pant as a confirmation of the facilitaror's ability to act impartially. Practical Guide to 'Consensus 43 INTERVIEWING POTENTIAL FACILITATORS: SAMPLE QUESTIONS [] XVhar is your general experience? What is your experience with situa- tions like this? With participants like us? CI How long did those processes take? What were the outcomes? [] Do you specialize in one approach or more? Would your approach apply to our circumstances? I~ xcVhat approach would you take in managing this situation? What sorts O~ ' of things do you need to learn in order to tailor your approach to fit this situation? Orz O How familiar are you with the types of issues in this case and the context son , we're dealing with here? .~ ope ~ [] What kind ofstaffwill be assisting you? How will you handle logistical goo ~ arrangements for meetings? What kind of help will you need? {3 Do you know of any conflicts of interest you may have? Wh C3 How do you charge for your services? ! con [] Do you have any questions for us? thei will The HOw TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) No untii If you use an RFQapproach to selecting and working with a facilitator, ask for the following items: that [] A resume disct El Examples of cases the candidate has facilitated or mediated, with brief descriptions of those most can s pertinent to your case out road. [] A brief description of the candidate's general approach, stressing that you are not asking them to propose what they would do for your case comr [] A list of previous associations, if any, with the sponsor or other parties [] A statement regarding any potential conflicts of interest Work [] References (One way to obtain a cross-section of references is to ask for a list ofali parties to a dispute · I, that corresponds in some respect to yours. Different stakeholders can then check out the candidate · with someone whose interests are similar.) · C Sample RFQ questions · P [] Has the candidate demonstrated an ability to facilitate complex public issues involving multiple · E parties where the discussions occurred primarily among representatives ofconstituencies? · [] Has the candidate successfully assisted parties in a case with a context similar to 'yours? ~ · 13 · El Does the candidate operate from an organizational base that is independent of any of the parties? O Does the candidate have any other associations with any of the parties that may be construed as a : ' Ickn~ conflict of interest? .! O How does the candidate define the steps of the process? El Does the candidate stress any particular kind of approach? ~ ways t. El Does the candidate have expertise in cases of a similar nature? { ass.essn El Are there references you could call who have positions or interests analogous to yours? ~ rainin !i 44 Practical Guide to Consensus HOw TO PLAN AND ORGANIZE THE PROCESS Be~re making the transitionflora talking aboutprocess to talking about issues, the parties work with the )~cilitator to plan how to structure the process. This requires working through all the concerns about what committing to a consensus process might entail. The organizational phase is complete when the parties have developed and agreed to a set of protocols or ground rules describing the procedures that will govern the process. Before Organizational tasks · ASsess whether or not to ~//~g~ Organizing the process follows the assessment, but in use a concensus process some cases the two steps overlap. Sponsors play a lead · Engage participants role in this phase, and it is important that they keep an · Select a facilitator Durin Aft open attitude and demonstrate a willingness to work in · Plan and organize good faith with all the parties. the process t ' Write ground rules . While some parties may decide quickly to enter into a '- consensus process, others need to continue weighing ',.,.,,~.-,..~. .... --/' ' lllg'~" '~' their options until they know exactly what the process will look like. For them, assessment continues through the organizational phase. The logical time to make the go/no-go decision is after the process has been defined. No party should be expected to decide whether a consensus process will work for them until it has a clear understanding of the who, what, where, why, and how questions that inevitably arise. Parties often become impatient with such "shape-of-the-table" discussions and want to get to the "real" issues. But if ignored, procedural questions can subvert the negotiations later on. The substantive issues are difficult enough with- out having an overlooked procedural question interfere with discussions down the road. All parties need to make a good faith commitment and understand what they are committing to. The organizational phase enables this to happen. Working with the facilitator and the other parties, the sponsor should: · Identify and provide needed resources · Identify and prepare information · Orient staff and participants · Establish mechanisms for public outreach · Provide staff and logistical support · Develop a map of the process · Develop ground rules · Develop a work plan · Plan and hold the organizational meeting Id~ntiJ~ and provide neededresources--Sponsors should ensure that sufficient resources are available to support the process through negotiations and implementation. There- fore, it is important to determine how to meet resource needs as they emerge and find ways to provide funds to accomplish the goals of the consensus process. During the assessment, for example, parties may identify needs for information, preparation and training, public outreach programs, facilitators' fees, and staff and logistical support. ; ~ Practical Guide to Consensus 45 Some participants may also need financial support to attend meetings or pay for care. They may need money to gather information or communicate with their stituencies. In addressing these needs, there may be issues about who pays and~ fro1 relative power imbalance that financial support may create. It is best these issues by consulting with all parties and determining Est, their concerns. , plat whe ldentiJ~ andprepare inj~rmation--Good information is often the basis for good corn lem solving and sound agreements. How information comes into the into used by participants is very important and must be taken into account in theij Sometimes, due to the technical nature of issues, sponsors will need to and . c.~.~I. exchange information prior to holding any meetings so pm-ticipants can · discussions. Sponsors may be able to supply the needed information, or Corn :! require outside technical assistance beyond what sponsors can provide· to pr, I~ may In preparing information, sponsors and facilitators should address the followia direc questions: Partit · What information do participants need before the process begins? · What information should all participants learn about at once· provi~ that occur? the p~ What kinds of information do participants need to exchange with each How and when will that occur? · Will some participants need more help understanding int It ma) How can their needs be met? who h · What information about the statutory framework for the discussions, o dissen ing laws, policies on confidentiality, etc., will participants need? · How will confidential information be protected? ~ ' resour · which · What information is missing? Is there a need for experts? made · How will information be communicated to people not at the table? Provia Help prepare and orientparticipants--Sponsors and other participants ma} agenda the table with experience only in traditional approaches to negotiating also m: making. Since interest-based negotiation and consensus decision making are tent an concepts for many people, joint training sessions have proven beneficial. things, participants understand these approaches, they work together more finish the process sooner. Develoa In Hampton, Virginia, when a group was about to begin a consensus process to solve a dispute over location of a highway, trainers introduced them to the principles of consensus. They showed a video of an actual consensus process, and participants tried timdin, these new concepts in role plays. After two days of training and orientation, the group began working together productively and reached agreement on a plan that resolved the map is controversy. Develob Participants can also prepare by consulting with peers who have participated in simi- a propo: lar processes. For example, in preparing a state agency representative for a consensus pro- cess on a contentious health care issue, another agency staff member (who was ex- : developi tremely effective in that role on another issue) met with his colleague to describe his any prey able part experiences. ground 46 Practical Guide to Consensus If appropriate, training may be incorporated into the organizational meeting. This orientation or training can be done by the facilitator or by experienced participants From other consensus processes. Establish mechanisms)~r outreach and~edback Participants may need help in planning how to communicate with their own constituencies. Especially in situations where groups are diffuse or unorganized, they may not have vehicles for regullr communication with their constituents. It may be problematic for these groups to get into a consensus process without a way of getting information to, and feedback from, their constituents. Facilitators can help stakeholder groups think through such issues and develop plans for how to address them. Constituents may decide to designate observers to the process or organize special briefings to provide groups with information and feedback. Large constituency groups or coalitions may opt to form steering committees to give their representatives guidance and direction. Participants often want to deliver the same information to all of their constituencies at once. Newsletters can be used to update constituencles about progress being made and provide factual information. To help the group communicate with constituencies and the public, facilitators can organize briefing sessions or public meetings to solicit com- ments and opinions. It may be necessary to plan for ways to communicate with a wider public beyond those who have a direct interest in the issues. This could mean working with the media to disseminate information and solicit public comment. The media can be an important resource for reaching the wider public early in the process to help establish credibility, which in turn can ensure that the participants' constituencies will support decisions made at the table. Provide staff and logistical support--Staff members may need to prepare materials, agendas, meeting notices, and summaries under the direction of the facilitator. They also may need to send out mailings and arrange for meeting rooms and meals. Compe- tent and reliable staff members who can support the process from start to finish keep things on track and running smoothly. Develop a map of the process--Diagrams, or process maps, can help illustrate how ~egotiations and implementation will unfold. Like ground rules, a map can help par- icipants understand the elements of the consensus building process. It may show imelines, stages in the process, the players (i.e., core group, task groups, technical ~'source groups), and identify opportunities for public input. An example of a process :~ap is shown on page 48. ~evelop groundrules-One of the chief products of the organizational stage should be proposed set of ground rules delineating the structure of the process and procedures nder which it will operate. The legitimacy and credibility of the process are built on eveloping shared ownership, especially when the parties distrust one another or lack fly previous working relationship. Procedural safeguards in the form of ground rules en- :fie parties to establish joint control over the process. Chapter 8 describes how to write i lund rules and provides examples of ground rules from actual consensus processes. Practical Guide to Consensus 47 Phases of the Policy Formulation Process Medicaid Long-term Care Working Group Activities Timeline: Feb. 27 March April May June July August Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Information Criteria~ Anal~ Making · Gathering , Development Alternatives Recommen- and Exploring : dations ~ Alternatives ' ~ 3~ · · Agreement on: Agreement on: Agreement on: Agreement on: Agreement on: Li. · Ground Rules Scope of problem Principles/criteria Formulation of · Form of · · Stakeholders to be addressed to judge alternatives recommendations · Facilitation alternatives · Content of · · Steps in Processs recommendations · Develop a workplan~-Ground rules usually lay our the general scope of issues, but a an6 work plan refines this scope. The group's next step is to agree on a list of starting issues · and a general sequence for taking up remaining issues. Work plans can be flexible but · should lay out the agenda for the next several meetings. Even if future agendas cannot · be fixed at this time, a general work plan can reassure each party that its issues will be addressed in due course. A sample work plan is provided on page 49. Plan and hold the organizational meeting--This is typically the first meeting of the group. As mentioned, the first item of business is the draft set of ground rules. If the draft is reasonably close to what the parties will accept, the participants will modify it and adopt the rules. If participants have not been consulted about the rules, the negotiations may take much longer. Acceptance of rules officially begins the pro- cess. Next, the parties work to identify the issues to be addressed and, from that discussion, develop a work plan. At the organizational meeting the parties clarify the sponsor's and other stakeholders' roles in the process, exchange information, and determine subsequent agenda items. See the sample organizational meeting agenda on page 50. Meeti 48 Practical Guide to C~nsensus ! : S~vtvt~ Wo~ Pt~ I~egislatire Airisory Cornmince on Enrironmental Lead Abatement Meeting ~1: Problem Definition/Objective .............................. October 15 · Identi~ risk groups · Identi~ sourc~ oFcont~ination ~ Prioriti~ problems that need to be addressed in state lead abatement policies · ~tablish proof of the problem ~ identi~ research/data needs Meeting ~2: Iden~ Possible Option/~proaches ............... November 17 · Identi~ proactive strategies For addressing the problem · Identi~ reactive strategies For addressing ~e problem Meeting ~3: Identi~ Costs, Fin~cing Options, Liab~i~ Issues & Options .....................................................December 15 Identi~ costs of various options Identi~ financifl options and strategies Examine liabili~ and determine how it should be handled Mee~g ~4: Iden~ Feasible S~te~es ~d M~ P~ Repo~ ..........................................................J~u~ 12 Determine w~ch strategi~ sho~d be included in state policies D~op midpoint progr~ repo~ Form Work Groups to meet over the rem~ning five m~tin~ ~ d~elop specific recommendations ~d proposes to address the Following ~sues: Determine how to m~e ~e state~ approach consistent ~ ~der~ regulations Determine what is re~onable and practi~, given ~e priorities ~d the costs Determine what ~e certifi~tion and licensing requirements sho~d be D~ermine what the reporting and disclosure req~rements sho~d be Determine what the remediatio~ requirements should be Determine how to regulate abatement dispos~ Determine the monitoring and enforcement mech~isms Meeting ~5: · · · Practical Guide to Consensus 49 ORCaU',qZaT~ON~t M~TrNG S~t'~PE AGENDA Le~ve Adviso~ Commiuee on Envimnmental ~d Abat~ent 10 ~m. W~come: ~-&~r~Sen. Smi~, ~p. Jon~ Intmdu~ons ~ 0: ~ 5 ~eN~ of~enda ~d 0bjectiv~ for me Mee..g G Obje~iV~: · ~ree to gound'r~ or~ ' : ': ."' ' , ' a Iden~ i~sU~ an~ .d~elop a work:pl~ ~:~3' ~ ~d ~eeto ~ised g~ound rul~ for ~e ~mmittee the ~ uge to ~e ~mmi~tee, indudin u~ pro ~ ~ role in leg~la~on and rule d~el0pment ces~ ~ ~bHc ~genu dist Identi~ the i~u~ ~at n~ to be ~ddr~sed by ~e ~mmittee pan The 12 noon L~ch gro~ i p.m.. 7'D~C~s ism~ ~ ~ch~ i~orma~on v with T' In ge ~ . ~ eter~in~ Age~da Items for N~ Pu~o~ legitim The pu ~e, s~ dec sion =~ ~hich is~ "~ ~etail, on ' <~' ~'=~ubstanti 50 Practical Guide to Consensus HOW TO WRITE GROUND RULES Ground rules do more than simply outline the structure of the process and the procedural norms of the group (e.g. how decisions will be made). They also define the purpose and scope of the negotiations as well as describe behavioral expectations, such as how group members will communicate. Ground rules are the culmination of the planning and Before organizing phases. The following discussion of ground rules includes the broader definitions of'charters' or 'pro-· Assess whether or not to/f~j~ tOCOIS,' which cover the structure and organization of use a c0ncensus process the process, the make-up of the group, as well as the · Engage participants procedural guidelines and the decision rule. The pro- · selecta~acil~tator Durin cess for establishing the ground rules is important; the more· Plan and organize the~ process distrust and controversy that exists, the more open and ~ · Write ground rules . participatory development of the ground rules should be. ~..-.3; The facilitator usually is responsible for drafting the .... ground rules after completing the assessment interviews and planning steps. The facili- tator then shows the proposed ground rules to the participants and discusses them with the full group at the first meeting. Primary elements to include in ground rules In general, ground rules should address the following: · Purpose and scope · Decision making · Representation, roles, and responsibilities · Procedural requirements, sunshine laws, and confidentiality · Behavioral guidelines · Organization and conduct of the process · Time frame and schedule · Communications with the public and the media · Facilitator's roles and responsibilities · Funding issues Purpose andscope-What is the purpose of the process? The purpose or mission of a consensus process is a threshold provision in the ground rules. It includes framing and legitimizing the issues that the parties will address. These should be written in terms that everyone can accept and understand. The purpose statement should describe the kind of decision the group is empowered to make, such as whether the final product will be advisory, a set of formal recommendations, or actual decisions. Ground rules must address how the consensus process relates to of}icial decision making bodies or traditional decision making procedures. Ground rules also should lay out the scope dissues to be discussed and clearly identify which issues are inside or outside that scope. The parties may wish to describe these in detail, or they may prefer to be more general, addressing the specifics during their substantive discussions. Practical Guide to Consensus 5 1 ~ ~:~ What format will the agreement take? The ground rules should describe the ex format of the agreement, including which government entities it will be deliv for official public review and how that process will occur. These considerations change depending on the discussions and terms of the agreement. However, the ~' ~, should consider from the outset how an agreement will become an official ove decision and which format is best suited to that process. How will members agree to act in support of the consensus agreement? The rules may also specify how members will support and advocate for consensus ~l}. their own constituencies as well as with official decis'on akers and the public I m the formal adoption and implementation phases. Decision making--The ground rules should establish how the group will mal~..:. sions. They should define what consensus means in a way that enables'the !.:,- know what is required to reach agreement, Consensus can be defined po.~l~tt~ agreement everyone can live with) or negatively (an agreement around whi no dissent). ~, What will be the status of the initial agreements? It is important to decide;}-,. agreements will be tentative until accepted by constituencies or until the parti,~.. them as part of a total package. Viewing initial agreements as tentative until ~.~ package is acceptable has the advantage of allowing constituents to play a mg,- role in the agreement. Ground rules should specify how constituencies will tatlye agreements and review components of those agreements during thep. - ties often have different ways ofmaklng decisions within their separate constit!~ . What will happen if the group cannot reach consensus? This possibill clearly addressed in the ground rules. If the parties agree on some, but n'9. · issues, they may wish to specify in their tentative agreement those that ~ - then agree on a way to frame or revisit those that are unresolved. Representation, roles, and responsibilities-xXlho are the participants ali~ , 'l represent? The ground rules should list the interests to be represent.ed.7.~' ~ There may be more than one representative for each interest. Some~: ' parties with similar interests will form a caucus and choose a represen}. cases, a single representative for each interest comes to the table, witlj . alternate in case s/he is absent. The ground rules list all participanl~i . represent. .... · ... . . ' specifying what happens if a member is unable to be present. They ~' alternates must also attend meetings and the role they will play wh~-' absent. In some cases, ground rules include provisions to bring in new stantive discussions have begun. It is important for participants that may emerge during the discussions. ; 52 Practical Guide to Consensus What role will thc sponsor's staff play in the discussions? Tbe sponsoring agency may have a representative who will be negotiating along with the other participants. In addition, staff may be called on to provide technical expertise or to explain the range of solutions that fall within the agcncy's mandate. Some agency representatives limit their participation to these tasks, while others participate fully in the process. The ground rules should be explicit about the role of the sponsoring agency and its staff~ Will there be observers? Most consensus processes for public issues are held in open meetings that anyone may attend. The ground rules may state that observers should be seated separately from the members and are not perm tted to nterrupt the discussions. Observers often are permitted to address the session at designated times. In some cases, laws or mandates may require this kind of public involvement, and these should be specified in the ground rules. How will participants communicate with their constituencies? Ground rules should address whether and how representatives will check back with their constituencies. If there are additional parties to be kept infbrmed, whose job will that be? What happens ifa participant withdraws from the process? Since the participants rep- w resent the necessary interests, the process should theoretically stop if one or more of lie them decide to leave the table. However, ira participant has no objection to the other ve parties continuing to try to reach consensus, the other parties must decide whether the n- effort should move forward without the absent party. Ground rules such as those in the lr- Canadian Round Table model suggest that a party who wants to withdraw be required to explain their reasons to the others and convince at least one other participant that the process should end. be :he Procedural requirements, sunshine laws, and confutentialiCy--Consensus processes may ed, be subject to procedural requirements, which may be embodied in laws or regulations. Administrative procedure acts often specify requirements for public notice, review, and comment. At the federal level, a consensus building group is subject to the Federal hey Advisory Committee Act. At the state or local level, open meetings or public records ess. provisions may be applicable. If the process is subject to these kinds of requirements, r of the ground rules should address how those requirements will be met. :her ~ted Ground rules should address how to handle confidentiality and should strike a balance :hey between the need for confidentiality and the need for openness. If there is confidential information that could assist the discussions, ground rules should define how that information will be used yet still be kept confidential. For example, copies of the infor- ipa- marion might be distributed at the beginning of the discussion and returned at the .ngs, end. Or a fhct-finder could use confidential information to prepare reports that will be that distributed to all participants. ,.d is Ground rules often make provisions for caucusing at the request of either the partici- pants or the facilitator. Especially when the meetings are open, it is important to pro- sub- vide people with an opportunity to confer informally and off the record. ~ rties Behavioralguidelines--Often, and especially where past history among the parties has been acrimonious, ground rules set out how discussions will be conducted and estab- lish certain behavioral guidelines. These might include such rules as: Practical Guide to Consensi~s 53 · Only one person will speak at a time and no one will interrupt when another person is speaking. · Each person will express his or her own views rather than speaking for others. · Each person will make an effort to listen carefully and to remain open minded. · No one will make personal attacks or issue statements attributing positions or statements to other participants. · Everyone will make an effort to stay on track and avoid grandstanding. Sometimes ground rules address the kinds of activities that participants or their con- stituents should avoid during the process, such as lobbying the legislature or making statements to the media. Organization and conduct of the process--How will meetings be organized and con- ducted? Parties may want to specify in the ground rules how and when meetings will , last. The parties may also wish to specify how changes will be made to the agenda 1 between meetings and how time or agenda changes will be communicated prior to f meetings. a How will records of the meetings be kept? Consensus processes are not usually me- chanically recorded, nor are detailed minutes written that keep track of who says what. ir It is essential, however, to provide a written report of each meeting, stating progress as gl well as next steps and tasks. The ground rules may include provisions for this, specify- ing who will prepare the records and how they will be distributed and reviewed. sh How will the group manage information? Many complex public conflicts involve tech- nical or scientific information. Ground rules sometimes state that all parties will be ensured access to this information, with enough time to comprehend it and prepare for meetings. Ground rules may also provide for how documents will be drafted, circu- lated, and revised. Working groups may be established to undertake more in-depth discussions or to de- velop proposals for consideration by the full group. The ground rules usually specify that the make-up, roles, and responsibilities of the working groups will be determined by the full membership. Sometimes ground rules provide for inclusion of resource people or others who are not designated representatives to the process. l~meJ~ameandschedule--A timetable for the process must be included in the ground rules. The rime alloted to complete the process should be based on actual schedules and events. Deadlines are helpful, but they must be realistic.'It may be useful to specify interim checkpoints for measuring progress. If a process is not working, such interim points may make it easier to change or re-evaluate deadlines. Communications with the publlc and the media~If meetings are required to be open to the public and the media, ground rules should specify how sunshine law require- ments will be met. They may also cover whether or not there will be press conferences, press releases, or a spokesperson for the group. Alternatively, some groups decide that all members can make statements as long as they do not speak for the group as a whole or attribute statements to others. 54 Prac~calGuide to Consensus i ~er Facilitator~ roles and responsibilities~Ground rules should describe the role the fa- cilitator will play. These may include such items as formulating agendas, preparing ers. meeting reports, ensuring compliance with ground rules, serving as a confidential chan- nded. nel for participants' concerns between meetings, keeping formal decision makers in- ~ions or formed of progress, or remaining impartial with regard to the outcome of the delibera- tions. Ground rules should also include a provision that the facilitator will serve at the discre- elr con- tion of the group and may be dismissed by the members. The provision may include making how a replacement will be selected in the event of a dismissal. Funding issues--A clause explaining how the facilitator will be paid may be included in ~nd con- the ground rules. If participants arc concerned that the facilitator is under contract to ings will one party, such as the sponsoring agency, the ground rules may provide for a subcom- . For ex- mittee to oversee the contract. In of the · agenda If financial support is being provided to some or all participants to attend meetings or prior to for other purposes, the ground rules should acknowledge this and specify how these arrangements are being handled. ~ally me- In addition to these general elements, the ground rules should include any other issues ays what. important to the stakeholders. The following pages contain two useful examples of togtess as ground rules that were written for actual cases: one on Medicaid reform in Ohio and ;, specify- another from a federal regulatory negotiation over use of the Cape Cod National Sea- red. shore. olve tech- es will be .repare for ed, circu- or to de- fly specify etermined ,f resource he ground schedules to specify ch interim to be open tw require- onfcrences, decide that , as a whole Practical Guide to Consensus 55 MEDICAID REFORM WORKING GROUP Ground Rules The charge from the Legislative Committee to the Working Group is to develop consensus on recommendations for legislation regarding the reform of the long-term ca~e reimbursement system for the State of Ohio. The goal of the Working Group will be to produce a set of consensus recommendations. The Group's recommendations will take the form of a written report with proposed legislative language, signed by members of the Working Group. The Working Group will meet regularly with the Legislative Committee to discuss issues and report on progress. The Working Group agrees to operate according to the following ground rules: I. DECISION MAKING A. The Working Group will operate by consensus. Consensus means there is no dissent by any member. No member can be outvoted. Group decisions will be made by consensus of all members represented at the meeting. Absence will be equivalent to not dissenting. B. The goal of the Working Group is to reach consensus on as many issues before the Group as possible. Regarding those provisions where consensus cannot be reached, the report will present options with pros and cons for each option. All consensus agreements reached during the negotiations are tentative until members agree to the finaj. package of agreements. C. 'Pne Working 'Group flay agree to use task groups for discussion and drafting purposes. D.. A caucus can be declared at any time by the faCilitator or requested by the members so members can confer privately, or so the facilitator can meet with them. E. The Working Group may discontinue negotiations at any time if the discussions do not appear likely to be Slaccessful. Ii MEMBERSHIP AND ATTENDANCE A.vAn the inter~st.of malfntaining Continuity in dlscussions, Working Group members commit to attending each Working Group session and agree that they intend to use a designated alternate on a limited basis. Alternates will be designated by letter or phone call to the facilitator before the meeting. B. The Working Group will be assisted by designated resource persons. Resource persons will not function as decision making members of the Working Group unless they have been designated as an alternate representative for a Working Group member. IlL SAFEGUARDS FOR THE MEMBERS A. All members intend to set personal biases aside and to engage in good faith in all aspects of these informal negotiations. B. Members agree to take the responsibility for communicating information from the Working Group to their organizations or constituencies. C. Any representative may withdraw from the Working Group at any time without prejudice. 56 Practical Guide to Consensus MEmCMD REFORM WORKroe GaouP Ground Rules, continued D. Personal attacks and prejudicial statements will not be tolerated. E. Contact with the press will be limited to discussions of the objectives and progress of the discussions. No discussions characterizing the position of any other member, or the interest he or she represents, will be held with the press. III. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS A. The meetings will be conducted according to these ground rules adopted by the Working Group. Roberrs Rules of Order will not be used. Reports of Working Group meetings will be kept and made available to the public upon request, after review and approval by the Working Group. B. Working Group meetings will be open to the public. C. At the end of each meeting, the Working Group will discuss and agree to agendas for the next two meetings. IV.. FACILITATION The facilitator will serve at the pleasure of the Working Group and may be dismissed by the Working Group. It is understood that: · The facilitator will make every attempt to keep the parties focused on the issues and objectives. · The facilitator is responsible for ensuring that the parties adhere to the agreed process and ground · Anything said to the fadlitator in private conversation or shared in private caucuses ~'emains confidential, unless otherwise authorized by the parties. J r CAPE COD NAnONAL SFASHORE: OFF-ROAD VEhqCLE USE Negotiated Rulemaking Committee--Organizational Protocols I. MISSION STATEMENT The National Park Service has established this 'Cape Cod National Seashore Off Road Vehicle Use Negoti- ated Rulemaking Committee tO negotiate and develop a proposed rule revising off-road vehicle use regula- tions at Cape Cod National Seashore. II. PARTICIPATION A. The Committee consists ofthe:,f-oll0wing memberS: 1. Association for the Preservation 6fCape~Cod 2. Cape clod 3. Cape Cod Commission 4. Cape Cod Salties 5. Citizens Concerned for Seacoast Management 6. Conservation Laq~Fotmdation 7. Highland Fish and (;me Club 8. Mass:i~husetts Audt~bon Society 9. Ma~sidausetts Be3.ch Buggy Ass0dation .:: I1. 'Ma~aehusetts D.eF~m.~nt. gf~nyi~o.nZm,'.'~Pro,!...'6n i3: ' ....::""'. ' · " 14. Sier?a~lUb- ' '~:':' ' ~:' "' · ~ 7~!:~ ~' 15.'.Towh~/'Chatham -: ..... %. ~! .. - ....... ..... ... ..I¢. , -, 16. :Town~fEastham '::' : ~" ~TL'? ~;7~!~ "fS' ~4~L ..... ~ .. :. ..:~f: r ' ' " 19. To~ia"0rT~ur0 ". : .... 20 Tc$~n:ofWellfleet .:' .'... 21. U.SC Fish:ahd Wildlife Service B. Each Commi~ee meanher shill identify a principaLand alternate spokesperson who will '~present such member for purp6ses ofdetermlning consensus. Alternates will serve as spokespersons in the absence of the prindpal spokesperson C. Additional members may join the Committee. Any requests for membership shall be approved by con- sensus of the Committee under such conditions as may be established at the time. Participation may begin immediately upon admission to membership. IIL DECISION MAKING A. The Committee will operate by consensus (there must be no dissent by any member for the Committee to be considered to have achieved consensus). Thus, no member can be ourvoted. Members should not block or withhold consensus unless they have serious reservations about the solution that is proposed for consen- sus. Absence will 'be equivalent to not dissenting. All consensus agreements reached during the negotiations are assumed to be~ tentative until members of the Committee agree to make them final agreements. 58 Practical Guide to Consensus CAVE COD N,~T~ONAL SEASHORE: OFF-ROAD VEHICLE USE Negotiated Rulemaking Committee, continued IV. AGREEMENT A. The goal of the Committee is to develop a written statement to include proposed rule language ready for publication in the Federal Register that reflects a final consensus by the Committee. B. If the Committee reaches a final consensus on all issues, which includes proposed rule language ready for publication in the Federal Register, the National Park Service will use this consensus language in its notice of proposed rulemaking. Unless otherwise agreed upon at the close of the negotiations, Committee members will refrain from commenting negatively on the consensus~based language. C. To the extent that the Committee does not reach a final consensus on some or all issues, the National Park Service will draft a notice or proposed rulemaking consistent with any final agreements that were reached. Committee members shall retain their right to comment negatively on those aspects of such a notice of proposed rulemaking that are not based on a final consensus. D. The National Park Service will not alter the consensus language of notice of proposed rulemaking unless such substantive changes are a result of suggestions or recommendations of another federal governmental entity. If the Nadonal Park Service makes such changes, the National Park Service wilt identify the changes made subsequent to consensus in the notice of proposed rulemaking preamble, and Committee members may comment positively or negatively on those changes and on other parts of the notice of proposed rulemaking. V. COMMITI'EE MEETINGS A. The negotiations will be conducted under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Meetings of the full Committee will be announced in the Federal Register prior to the meeting, to the extent that time permits, and w'dl be open to the public. Members of the public will be permitted to file wtitten comments on Committee proceedings. Brief opportunities for oral public comment will be provided at each meeting. The time and manner of such comments shall be as determined by the Facilitators. B. Summaries of Committee meetings will be provided by the facilitators and, after review and approval by the Committee, will be made available to the public. Members who wish to include statements in the sum- maries may so request. C. Caucuses for the purposes of consultation may be requested of the facilitators at any time by any member. D. The facilitamrs will be responsible for developing an agenda for all meetings of the Committee. This agenda will be developed in consultation with members of the Committee. Practical Gutde to C'onsensus 59 HOW TO NEGOTIATE THE ISSUES AND REACH AGREEMENT Everything up to this point has been leading to theparties really sitting down to begin talking and negotiating. lf you have.~llowed all the steps regarding assessment, engaging participants, and organizing the process, you are teadyer the discussions to begin. This chapter outlines ways to create the dimate J~r collaborative problem solving, and some of the most important steps in negotiating the issues and reaching consensus. There are several excellent resources--/isted in the bibliography--that provide more in-depth in~rmation about this important phase era con- sensus process. Create the climate for negotiations Before For parties to feel they can safely express their views, During negotiations should occur in an atmosphere that pro- · Assess whether or not to motes communication and collaboration. It is worth · Engage participants issues and thinking about how to foster that kind of climate be- · Select a hCgitator reach A~:er fore the parties begin working on the issues. The previ- · P)an and organize the ous steps--designing a process that includes all neces- process agreement saD, interests and ensuring that their issues will be ad- I · write ground rules ~agr, dressed--are essential elements in creating a construc- tive dimate for consensus. ', ................... ~ ' ., ~""~ .... Meetings should be held in a place that is comfortable and accessible to all partici- pants. The location should have good meeting spaces and room for break-out groups and caucuses. In difficult situations it may be a good idea to hold the meetings on neutral turf and provide opportunities for people to get acquainted. This is one way to create an informal atmosphere and put people at ease. Arranging for people to eat together also helps them get better acquainted and communicate more easily. The room should be arranged so that everyone can participate effectively. Usually par- ticipants are seated around tables arranged in a square or circle so that everyone can see and hear each other. Before each meeting, the sponsor or facilitator should ensure that all participants have the necessary information, agendas and supporting materials. The facilitator's role is to establish and maintain a safe environment for participants and a positive tone for the meetings. Facilitators try to ensure that meetings are pro- ductive by keeping discussions focused, summarizing, clarifying and offering process suggestions to help participants achieve their objectives. Facilitators also talk with par- ties individually to test ideas, deal with sensitive matters and make sure they are com- municating with their constituencies. The facilitator typically manages activities between meetings, including meetings of subgroups, and prepares or supervises preparation of meeting summaries or reports. In addition, s/he should schedule enough time between meetings to enable work groups to meet and make progress on issues that need to be brought to the larger group, and to allow for representatives to meet with their constituents. Practical Guide to Consensus Deal with legal requirements: con~dentiality, and sunshine laws It is important to review applicable statutes and understand whatever requiremen~ may apply when planning and structuring your process. It may be necessary to refe/~ these arrangements in the ground rules. The federal government and an increasing number of state governments have pa.~ laws supporting the use of facilitation and mediation. The laws recognize that fa$ rated processes can improve negotiations among parties and enhance the possibili P t,/~ reaching agreements. Sometimes these laws are incorporated in administrative roced? act laws that also spell out requirements for pubhc notice, rev:ew and comment Some o.f these laws include provisions for con~den. tiality of co .mmunications cur durmg the course of certain facilitated or medmted discussxons. At the same } sunshine laws require government bodies to conduct their business and make dec~.i. in public meetings with sufficient prior public notice. The presence of membersi governing body at the negotiating table may trigger sunshine provisions. that affect the public welfare should be made in the open and be subj . ,'. Do this public scrutiny. However, some measure of confidentiality is ge~ .,. necessary when the issues are sensitive and highly charged. ~ ~ .. ofi.en be accomplished through informal conversations and cau~. Collaborative problem solving is cyclical, not lin~ thO~ce ground rules are established, the facilitator helps parti 'el~k problem-solving process. One approach to conducting tl/.~'- .'i~ cussions is to move through the steps in the diagram. ;:~ ' Often, after parties share their perceptions of the issues and 1~. i . facts and information, they can then jointly redefine the issu~ redefinition may lead to further analysis and discovery ofnew'o~..' .. before you do this of the problem, which in turn stimulates further reframint~~ - I enera e sues. This cycle continues until the parties are satisfied wi .I" issues arc framed and are ready to beg n looldng for ways t~}~ '.' them. The facilitator should allow sufficient time for this p~-' ' ~ the discussions; it is unlikely that people will agree on solU/i;.. they can agree on what the problem is! Evaluate ~, , ! alternatives When parties are in conflict, their perceptions are .~a~f~h,,~t~ ' ~ b feelings. For instance, if two people disagree over facts u~ - friends for years, they will have different perceptions ofwt~, on than if tbey have been ~dversaries. if they have not gettY, · ' .-.., ! Make s a e ' ' .: decisions may keep them from being able to hear what the other p~ · ing. In these situations it may be necessary to give peop~ express their feelings. Parties will learn more about h M~ny 0roups jump and perceptions are affecting one another, and these prematurely to solutions help improve the quality and outcome of the discussty. without aOreein0 on the problem 62 Practical Guide to Consensus Use interest-based negotiation Guiding the group toward interest-based negotiations is one of the keys to developing consensus agreements for complex public issues. Getting participants to discuss inter- ests, concerns, or needs--rather than positions--enhances problem solving. By look- ing for the interests that lie behind their positions (whya person wants something, not what they want), participants learn not only about their common and opposing inter- ests but also that they have some interests which simply are different. Once their interests and concerns are on the table, rather than their positions, it may be easier for participants to find ways to jointly frame the issues they want to address. Interestsbased negotiation is a set of principles for converting competitive bargaining into ioint problem solving. This method of reaching consensus, as described by l~oger Fisher and William Ury in Getting to Yes, includes the following principles: · Separate the people from the problem · Focus on interests, not positions · Invent options for mutual gain · Insist on objective criteria to choose among the options After they have communicated with each other about their interests, the parties can begin developing options in ways that recognize, if not satisfy, each other's interests. Inform and educate participants The technical nature of many issues and frequent differences in experience and exper- tise among participants require thoughtful consideration about how to manage infor- mation. At the Front end, different approaches can be employed to deal with informa- tion. Sponsors and other participants can present information to each other, invite experts to make presentations, take field trips, etc. Information technology and advances in lnternet resources and e-mail have made the computer a useful and efficient way to man- age and disseminate information. Web sites can provide means to distribute materials, review drafts, and receive comments from the participants, constituents, and the public. In some cases, information my be missing and the group will need to agree on some process for obtaining it. For example, in the Ohio Medicaid Reform case, at the initial meetings of the working group, experts with different views were invited to meet with the group. The issues were highly technical and with the help of the experts, ~vork-group members were able to make real progress at a critical point in the discussions. In contentious situations, issues often arise concerning the validity, accuracy, reliabil- ity, or uncertainty about available information. People typically present information that supports their positions. To deal with these differences, facilitators can work with the participants to define criteria for developing new data. The objective is to get the parties to specify what information should be generated, for what purpose, and by whom. It may be useful also to identify how gaps in information or disagreements about it will be handled. In the Santa Barbara Channel case, the group identified specific questions they wanted answered, agreed on criteria for selecting experts, and then jointly chose the experts. While they did not commit themselves beforehanOi to ac- cepting the results of the inquiry, they ultimately approved of them, largely because they had approved the process by which the answers were developed each step of the way. Practical Guide to Consensus 63 Sometimes participants need to grapple with uncertainties that cannot be resolved. Under those circumstances, participants must decide what is adequate information. They can then develop agreements that allow for adaptation later as new information becomes available. The facilitator may need to help experts translate their information to make it more under- standable to participants. Some facilitators work with experts on a given subject matter to help mange and translate information. Six steps to reaching consensus There is no one right place to begin. The interviews with parties during the assessment may be valuable in determining a starting point. The meetings may begin with infor- mational presentations from experts or participants, or with participants laying out all the issues. Or they may begin by identifying the goals they hope to achieve or criteria for the kinds of outcomes they wouId like to accomplish. In other instances, where emotions are running high, participants may need to begin by taking turns venting their concerns about what happened before or may happen next. Then they will be able to move toward a mutual definition of the issues and ways to address them. However the process begins, the following steps are typically taken: 1. Develop a common statement of purpose No matter how the discussions begin, it is a good idea to develop some statement of what the end product should look like to be acceptable to everyone. This can be a com- mon statement of goals and objectives or a general description of outcomes the group hopes to achieve. This gives the group something by which to measure the end product. 2. Exchange views and inJ~rmation When parties in a collaborative problem solving process have diverse points of view about difficult issues, they need to develop a shared framework of understanding. That doesn't mean they must agree with one another's perspectives, but rather be able to acknowledge that others hold different views and values. This kind of understanding emerges from carefully listening to each other's perspectives and feelings, and from a willingness to be tolerant and respectful of differences. The facilitatnr plays a key role by urging people to ask questions about each other's views and by clarifying issues and feelings in ways that help people overcome misunderstandings. Participants also educate one another. They learn about each stakeholder's perception of the issues and the specific interests that will need to be satisfied. After they have done this, they will need to jointly define the issues to be resolved. This involves reframing the issues in ways that meet all interests. They may identif? and exchange additional information to enable everyone to understand the jointly defined issues. 3. Generate options that accommodate the interests Once the major issues are identified, participants begin developing options for ad- dressing them. It may be useful to encourage participants to generate multiple options so they can begin to see beyond their favorite solutions. Or they may generate compre- hensive proposals that attempt to address all the key issues. The group can create these options in a number of ways. They may work on some 64 Practical Guide to Consensus issues through task or work groups drawn from their diverse interests. Or they may ask technical experts to help them come up with options. Or each party may develop proposals to bring to the whole group for consideration. 4. Identi~ criterkt by which to judge the options In order to evaluate the various options and proposals that may be on the table, partici- pants ueed to establish guidelines or criteria for determining the appropriateness and ac- ceptability of each option. The criteria should arise from the interests that have been iden- tified. Participants may develop these criteria either before or after identifying the options, but in either case the criteria should be objective enough for them to make clear choices among the options. The criteria are applied to the options to determine which are accept- able, which are unacceptable, and xvhich need further work or discussion. 5. Assemble the agreed upon optiotu into a package that addresses all issues and accommo- dates all interests The key to getting agreement is often packaging options in ways that can satisfy different interests. A variety of methods can be used to develop such a package as the basis for discussion and modification. Experienced facilitators are familiar with such methods. Since the group will make decisions by consensus, it may be useful to test whether they are getting close. Participants can use a voting scale that ranks people's options: 1. Wholeheartedly agree 2. Supportive 3. Can live with it 4. Reservations about it--let's talk more 5. Serious concerns exist--must talk 6. Reject it--will block it This method can help sort out where there is already a measure of consensus and where more time needs to be spent discussing or reformulating the options. 6. Develop the final agreement Once the group has developed consensus on a package of options, members of the group or a subgroup (or the facilitator) can begin drafting the language of the final agreement, including provisions for implementation. Parties will then review the draft and negotiate until they have a version that satisfies them, Once they have a satisfac- tory draft, they may wish to present it to their constituencies for review. This must be done carefully because agreements usually represent a series of trade-offs and linkages, so tampering with one element can effect the willingness of the parties to support other elements of the agreement. That is why on-going communication with constitu- ents is so important: there should be no surprises at the end of the process. Any sug- gested changes are then brought back to the group for further discussion. If partici- pants agree to make the changes, the agreement may need to be returned to constitu- ents for another round of approval. When the group has reached a full consensus, all participants sign the agreement. While this may be more symbolic than anything else, it can be an important sign of commitment. Practical Guide to Consensus 65 HOW TO FORMALIZE AND IMPLEMENT THE AGREEMENT Many of today~ complex problems can only be solved with the collaboration and cooperation of ~ numerous parties. Consensus processes provide a meansj~br building the ownership and commit- ment it takes to make that happen. ~t consensus reached through an in~rmal, collaborative process is implemented in two stages. First, it is translated into aJarreal decision and second, that decision isput into eject. In this chapter, you will learn what to do be~re, during, andafter the negotiation to increase your chances of producing an e~cHve agreement. Plan for implementation Before beginning with the assessment During Sponsors should keep implementation in mind as · Assess whether or not to After they identify the participants and plan the overall use a c0ncensus pr0~ess ~ln~~~ process, work plan, and ground rules. Parties fre- ~ Engage participants Implement quently overlook the implementation phase in the · setoct a facilitat0rand each lee- up-front planning, and the activities required to carry · Plan and organize the~Zreerne out and monitor the agreement do not get done. process · Write gr0unc~ rules . In a consensus process, representatives ofgovernmen- ' ..... J' taI decision makers usually participate in the discus .............. 4! . . ~'~11~' signs. Part of their job is to keep their principals in- formed of progress and to seek their feedback. Such contacts begin during assessment, when the sponsor first considers the idea of a consensus approach and obtains clear~ ance from agency leadership. As the design of the process takes shape, sponsors should seek advice about how an agreement should look if it is to be adopted. It is best to discuss with leadership how the product oftbe talks will become an official decision of the agency. Then the ground rules can be written to explain the form the agreement must take and other steps required to link the agreement to the formal decision mak- ing process. In the Ohio Medicaid Reform case, for example, the process included the formal deci- sion makers legislators and the governor's office--as recommendations were being developed. The result was unanimous passage by the legislature and adoption by the governon The plan also specified that a representative committee would continue to work together to develop and monitor the rules for carrying out the legislation. With- out prior planning, the likelihood of the implementation occurring so smoothly would have been greatly reduced. Keep decision makers and constituencies informed The facilitator works with participants to determine the best mechanism for keeping agency leaders and constituency groups informed and getting their feedback on issues and tentative agreements. The group should seek advice on whether agreements are likely to be acceptable to decision makers, ensuring that all elements of the agreement are in accordance with existing policies and requirements. These steps are necessary before a sponsor can present the agreement for official public review and comment. Different stakeholders usually make decisions in different ways. Some groups are hier- archical-representatives report to leadership who then decides. Some take votes and PracticalGuide to Consensus 67 decide by majority rule. Other groups won't adopt their representative's tions until every member has accepted them. Some governments, such as town cils, may meet once a week and require advance notice before taking can take several weeks for an agreement to be ratified. The late mediator Frank. used to ask each representative at the organizational meeting to describe how his or In group made decisions and how long that took. Gaffney said people were always sur_ priscd by the answers and the different approaches to decision making. These different needs regarding ratificaion can be incorporated in the ground rules. In the agreement, it is important to set out clear tasks and a schedule for implementa- tion, clarifying contingencies, resource needs, and oversight responsibilities. It is best to define clear assignments--answers to "what," "who," and "by when." If the docuo ment is an agreement in principle, the next step may be to form a committee to wonk out a detailed plan for implementation. The plan might specify monitoring proce- dures or establish an oversight committee. Ingredients for successful implementation A consensus process must be purpose-driven. Each group and individual around the table should be clear about the purpose and ultimate goals of their extraordinary ef- forts. Implementation is most likely to be successful if parties never lose sight of their goals. Agreements work when the parties are committed to them and have enough resources to put them into effect. But agreements that set broad policies may require more fol- low up than agreements that settle specific disputes. As policies are translated into regulations or specific actions, conflict may re-emerge. Relationships among parties can play a big role during implementation. Dynamics can change after parties leave the negotiating table. New people may sit on the monitoring committee, or parties may still be adversaries on other public issues. The facilitator can play a role in coordinating follow-up activities since s/he will likely have the trust of the participants and should not have a vested interest in implementation of the agreement. There are a number of ways to improve the chances of implementation and to moti- vate participants to stay engaged throughout implementation. For example, a signing ceremony can showcase the achievement and give parties credit for their efforts. Such events give some public ownership of the outcome and the publicity can also make it harder for parties to back out. It is not necessary to wait until the end of the process to have a party. Celebrating success along the way can also build momentum. Studies of successful projects universally come up with the strategy of: Do something--Celebrate-- Do something--Celebrate again.tWhen an implementation effort is designed with im- mediate, doable steps that are immediately publicized o~' celebrated, it creates positive momentum that influences people to st~.y engaged. Bat happens before, during, and after to ensure implementation? The steps a sponsor takes before, during, and after a consensus process can ensure the process is purpose-driven from start to finish. Although a sponsor alone does not decide whether there should be a process or how it should operate, sponsors play a key role as leader, partner and stakeholder. It is important to keep in mind, however, the core principle of consensus building: parties sham decisions about the nature of the process and its out- 68 Practical Guide to Consensus come. The following is a summary of those steps, which arc described in detail in the previous chapters of this guide. Before the discussions begin... · Decide whether or not to use a consensus-bazed approach~-Some issues lend them selves to consensus and others don't. An assessment is a crucial step in making this determination. · Engage participants to ensure the process is representative---For decisions to be truly collaborative, all necessary interests must be represented, or at [cast approve of the process. Those participants usually represent stakeholder interests, and their participation is voluntary. They share in the decision making and must be able to participate effbctively in the process. · Select and work with a J~cilitator--The key principle for a facilitator is to act impartially with regard to the interests of the parties and the outcomes. · Plan and organize the process--The structure of the process must be determined before parties actually begin talking about the issues. This involves working through an array of concerns, including what committing to a process might entail and the logistics around that process. · Writegroundrule.~The "Before" steps are complete when the parties have devel- oped and agreed to a set of ground rules describing the procedures that will govern the process. During the discussions... · Negotiate the issues and reach agreement--In the substantive talks, it is important for parties to feel that they can safely express their views in an atmosphere condu- cive to collaboration and effective communication. The six steps to reaching con- sensus described in Chapter 9 offer a useful way to proceed through the negotiations. After the discussions... · Forrealize and implement the agreementsThe Best Practice Reporr's recommen- dations to sponsoring agencies is a good starting place for sponsors to ensure successful use of consensus decision making. The report includes the following six recommendations that can contribute to successful implementation: Best Practice recommendation 1 An agency should first consider whether a consensus approach is appropriate. When the right conditions exist, consensus decision making can enhance voluntary compliance and commitment to implementation. Best Practice recommendation 2---Stakeholders should be supportive of the process and willing and able to participate. When all key stakeholders are represented throughout the process and support the agreement, the outcome will be viewed as legitimate. Best Practice ~Pcommendation ~-Agency leaders should support the process and ensure sufficient resources. When leadership makes a commitment to the process, the agree- ment is much more likely to be implemented. Best Practice recommendation 4z~An assessment sh~ulc{ precede a consensus process. Through a careful assessment, an agency and other parties can determine that the right conditions exist for seeking consensus. Practiral Guide to Consensus 69 Best Practice recommendation 5---Ground rules should be mutually agreed upon by all participants, and not established solely by the sponsoring agency. When the process is jointly controlled and the outcome arrived at by consensus is owned by all partici- pants, implementation is more likely. Best Practice recommendation F>--The sponsoring agency and participants should plan for implementation of the agreement from the beginning of the process. When the sponsoring agency, other participants and the facilitator plan and design the process with implementation in mind, it is more likely to take place smoothly. Consensus seeking processes have many moving parts. This guide is an overview of the key elements to sponsoring or participating in a consensus process effectively and successfully. {/V The sources identified in the bibliography provide additional information on how to de- "~ · ~ sign consensus building processes with quality outcomes and workable agreements. 70 Practical Guide to Consensus BIBLIOGRAPHY Carpenter, Susao and W.J.D. Kennedy. Managing Public Disputes: A Practical Guide to Handling Conflict and Reaching Agreements. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publish- ers, 1988. Cormick, Gerald, Norman Dale, Paul Edmond, S. Glenn Sigurdson, and Barry D. Stuart. Building Consensusj~r a Sustainable b~ture: Putting Principles into Practice. Ottawa: National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, 1996. Cormick, Gerald. '~Crafting the Language of Consensus," Negotiation Journal, Vol- ume 7, Number 4, October, I99l. Doyle, Michael and David Straus. How to Make Meetings Work. New York: Jove Books, 1976. Gray, Barbara. C~llaborating: Finding Common Ground~r Multiparty Problems. San Francisco and London: Jossey-Bass Publishers, I989. Fisher, Roger and Alan Sharp. Getting It Done.' How to Lead When l~u >e Not in C/,arge. New York: Hatper Business, 1998. Fisher, Roger and William Ury. Getting to l~s. New York: Penguin Books, 1991. Hargrove, Robert. Mastering theArt of Creative Collaboration. New York: Business Week Books/McGraw-Hill, 1998. Kaner, Sam, Lenny Lind, Catherine Toldi, Sarah Fisk, and Duane Berger. Facilitator} Guide to Participatory Decision-Making. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers, 1996. Levine, Stewart. Getting to Resolution: Turning Conflict into Collaboration. San Fran- cisco: Berrett-Koehlcr Publishers, Inc. 1998. McCloskey, Michael. "The Skeptic: Collaboration Has its Limits." High Country News, May 13, 1996, p. 7. McKinney, Matthew. Resolving Public Disputes: A Handbook on Consensus Building. Helena, Montana: Montana Consensus Council, 1998. Moore, Christopher. Theblediation Process. San Francisco: Josscy-Bass Publishers, 1986. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. CollaborativeApproaches to Decision-making and Conflict ResoluHon jbr Natural Resource and Land Use Is- sues: A Handbook ]br Land Use Planners, Resource Managers, and Resource i~lanage- ment Courtills, 1996. (503~373-0050.) Schrage, Michael. No M;re Teams/Mastering the Dynamics of Creative Collaboration. New York: Currency/Doubleday, 1989. Practical Guide to Consensus 71 1 · .' ; Schwarz, Roger M. The SkilledFacih'tator: Practical Wisdomj~r DevelopingEf/bctibve ! Groups. San Francisco. Jossey Bass Publishers, 1994. ! Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution. Environment/Public Issues Sector Critical Issues Committee. Best Practicesj3r Government Agencies.' Guidelines far [~ing Col- I laborativeAgreement-SeekingProcesses. Washington, D.C. Society of Professionals | in Dispute Resolution, 1996. Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution (SPIDR). Environmental/Public Dis- putes Sector. Competencies~rMediatorsofComplexDisputes. Washington, D.C.: Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution (SPIDR), 1992. ~ Susskind, Lawrence. A Consensus BuildingHandbook. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, · 1999. Susskind, Lawrence and Jeffrey Cruikshank. Breaking the Impasse. New York: Basic Books, 1987. · Svendson, Ann. The StakehoMer Strategy: Pro~tingj~om Collaborative Business Relation- ships. San Francisco: Berretr-Koehler Publishers, 1998. I Winer, Michael and Karen Ray. Collaboration Handbook: Creating, Sustaining and En- joying the Journey. St Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation. 1-800-274- 6024. Wondolleck, Julia and Clare Ryan, "What Hat Do I Wear Now? An Examination of Agency Roles in Collaborative Processes," Negotiation Journal, Volume 15, Num- ber 2, April 1999. INTERNET REFERENCES www. agree.org --The Policy Consensus Initiative provides information on state pro- grams of dispute resolution and other public policy-related DR material. www. crinfo.org -- The Conflict Resolution Information Source coordinates conflict related web-based resource catalogs, with links to numerous dispute resolution organizations. www. ecr. gov- The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution is an inde- pendent federal agency that assists parties in resolving environmental conflicts around the country that involve federal agencies or interests. www. mediate.com -- The Mediation Information and Resource Center includes an international directory of conflict rcsolvers and general information about me- diation and conflict resolution. http:/lconsensus.fsu.edu~Florida Conflict Resolution Consortium's Dispute Resolu- tion Directory provides an on-line database. 72 Practical Guide to Consensus · · A Practical (;aide to Consensus Governn~ent ofl;cials and agencies increasingly are tornlug to coIlaborativc decision maklog processes to resolve difficult policy issues and muhiparty conflicts. 'lb do this. agency officials and staff need to understand when and how to usc these approaches effectively. This step-by-s~ep guide contains the rules of the road on how to sponsor, organize, ~md participate in a public policy consensus process. The guide helps readers ensure more effective uses of consensus processes, with "befbre, doring, and after" instruc- tions that include how to: ~ assess whether a situation is appropriate tbr a consensus process i select a facilitator or mediator to manage the process DuHn After'~ A plan and organize c}3~ process Before ~/ ' ~ ' i g , wrkc ground rules A negotiaEc isstlcs and reach agreement forrealize and implement agreements This guide was developed by experts in the field of consensus building with many years of experience in ~acilitating and mediating public disputes. It is designed primarily for governmen~ agencies or depart- ments, but is also useful fbr any other sponsor o~or participant inca consensus process. '7 use consensus processes to resoh,e public poliq problems simply because it works. The compkx t nature ofgues to~y requires an integated col~borative approach to ensure sound, ~sting dechions," Governor John A. Kitzhaber, Oregon 'Tt h important~r citizeus and government to know how to resolve disputes without litigation or resorting to violence." Senator Merle Grace Kearns, Ohio "The og approach gave neither si~ what it wante~ lf you involve thepeopk who must live with yourpoliq, there~ a decent chance you'll get buy-in and ownenhip. I wou~n't hesitate m ~e a simi~r approach w some other area of conflict." Governor Tom Carper, Delaware "With all due respect to the ancient arts of law and diplomacy, the recent development of systematic, teachable teclmiques j~r getting at the roots of conflict, and engaging multiple parties in disciplined and voh~ntary col~boradve problem solving, represents something new in the 5,000 yean of recorded histo~." John W. Gardner, Founder, Common Cause Former Secretary, Health Education and Welfare i, ~c ! ~ p , c I i 18BN 0-1178831-0-5 f41 I 5r. Michad's I)~ivc Suite 102 I B E. hlrcrstatc Ave. Suite 7 Sant,l Fc, New Mexico 87505 Bismarck, ND 58501 g 788967 883186 Volum~ 12, Number I 'SPRING 2001 ON STUDY CIRCLES Getting a civic life By Martha L. McCoy L" ~ ' ""~'~"'~"" Residents SCRC Executive Director from Madera Afewyears ago. ~' and Fresno, ~ California, CONTENTS I had the ' '~ ' meet in .privilege of ~ ,, study circles Getting a civic life ......I meeting Leslie · i ~ c " to address Dreyfous, a national / ~i_ ./s~ the issue of Community Voices reporter for the ~ growth and Decatur Roundtables, Associated Press. She / t development Decatur, Georgia ..........2 was writing a series of SCRC Protecting communities, yearning for ': tr" · organizing clinic in serving the public community and / % Madera. Study circles provide new connectedness. She hope for police- spent a year traveling community relations......3 around the country, meeting people who News from community- were reaching out wide programs 4 beyond themselves and making a difference. Often. when we try to "get a civic ............ life" when we try to co~nbine our individual The people she met and the stories they told ideas and efforts for community change - we Announcements .......... 6 convinced her that many people do care about get stymied. We know that as individuals, we others and about being an active part of their have good will and good ideas. But we're not ~ communities. She found that many people are. sure how to make our voices heard by ': in fact, "getting a life." (That was the title of policymakers or by each other, Public the book that she wrote the following year.) institutions and agencies can seem far removed :: from everyday people and from each other. COMMUNITY DISCONNECT People in the same community, even neighbors, Lately. I've been reflecting on Leslie's themes. are often disconnected from each other. Her insights are as m Jr and important as ever Like Leslie, other writers have noted how When we do try to work together on a public much caring. capacity, and energy "ordinal}- problem, there is frequently a breakdown of people" (that is, all of us) have. The everyday communication and trust between people and stories of people making a difl~2rence seldom groups from different backgrounds and sectors, attract national notice. but when we pay People have different perspectives and attention, v,'e can see thein all around US. experiences. and so they see the issues [ differently. The solutions that make sense for Yet, we have a persistent sense [lint our ORe person or group may not meet the needs collective life doesn't reflect the best qualities of others. And, there are usually lots of people and capacities of caring individuals. Our on the sidelines, not invited into problem conlmunities and our counu3, are faced with solving or not knowing how to join in, ~} complex issues ~ growth and sprawl, violence, ~--:' racisn:, police community relations, school RECONNECTING COMMUNITY ~ reform. to name but a few. It can be hard to This is why SCRC was formed: to help people see how our individual efforts, no matter how engage in the issues with each other, and solve - FOCUS is the heartfelt or effective. can add up to the kinds complex public problems through more ' newsletter of the of changes these problems call for. productive ways of working together. This is ~ ,, Study Circles the rationale for community-wide study circle .~.G_'f:Resource Center "" (See' Getting a civic life c ~ Itltl e t on b~ 'k page Citizens are making a real difference on issues of C O H U N I T Y V O I C E S di rsity, bo i,g, the environ,,ent an, ,eig,,bor, oods in Decatur, Georgia, since 500 people participated in DECATUR ROUNDTABLES study circles in 1998. Kecia Cun,ingham, Decatur city commissioner, participated in the roundtables, and later was elected to public office. Jon Abercrombie, DEC/~TI, II{j (iEOR(iIA director of the local civic nonprofit Common Focus, coordinated the roundtables and continues tn break new ground in s~udy circle work in and around ~ Decatur · ':":¢~E{~ ilIII~HAF1, too easily paint this as a closed and elitist kind of ' , ;':~1!~$$1011EII program. We're trying hard to let people know that the ;':..~;.. roundtables exist, and that they have been essential in R s have become part of our collective formulating our strategic plan, our web-site, and even way of doing things in Decatur, so that we the way we conduct public meetings. often hear "Can't we use roundtables?" whenever a tough issue arises in the For the roundtables to survive, the support of the city community. At the last city is essential, but the citizens of Decatur will have to commission meeting, the process help maintain the program. On the other hand, it is up was cited as a way for to us as public officials to ensure that we listen to and neighborhoods and developers to do something with the input that comes to us through work together productively. the program. People like handling conflict through Frankly, the only way a Decatur resident wouldn't the roundtables. Our citizens expect know about the roundtables is if they just fell off a to be able to talk about things instead turnip track, and had their eyes closed too. of just letting the city or some other group handle difficult situations, and The process is a fun social opportunity as well as a the roundtables give them a safe, political one. Food gets people where they need to be, validating way of doing it. you know. If you just asked people if they wanted to Kecia Cunningham join a roundtable, and described it only as an To sustain the roundtables in informative political discussion, they'd say, "Sure, right Decatur's civic life, we need to keep the process open after I go to the dentist, sign me up." To get people to and let new people know that they can take part. come, you need to sweeten the pot. People on the outside (if they aren't brought in) can ION ABERCROMBIE, the practices of the university. But there was more. COORDIIIATOR Listening to their stories and watching the occasional tears, 1 knew that the transformations went deeper, L ast week, I walked among somehow to the heart and the soul. the study circles of students, faculty and staff of Study circles - and the work that takes place in them ':'~ Oglethorpe University, site of a fall and around them - transform people and communities. racial incident and the ensuing We who are touched by this passion invest time, conflict and debates that left the energy, and money to create the conditions where issues and the feelings unresolved. those transformations can occur. The transforming power of the work is not in our stmctures, our They told their stories about how materials. our research, or our charm ~ as important they learned prejudice, how they and effective in their own way as all of these are. each felt pushed out or rejected in ion Abercrombie some ways in their lives. As I listened It's when people develop an appreciative to thgir stories, I knew that for many, understanding of others, and when they allow that a transforraation was taking place. I knew change understanding to shape their own would come on the campus among many students, and lives. And if enough people .' .... and that some concrete change might even occur in a community can be transformed ~, (See Abercro,,ww . :';':l:'..,..' t ' -2 communities, serving the public Study circles provide new hope for police-community relations p!lice Chief Greg Smith 7';, In Buffalo, N.Y., a city with a in Louisville, Ky., ) ''~ I decline in population and dmits his department ' :. ] sei-,'ices, and an increase in had a tough time in 2000, Iris ~ e '- " . crime, the United first year as top cop. A citizen : '~ i,. Neighborhoods Center march. an ang~ public organized twenty four circles hearing, and several police to address the concerns of shootings marred Smith's ':.'~ citizens and officers. Each significant effons to rebuild ~¢7 '.., circle is neighborhood based. comnauniW confidence after meaning that the participants the previous chief was fired. all either work or live in that area. The program has This year Smith is expanding ,' "' alread~ helped the center the depa~ment's community ' ~ launch a number of action relations. The Louisville el) , effo~s. including a substance has joined a con~munity-xxide abuse prevention effort and a study circle program that is Lt. Darice Wiley of the Jefferson County (Ky.) Polke Department, television program hy and for bringing together residents. lek, and CaroIyne Abduliah. program director for the Study Circies ~ oung people. police officers from the city and Resource Center, meet with the steering committee planning the county, and community leaders police and community relations study circle program in the greater Favetteville N.C.. began to build trust and work fbr Louisville. Ky., area. organizing study circles on long term change. Organized police community relations by the Kentuckiana Interfaith after participants in a previous CommuniW, the program is using a new SCRC discussion study circle program on race identified problems with police guide, Protecting Communities, Se~ng the Public: Police and as a top concern. "When we got the new police guide in the residents building relationships to u~rk togethe~ to plan a mail from SCRC,' said Gwen Wright, human relations program of public dialogue and problem solving. specialist, "our commissioners said, 'Yes!' Now, here's a vehicle we can use to strengthen relations overall." ~e "People want to feel comfonable in their neighborhood," program plans an action summit in June to consider ideas Smith said. "They want to feel comfortable with police, and from study circle pa~icipants. study circles can help. What I hope is that, together, we'll find ways we can benefit each other. I expect to see good Other communities currently planning study circle programs things come out of the circles." on police-communiW relations are Pr nce Georges' CounW, Md., Fo~ Myers, Fla., and Champaign/Urbana, IlL Many communities like Louisville are looking for ways to improve relationships between residents and police Protecting Communities, Sen~ing the Public offers five depaEments - paEicularly where cultural difference, discussion sessions and m~merous examples of ways policing strategies, and lots of media attention have led to communities are making progress on these issues. The guide distrust, anger and fear. shows people how to connect their dialogue with practical action steps of their own. SCRC also published a companion EyeD,one is affected when the police and residents are at "Busy Citizen's" guide in a smaller format for use by study odds: circle pa~icipants. I Citizens think police are prejudiced and have unfair policies. Teams of police and residents from Syracuse, N.Y., Seattle, I Police feel blame for all kinds of social problems. They Wash., Baton Rouge. La., and Saginaw, Mich., worked with feel they don't get credit for doing their jobs. SCRC to frame the issue and review and test drafts of the I Local elected leaders feel pressure to reduce crime guide. Expels on police-communi~, relations from a number of civil rights. community and law enforcement organizations. Last fall, SCRC published Protecting Communities, Sen'ing the including the police depamnent in Aurora, Ill, also provided Public to help residents and the law enforcement information on the issues and reviewed drafts. ~ne National professionals who seNe them look at all sides of this Orgamzation of Black Law Enforcement Executives complicated issue, build tntst and respect, and find solutions distributed brochures announcing the guide to its 3,500 to tough problems. To date, a half-dozen cities have begun members. planning study circle programs to improve police community relations. Call or e-mail SCRC to order the guide, or download it frmn our web site: ~vww.studycircles.org. News from SYRACUSE, NEW YORK INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA New relationships are leading to real Together with the Annie E. Casey One of the concerns raised in the change in Syracuse. The study circle Foundation, the Indianapolis "Community Chat" study circle program program's action committee and leaders Neighborhood Resource Center is on neighborhood issues in Delray of six banks are working together to conducting its second round of study Beach was the fragile state of relations improve banking services to the city's circles on family issues. Nineteen between Haitian Americans and African comn~unities of color. With the help of circles will finish their discussions in Americans. When a racial incident took study circle participants and organizers, May, bringing the total number of place at the high school, study circle Fleet Bank, J.p. Morgan Chase, H.S.B.C., circles to 46. Program success is due, in organizers and participants, led by MAD Key Bank, M and T, and Solray Bank part, to the buy-in from inner-city DADS, organized a "Unity Dinner" to are developing a Community Resource neighborhood associations. Using the address the situation. MAD DADS has Council to oversee new outreach new SCRC discussion guide Building also agreed to organize a set of study programs and hiring policies that Strong Neighborhoods for Families with circles that will help the city and the emphasize reaching people of color. Children, organizers have succeeded in residents mare decisions about the The council, to be made up of bringing people into the program who redevelopmeat of West Atlantic Avenue, community residents, will be a link have never been included in one of Delray's main thoroughfares. bet~veen the community and the banks community decision making. Residents to ensure that concerns are dealt with in seven neighborhoods are now effectively. In addition, the banks are involved in discussing the problems arranging for their employees to they face and developing plans to solve participate in the study circles and will them. The Indianapolis Foundation, publicize the dialogues on their using funds from the Casey Foundation, community bulletin boards in local will make mini- grants available to branches. support action ideas in these neighborhoods. The study circle program, CommuniW Wide Dialogue on Ending Racism, LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Improving Race Relations, and The five high school communities in Beginning Racial Healing, is also Little Rock recently used the study circle making strides in other areas. A study process to plan for school reform and circle with welfare proriders and hnprovement in hopes of winning a current and former welfare recipients is grant from the Carnegie Foundation. . under way to help build a more Carnegie funded this planning phase, collaborative and productive which Little Rock hopes will lead to a relationship. Since it began in 1996, larger implementation grant of up to $8 almost 900 people have participated in million (to be awarded to five of the Community Wide Dialogue. ten planning-grant recipients). Meanwhile, the schools will implement GATEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD, action ideas from the circles on their OKLAHOMA CITY, own. OKLAHOMA With support and encouragement from There v/ere ~g3 participantsl including the Oklahoma C~ty Neighborhood studentsl teachers~ parents~ school AllCancel the Gatewood Neighborhood board memhers~ senior citizens~ and held a pilot circle using Building other community members. One , discussion focused on Gatewood was an innovative plan to base ' Elementary School, and the school's promotion on competency and do away developer Phil Lynn is uniting citizenS principal artended one of the sessions. with traditional grade Levels and class for study circles on the topic of One outcome of the circle: Participants units. Participants also addressed the growth. Lynn has brought together decided to raise money and recruit issues of class size, parental variety of individuals volunteers to help with various school involvement, accountability, representing diverse points projects. One of the pilot participants, communication, and restructuring support of the growing I Jeronimo Gallegos, said that the school administration. Research teams associations, senior citizen experience was "a great way to get from the schools will combine their organizations back to the idea that every one of us own findings with action ideas from the activists, academics, and can make a difference in our study circles beginning next fall. are included in the group, neighborhoods. It doesn't matter how to begin the first long you've lived there, or how old you are - we can all play a part." -4 tograms OKLAHOMA A state ide round ol's,udyc,rc,es onGetting Started campaign finance and other political reform issues has begun. This is the third large scale organizing effort led by WINONA, MINNESOTA PITTSFORD, NEINYORK the League of Women Voters in that Randy Schenkat and Steve Kranz A planner named john Behan, who state, following rounds on crirainal operate an experiment in civic worked with the study circle justice and education. Sorne 200 people renewal called 'Winona On-line program in Guilderland, New York, artended tile kickoff in Oklahoma City Democracy," which allows told Pittsford City Manager Bill in January. Circles have begun in Tulsa, residents to discuss the key issues Carpenter about the potential of Norman, and Oklahotna City, to be in Winona with community leaders democratic organizing to help a followed soon by Shawnee, Edmond and elected officials (see community deal with issues such as Ada, Muskogee, and Woodward. www.onlinedemocracy. growth. C2a~penter pulled together winona.otg). They were exposed to a steering committee that includes study circles through the "Changing area pastors, CEOs, active Faces, Changing Communities" volunteers, and a high school statewide program on immigration student. That group is now in Minnesota, and at the annual planning a study circle program, meeting of the National Civic called "Pittsford Community Forum: League. Now Winona On-line Building a Vibrant Future," to / .~ Democracy is planning to use study address a range of challenges circles as part of a broader effort to facing the community. engage the community. Standards in education is the first issue they chose to address. WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA In this city scarred by a white FOCUSONSTUI~ClRes supremacist "coup" of black leaders and lsafteee. ini,~ly~the community members in 1898, study circles are promoting racial healing. 6¢/l'~teta, f01~t~3, After an initial round of circles on race, participants from all around the Cape PSmne (860)'928-2616. flla(8~0)928-3713. Fear area see results. Fifty of them met E-mai:~0tg for an interfacial supper that featured Webst~.sludyt~0~. potluck dishes representing each cook's culture or ethnicity, as well as a video screening of the PBS production "Redefining Racism: Fresh Voices from IrrtU~.m~fletgtmtn~ Black America." After a second round was co~npleted, a local radio station hosted an on-air town meeting with a moderator and panel of ahout eight TheStudyC~lesRegoutceCm~(SCRC)lsapmj~t www. stuciycircles.org diverse participants. as well as an in- °ftheTordleklF°undatl°~Inc',an°nPtofit, studio audience. Reading from their n0npalllsanf0undali0ndedlcatedtoadvancing is bursting with grandfathers' journals, two descendants deliberative~andimpt0vingtl-ecpalil./0f of victims of the 1898 incident provided public life ln the United States. SCRCcanl~outthis information. a moving focus for the hroaclcast. missi0nbyhelpingoe~nunities0rganizeatudycirdes - small-group, democratic, highly issue guldes,"h0w-t0"pullicaU0ns, and 0~Mng Be sure to visit andnetwat,tlngas~mce. 0cganlzmc~latge_scal oftenl Announcements...News...Updates...Resources SCRC 'family' welcomes newcomer Des Moines, and Seattle for bringing neighbors together to Congratulations to office manager jill Kornrumpf and talk productively about how tn make things better for M/ke Piaseckt on the binh of their son, Zebulon Luke families and other residents. For copies of the guide, e-mail Pl~ecld. Zeb was born on St. Patrick's Day, keeping alive Cheryl Clark at cherylc@aecf. org or call (410) 223-2952. a Kornru~npf family tradition of holiday birthdays (Jill celebrates her birthday on Dec. 25). Zeb weighed in at 6 GROWI'H GUIDE NOW IN SPANISH pounds, 12 ounces; both mother and son are said to be Call SCRC to order the new Spanish edition of SCRC Busy thriving. We'll do our best to manage while Jill enjoys a Citizen's Guide Smart Talk for Growing Communities. A brief maternity leave! photocopy of CONVERSACIONES SOBRE COMUNIDADES EN CRECIMIENTO: Enfrenteindose a los retos del crecimiento NATIONAL FORUM SCHEDULED FOR JUNE y desarrollo urbano is available at no cost. SCRC will co-sponsor Connecting Communities, a National Forum convened by MRA: Initiatives for Change, and co- LOOK FOR FOCUS THREE TIMES A YEAR hosted by Hope in the Cities, The Faith and Politics Beginning with this issue, we'll be publishing Focus on Institute, and Agenda for Reconciliation. The event will take Study Circles three times a year, rather than quarterly. Later place at Howard University in Washington, D.C., from June this year, we'll be introducing several new publications. 20-24. The forum will focus on building foundations for which are now in development. We're planning a shorter, deep-rooted community change. The aim is to mobilize issue-oriented newsletter to supplement Focus, as well as consciousness, change individual lives, and inspire an e-letter. participants to action. For more information, please visit www.mra-usa.org or call (202) 872-9077. BUILDING AND SUSTAINING COALITIONS The Spirg of the Coalition by SUPPLEMENTARY RECOGNITION FOR OUTSTANDING Bill Berkowitz and Tom DISCUSSION STUDY CIRCLE PROGR-~MS Wolff, provides details of MATERIALS FROM how coalitions work most SCRC Wat:erloo, Iowa effectively in everyday As more school districts use practice. It provides first- study circles as a method of The First Annual Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Service hand accounts, examples, engaging the public, new Award from the Iowa Commission on the Status of and lessons learned about discussion sessions have been African-Americans went to the Cedar Valley Diversity the ways coalitions can be drafted that apply to Appreciation Team and Study Circles. This award built and sustained. To order particular situations. They recognizes the work that the CVDAT study circles on a copy, contact the were designed to be used race have done to "bring people together to break down American Public Health along with SCRC discussion barriers and help solve problems through citizen action." Association, Publication guides. Call SCRC for copies Sales: phone (301) 893-1894; of these drafts: Wake County'. !~orth Carolina e-mail APHA@TASCO1 .com: · What should be the web site www.aph_a.org. relationship between parents, Starting in the fall of 1998, residents of communities in community members and Wake County began meeting in study circles to talk REPORT their children~ schools? about race. This strong, ongoing program is now PUBLISHED ON · Closing the gap in minori0, receiving public acclaim. In January, The Town Council STUDY CIRCLES achiet~ment of Cary issued a formal proclamation in support of the A policy research report · Envgioning our new Study Circles on Race and Ethnic Relations - a project published recently by the charter school of the League of Women Voters and the YWCA of Wake Southwest Educational County. And on Feb. 5, the program received an aw.ard Development Laboratory STUDY CIRCLES frown the Human Resources & Human Relations Advisory says study circles are HELP STRENGTHEN Commission of the City of Raleigh for its outstanding particularly well suited to FAMILIES AND contributions to human relations. engaging state policymakers NEIGHBORHOODS and the pub c in dialogues Study circles are listed as a g. una, Idaho about education- Calling the promising practice in a new Roll.- Study Circles/or Better resource guide published by School superintendent Doug Rutan was selected as the Schools is the result of a the Annie E. Casey administrator of the year for the Idaho Association of two-year evaluation of Foundation for its Making Education Office Professionals. Rutan has played a key statewide programs in Connections site teams. role in "Keeping a Quality Kuna," an ongoing study Arkansas and Oklahoma Making Connections is an circle program that focuses on a range of issues facing where study circles on initiative aimed at the community. The idea for the program developed education issues were held strengthening families in some when a team of community leaders, led by Rutan, in a total of fifteen of the nation's toughest artended the first public engagement academy communities. To download neighborhoods in 22 cities. organized by the National School Public Relations a copy of the report, go the The guide cites study circle Association and the Annenberg Institute. Over 200 www.sedl.org/pubs/catalog pilots in Indianapolis, people have been involved so far. /items/po196.html. ~6~ :! More action from New York tatewide justice program considering a proposal to expand the ly county jail. A group called UNCAJE creative solugion to reiuvenate the (United Citizens for Alternatives to Jail ~'~ criminal Justice and corrections community, thus reducing the Expansion) had formed ~ oppose the enters its second year of study circles potential for crime: a new nonprofit plan. Many citizens found out about (2,~00 people took part in 71 and a new building to house it. UNCAJE through the cffcles, and communities dur/ng 2000): decided to ioin the effort. ~ First they established a new nonprofit ustice participants asked lo~al Restoration, Arts, and Involvement stop the jail expansion and provide ~'~'lators to approve a study of the Group (CRAIG), to help resources for alternative sentencing ~nty's criminal iusticc system. The neighborhoods empower theft - gained critical mass. ~n June, the ~!egisL~tors responded by creating a residents, develop resources that board decided against ~he expansion. · ; task force to oversee the study preserve their quality of life, and It also created an enEirc]y new coun~ ' d by naming several pa~cipants to promote equality and respect for all. department, the Department of '~ ' Community Justice Services, and CRA~G's fLrst signature proiect - and allocated almost $~00,000 for a greatly ~e effort has the cooperation of the the one that they hope will give the expanded alternatives program that ~, the district at~omey's and group a long-term home in will include stringent program 10blic defender's offices, all the law community politics - is the restoration evaluation to verify the impact on ~¢' rcement agencies, and the of a church to become the Old St. crime and incarceration rates. ti,~n departmenL "The significant Anthony's Cultural Community Center. ce in this task force," says The building will include an ethnic The plan also includes "a strong ~ I~gue president Marcia Menins, heritage gallery, a performance stage, emphasis on long-term crime ' fro bottom up, rather than Pa~icipants in BJNY have researched Eric Lemcr, chair of the UNCAJE :~0 ~ a s/milar project in Odando, Florida, steering committee. ~BalancingJustice · ~2~hecircles, elected officials attained the support of the Policy helped make it dear to elected ReSearch Action Group at Loyola officials that there is broad~based ]~.they had cause, and community University in Chicago, and applied for support for alternatives, and that they '..~iZt, to explore criminal justice urban rejuvenation funds from the city could not simply take for granted that :¢. ~//~'lore thoroughly." and state. Local craftsmen and workers voters wanted only clich~s about ~?A!b on will restore and maintain the property. 'getting tough' on crime," Lerner says. ~ ally, e of the first "The board deci~ded to 'get smart' on '/~41'ns of the task force members · When the circles got under way in crime instead." ~ from page 2) most basic level, our work is spiritual. Often, beyond o~lr indi~'idual needs and concerns, we have a shared find the notion of the spirit to be threatening, humanity. avoid it. Recognizing the spirituality of our work 3 the quagmire of church and state, of the There are many reasons for doing tl~e work we do. But I sacred, and the appropriate role of each in know that for me. the belief that e~ery person is sacred and of our nation and of otlr o~vFt communities. that everT person is an important thread in the often -' same time, there is great comfort, }~ope, and power in unraveling fabr c of community, gives me the energy to get that, in sttldy c rcles. we are not just talking up one more day. 'another method of detnocratic renewal. We are talking a process that engages people, heart and soul. At the deepest level, building com~nunity is a spiritual strtlggle. I am constantly reminded that the efforts to reweax'e is what happens ~vhen neighbors on my street, the fabric of community do not succeed or fail only because street, and on the streets across the railroad of the lack of money or the lack of volunteers. They succeed ;stop long enough to realize that, beyond our roles and or fail because of hui:qan relatipnships. It is most often a problem of the heart..~ -7 (Getting a civic life contiHued./}-om page 1 ) programs. The process is not magic or school district to organize study mysterious. It's simply a tested set of Tlll: BASIC PRIIICIPLES OF circles on that issue, and hundreds of democratic principles and tools for STUDY CIRCLE PROGRAMS people across the county took part. engaging the whole community in all Community-wide study circle programs As a result of the ideas and energy its variety, bringing people together embody democratic principles of that emerged from the circles, the for public dialogue. and combining equality, inclusiveness, and schools will begin to implement new their ideas and resources to create collaboration. This approach to strategies, to be funded by the school solutions. community change is based on the board. The story will not end here; following ideas: the problem still exists, but the whole Organizing a community-wide · People care about the communities community is working to address it. program takes hard work and they live in, and want to make them visionary leadership. It never happens better. · Across Buffalo, New York, perfectly, but it is doable. Like · Complex problems call for many neighborhood residents and police democracy, it is an ongoing and often kinds of solutions. officers knew they needed better messy process. Yet, in hundreds of · People from all backgrounds and all ways to make the neighborhoods communities of all kinds, people are segments of society have something safe, and better ways to work finding ways to lend their hearts, to contribute. together. Twenty~four study circles are hands, and minds to the task of · When everybody is included in meeting in Buffalo neighborhoods, solving public problems. public life, everybody benefits. bringing together residents and police. · Where all kinds of people develop Even while the circles are still As more and more communities do trust and relationships through face- meeting, participants have helped this work, we at SCRC listen to their to-face dialogue, new ideas and create a new substance prevention stories, record them. and learn from approaches emerge. effort and a television program by them. Stories of community work can · When people consider different and for young people. be harder to convey than stories of points of view on a complex issue, individual heroism and achievement. they uncover common ground and These are two among hundreds of But, after all, each community story is f'md better solutions. such inspiring stories - stories of the story of hundreds (and sometimes · When people have a voice in the individuals and institutions getting thousands) of real-life people who are public conversation, they are more involved, and finding ways to work figuring out how to talk with each likely to take part in creating and together for community change on other, listen to each other, and work cirrying out ideas for community tough issues. Let us know how you together for community change. For change. ' are working to bring people into example: · The more people that are involved, dialogue and problem solving in your the bigger the impact. community, and what kinds of · In Harford Count}', Maryland, many · Community change is more likely to assistance you need to make that people knew that the community was last and deepen when individual and happen. Then, heip us tell the story facing unacceptable racial inequalities collective actions are .tied together. of communities that are "getting a in educational achievement. A diverse : civic life." ~ coalition worked closely with the STUDY CIRCLES y ~souacE c~u~t~ U.S. Postage PAID RO. Box 203 Worcester, MA Pomfret, CT 06258 Permit No. A Project of Topsfield Foundation, Inc. Addressservicerequested Topical Discussion Guides and Order Form OtherResource ~. ' y Publications of the Study Circles Resource Center include ~': topical discussion guides, how-to materials, and videos - ~. for study circle organizers, facilitators, and trainers. ~I~211~i[IIlH'EV° Discussion Guides (see corresponding Bus)' Cillzen% listed separately.) ;~.!:~ Multiple-session discussion guides designed to help communities face d~e challenges and mee~ the oppoilunities raised by :~:' ' a variety of issues. ~'i' Price Qu~ttlht Amount Building Strong Neighborhoods: A Study Circle Guide for Public Dialogue and Communi~ $5 Problem Solving. A four-session discussion guide on many important neighborhood issues including: race and other kinds of differences; young people and families; safety and community-police relations; homes, housing and beauti~cation; jobs and neighborhood economy; and schools. 1998 Building Strong Neighborhoods for Families with Children: A Guide for Public Dialogue $5 and Problem ~olving. A four-session discussion guide to help people make their neighborhoods : better places for families with children by identifying challenges and '~ opportunities, and working toward solutions. 2000 Changing Faces, Changing Communities: Immigration & Race, Jobs~ Schools, and [anguage Differences. A multi-session discussion guide designed to help communities face the challenges and meet the opportunities raised by the arrival of newcomers; includespointersonhowtoinvolvepublicofficials. 1998 Confronting Violence in Our Communities: A Guide for Involving Citizens in Public $5 · : Dialogue and Problem Solving. A four-session discussion guide examining how violence affects our lives, .i., what causes violence, and what can be done in neighborhoods and in ~" schools. 1994 ~.L ~ Education: How Can Schools and Communities Work Together to Meet the Challengel~ A ~:,~ · Guide for Involving Community Members in Public Dialogue and Problem Solving. ~., . ' A multiple-session discussion guide examining the challenges schools face ,~'.;-" and the ways in which citizens and educators can improve education. 1995 ~-: Facing the Challenge of Racism and Race Relations: Democratic Dialogue and Action for $5 ~' Stronger Communities. ~',::. A five-session discussion guide including recommendations for tailoring the ~j'~: discussion to a particular community or organization's concerns. 3'a ed. ~:' · 1997 · Comprehensive Discussion Guides (c ,ntinuc. Protecting Communities, Serving the Public: Police and Residents Building Relationships to $5 Work Together. A five-session discussion guide designed to help communities bring police and residents together to build trust and respect, develop be[ter policies, and make changes for safer communities. 2000 Smart Talk for Growing Communities: Meeting the Challenges of Growth and $5 Development. A five-session discussion guide for public dialogue and problem solving; includes tips on involving public officials. 1998 Toward a More Perfect Union in an Age of Diversity: A Guide for Building Stronger $5 Communities through Public Dialogue. A four-session discussion guide examining ideas about unity, diversity, and pluralism, and how they affect us as members of our communities and our country. Created in collaboration with A More Perfect Union. 1997 Youth Issues, Youth Voices: A Guide for Engaging Youth and Adults in Public Dialogue and $5 Problem Solving. A multiple-session discussion guide to help young people and adulCs address the community issues which involve and impact them. 1996 Balancing Justice: Setting Citizen Priorities for the Corrections System. 1996 $1 Sobtota The Busy Cilizen's Discussit>n Guide The Busy Citizen's Discussion Guide: Changing Faces, Changing Communities: Immigration $1 & Race, Jobs, Schools, and Language Differences. 2"d Ed. 1998 The Busy Citizen's Discussion Guide: Violence in Our Communities. 1994 $1 The Busy Citizen's Discussion Guide: Education in Our Communities. 1995 $1 The Busy Citizen's Discussion Guide: Facing the Challenge of Racism and Race Relations. $1 1997 The Busy Citizen's Discussion Guide: Protectin8 Communities, Serving The Public: Police $1 and Residents Building Relationships to Work Toguthes. 2000 - Subtotal ~ ~, ~Z.TThe Busy Citizen's DiscuSsion Guides tc ,,,li,,,,.d~ . :' ~;! The Busy Citizen's Discussion Guide: Smart Talk For Growing Communities: Meeting the $1 ~- ' Challenges of Growth and Development, 1998 ~ ~The ~. Busy Citizen's Discussion Guide: Toward a More Perfect Union in an Age of Diversity: $1 ~ A Guide for Building Stronger Communities through ~,: Public Dialogue. 1997 ~:'. ~The Busy Citizen's Discussion Guide: Youth Issues, Youth Voices. 1996 $1 ~,: Subtotal [he following discussion guides have been translated from English into Spanish, ~La Educaci6n: ,s, C6rno pueden trabajar juntas las escuelas comunidades para enfrentar el N/C !desa~o; 1995 (photocopy) Gua*a para discusi~nes del ciudadano activo: Enfrent~ndose al reto del racismo y las N/C relaciones interraciales, 1991 (photocopy) '~U[ e discusi6n para el ciudada.o ocupado: Hacia un8 uni6n m~ perfecta en una era de $1 ad · -~:' diversidad. 1997 ~i...rad ~i~.es de, ci.dadano a~ivo: '- ~o,.c.e....,. com..i".d..199~ ,,,,~.'.: Vicleo~ .. ,~ainst Violence: A Maine Study Circle ProSram. $5 ~':' ' A product/on of Maine Public Television documenting the final forum in :~!~' the Act Against Violence Campaign. 1996(30minutes) .., ' cans Finding Their Voices: Commun ty-Wide Study Circles. $5 i ~ :® A motivational video introducing the concept of study circles, including a .,~, - profile of the study circle program in Decatur, Ceor~ia. 2000 (lO reinures) .~.. ,: ' .~lllinois, YWCA. $5 · ~'!~ A film featuring study circles on race, 1999 (26 minutes) the Roll - Study Circles for Better Schools. $5 ~ ~ ~: Produced by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, this film ..~ touts the bene~ts of study circles on issues mlated to education. ~999 (~8 ~'. ~ minutes) ,.: enple: Interracial Relationships. Lima~ OH $5 ~:i "'Selected footage from a four-part documentary series produced by SI ~: i~o:r%=~o~,', ,o:s,,La'gh,'o'g~t,,o:g ,~9c~,~=,,n%.~sle .udy c,rc,e program on s,,b~ota~ Videos (continued) Student Study Circles in Springfield, Ohio, High Schools. How it Worlds. $5 A production of the Springfield City Schools Communications Office documenting a high school study circle program in Springfield, Ohio. 1997 (15 minutes) Syracuse Study Circles: Community-Wide Dialogue. $5 A testimonial to study circles on race. 1999 (S minutes) Toward a More Perfect Union: An Invitation to Conversation. $5 Created by Arcadia Pictures as a companion piece to the s~udy circle discussion guide 'Toward a More Perfect Union in an Age of Diversity: A Guide for Building Stronger Communities through Public Dialogue'. Note: available through SCRC only when used as part of a community-wide program. All other users must call Arcadia Film Libran/201-652-1989. 1996 (23 minutes) Subtotal "How-to" Guide A Guide for Training Study Circle Facilitators. 1998 $15 Subtotal Shipping and handling $2 Total due Pre-payment is requested for orders under :$20. All other orders will include an invoice payable upon receipt. SCRC has a free quarterly newsletter, Focus on Study Circles. Would you like to receive a free subscription? Yes Name Organization Title Address Address City State Zip Telephone Fax E-mail Web Program or Community Study Circle Name How did you hear about SCRC? The Study Circles Resource Center (SCRC) is a project of the Topsfield Foundation, Inc., a nonpartisan, nonprofit foundation whose mission is to advance deliberative democracy and improve the quality of public life in the United States. To further that mission, SCRC staff members offer their services to community leaders, free of charge, at every stage of creating a community-wide study circle program: giving advice on aft the steps in the organizing process; helping to develop strong coali- tions within communities; advising on material developmen~ and writing letters of support for funding proposals.' For more information on these services, please contact SCRC at the telephone number listed below. 697 Pomfret Street · Box 203, Pomfret, CT 06258 * Tel: 860-928-2616, Fax 860-928-3713 I0/0o E-maih scrc~i~studycircles.org * Web: www.studycircles.org Number of Inmates ~" ~ ~ ~ ~ o Balancing Justice: Setting Citizen Priorities for the Corrections System Final report of Criminal Justice Study Circles Sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Oklahoma May 1997 [V][SSiOil The League of Women Voters is a non-non-partisan political organization that encourages the im~ormed and active participation of citizens m government and influences public policy throu_~-,h education and advocacy. The Lea_mac of Women Voters would like to express ~eat appreciation to the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, who provided the resources which made this challen~ng project in deliberative democracy possible. We would also iike to thank the Stucly Circles Resource Center for their excellent materials and technical assistance. We appreciate the data preparation provided by the University of Oklahoma Institute for Public .~alrs..x,~any thanks also go to all the citizens who participated in this important project and the state and local organizations whichco-sponsored (see list on back). This report was prepared by: Trish Frazier. L%W OK with assistance from: Mary. Tinker, Lx,W OK Criminal Justice Specialist May 1997 Copyright League of Women Voters of Oklahoma May be reprinted with permission: LWVOK 525 NW 13 Oklahoma City, OK 73103 Phone: 405-232-VOTE (8683) FAX: 405-236-VOTE (8683~ Table of Contents Go.is of the Project ........................ 3 Co-Sponsors and Pamcipants .................... 4 Participant Count by Location ............................. 4 Forma~ .................................................................... 5 Session I: Goals of the Corrections System .................................... 5 Lncapacitmion ..................................................... 5 Rehabilitation ................................... 5 Deterfence .......................................................... 5 Punishment ................................................. 6 Restitution ............................................. 6 PrevenUon ..................... 6 Session Ff: The Current Dilemma ............................... 7 View 1: Rely on prisons to deter and punish cnminais ........................ 7 X, qew 2: Empbagize the rehabilitation of offenders ............................... 8 View 3: Make prison time harsher ......................................... 9 View 4: Create a range of punishments to fit the crime ....................... 10 View 5: ,Make sure the sentence sticks ..................................... I 0 View 6: Keep parole ................................................... 11 Session gl: Balancing Justice in the Corrections System .......................... 12 Community, Involvement and the Passage of EB 1213 ............. 14 Co-Sponsonng Orgamzations .......... 16 Balancing Justice: Setting Citizen Priorities for the Corrections System In the spring of 1996, policy. makers and citizens faced an expanding crisis in Oklahoma's corrections system. The iaxge increase in appropriations for the Department of Corrections would hardly begin to address the prison overcrowding and population grovah crisis which was worsenmg monthly. Legislative attempts to address the problem~ had resulted in deadlock at the end of the session. Because of the time constraints of the shortened legislative session, citizen understanding involvement, and ownership ofth~s critica~ issue was low. The League of Women Voters of Oklahoma received a grant from the Edna McCormeil Clark Foundation to implement a statewide citizen education project on the problems of criminal justice in the state. League leaders chose a form of dellberative dlaloL, ue called study circles for this important project. In study circles, citizens from all walks of life come together to discuss an issue in a democratic, non-partisan, and coilaborative way. The League worked closely with the Study CLrcies Resource Center ~SCRC) of Pomfi'et, Connecticut; a non-profit orga~iT~rion dedicated to the promotion of deliberative democracy through study circles. SCRC provided materials and technical assm~a~ce on the challenging project. Although SCRC had worked extensively with individual commumties, the Oklahoma study circles program was the organiT~tt. ion's first statewide project. Oklahoma also served as the pilot for the Balancmg,htstice study circles, and LWVOK members and staff'were able to provide input on the materials. Goals of the I~roject The League identified three goals for the project. 7'he f~rst goal was to educate citizens about the serious condition of Oklahoma's corrections system. The L~W OK believed this was the most critical problem facing the state of Oklahoma. Over the past decade the cost of the system had been skyrocketing and still additional f~nding would be needed for the future. This could endanger the goals Oklahoma citizens had for economic development. educa~ion~ anc~ other critical programs. The second goal was to a~ow ci~.ens to provide input into the decision-making process both at the local and state leveis involving this critical social problem. Lrx order to avoid the usual sensa~ionalized approach to this complex problerm the League chose the deliberative democracy model. This approach gave citizens an oppor~uhiry to be invo;~ed in a collaborative process with local o~cials and iaw efforcement personnel. Citizens would also have an 0ppoHunity to reach state policy makers in the study circles. through personal contact. ~nd ~bxougb. the final report. The third goal was to stren~hen Oklahoma!s comxnumties by introducing deliberative democracy as a framework for solving future problems. I~ea~mae leaders believed that after the initial project the study circle process could help commumties deal with problems unique to their own locality. Co-Sponsors and Participants Thirteen Oklahoma communities (see box) held Baitracing justice study circles beginzing the first week of October and running through the second week in May. Approximately, one thousand Oklahoma citizens participated. In each community several civic organizations and newspapers joined their local League in co-sponsoring. A wide range of Oklahoma citizens participated in the study circles. For example, the Weathefford report states: Those lnvolved included judges, lawyers, law enforcement officers, public service agencies, church leaders, city officials, atui admimstrators, private business people, universi.ty students/staff/facul.rv, retired persons, candidates for elected offices. homemakers ('male and female/, and more. There were victims, offenders. and observers of the criminal justice system. Eve .ry political persuctsion seemed included.' Democrats, Republicans, independents. conservatives, moderates, liberals. hz short. citizens. Several other locations had similar Participant Count by Location broad-based participation. A small number .&ramore 76 of offenders from minimum security facilities Bartlesvillc 33 participated in the metropolitan area study Edmond 56 circles. Locations close to Department of Lawton 14 Corrections facilities had staff participation. Mnskogee 45 including wardens. Law enforcement Norman 72 officers. judges, and district attorneys were Oklahoma Ci~' 210 especially encouraged to attend so that Pontotoc Count2..' 32 citizens could understand their jobs and Pottawatotme Count3.' 62 challenges better. Legislators and candidates Rogers Count>.' 12 for the legislature participated in their local Stillwater 110 Tulsa 150 study circles. In Muskogee, four candidates Weatherford I00 for the legislature representing both parties 972 artended and participated in individual goups only days before the election. Most of the participants attending study circles were nudeLie class and white, with the exception of the Muskogee proSam. Several civic and reti~ous leaders from the African Asnencan community. were involved on the Muskogee planrung cognee resulting in almost 50 percent participation bv African .~Lmeficans. F::orl'nat The BalcmcmgJustice study circles took place m three separate sessions. over three successive weeks. Each group of five to ten participants had a specially trained facilitator and a recorder. Participants received Balancmg jusuce: ~etting Citizens Priorities for the Corrections System. the discussion booklet prepared by the Study Circles Resource Center. In addition, the League of Women Voters of Oklahoma provided, BaiaTzcmg justice: A Citizen Fact-Book on Oklahoma's Corrections System, a 50-page resource guide. At the end of each meeting participants s, rnmarized their discussion and submitted reports to the local coordinator. These results have been compiled at the state level and the contents of this final report reflect trends in the data. It is important to note that study circle results are not designed to be a public opinion poll or a scientific survey, but rather impressions and consensus of citizens. The primary purpose of the project was the process of education and deliberation. The most important results were obtained at the study circles themselves, where ordinary citizens shared, listened and deliberated with local police, judges, and le~slators. Session h Goals of the Corrections System In the meeting, citizens discussed and attempted to pnoritizc goals of the corrections system. The discussion guide listed punishment, incapacitation, restitution, deterrence and rehabilitation as possible goals. Although the decision was difficult, participants chose incapacitation and rehabilitation as the most important goals of the corrections system. The points of discussion were as follows: Incapacitation Citizens in study circles were adamant that they wanted violent offenders locked up so that they can no longer prey on society. One Oklahoma City. group answered. "some people can't be changed and won't change and need to be locked up." Incapacitation was listed often as an important goal and hardly ever appeared as a least important goal. Rehabilitation Rehabilitation was equally as important to participants as incapacitation. Drug and alcohol treatment, education, and job skills training ~vere emphasized as important both within prisons and outside for non-violent low-level offenders. ;'Rehabilitation allows an offender to gain tools for a productive life," reported one Oklahoma City group. "Those in prison for a long time should also be given an opportunity. to live as productive a life as possible." Deterfence The next most popular goal of the corrections system. according to study circle reports, was deterrence. Many believed this goal was important but were unsure ho~v to accomplish it. 5 Some participants believed prison is not a deterrent to people with little to lose and serious problems. "Does deterrenee work?" asks one Norman group. "Only on law abiding citizens. Others outweigh consequences with profit: i.e. drugs ...They are detached from the human race in their own way, sodally crippled." Punishment Ptmi~hment.was a goal with less consensus. Some participants believed that punishment was crifieal in order to hold offenders accountable. Others believed this goal was secondary to incapacitation,.rehahilitation, and deterrence. 'l~unishment as a goal in and of itself is wrong and just makes people worse,"'commented a. Bartlesville study circle. One Norman group reported: Another area of common agreement was that aa,w punishment system must include t~unishment options that help an incarcerate reali:e that he or she is accountable for their actions, and that programs such as resrttutionary programs, certain .types of communi.tv service, drug court Ope program& etc.. shouM be utilized more to teach accountability. R~stitution Restitution was the least important goal to most of the study circles. Although many like the idea of restitution, participants did not seem to understand how the programs work. There was little knowledge of the direct payment to the victim or the timeliness of the restitution. One Oklahoma City. group writes: If someone burgled my house and stole my TV.. stereo and computer, I might consider appropriate punishment fidl replacement cost of these items. !might require the deductible on my insurance. I might feel better if[ got the declucttble on my insurance and lotew the convicted was reimbursing me for my out-of-pocket expense aIM was doDtg communi .a, service to a desigmated chartO: Prevention Although not listed in the study guide. several locations listed prevention as an important goal for society and the corrections system. This goal had three predominant points; prevention early in life, prevention by addressing the juvenile system problems, and prevention of recidivism bv the use of rehabilitative programs early in offenders' careers. Many of the study circle participants believed identifying "at-risk" children and youth would reduce the number of offenders in the system. The Muskogee report states: "The group agreed that early intervention is probably the key to preventing crime." 'toad the front end (prevenuon. early childhood education/development)," reports one Norma~ ~roup. '~Fa.qtily services -- teach parents to nurture the youth in the corrmlumty (a.tier schoot programs, neighborhood associations. churches, etc. )." "Create places for children to play and grow," writes an Oklahoma City study circle. This group, and others, made the additional comment that e~rly detection and memoring of young persons headed down the wrong path was important. Although the ~BoloncYngjusrYce study circles focused on the adult ~stem, the discussions inevitably turned to juven~e justice. Many participants wanted a concentrated effort turned toward turning juvenile offenders around before they cost socieW more. One Oklahoma City group reports: Children are allowed to repeat offenses until age 18 or [until] th .ey commit some serious offense before problems are really looked upon. The need for intervention shouM commence the ve~'~rst time a child is tdent(rYed as a a?op- out; ditching schooi: poor attendance: abused at home: ill-clothed. etc..4t risk people are identified much too late. Finally, participants wanted rehabilitative programs used in the adult system to address problems of the offenders ea~y in their careers. They believed that these programs could serve as prevention of further criminal behavior. Session I1: The Current Dilemma Citizens discussed different ways of dealing with criminals in the second meeting. Is the system accomplishing the goals outlined in the first session? Are we imprisoning too many or not enough? Are sentences too lenient or too severe? Is "truth in sentencing" the ans~ver? Participants also discussed the cost of the system and their willingness to pay more taxes to improve the system. The views appear below in the order of the discussion View ~: Itely on prisons to deter and punish criminals The need to incarcerate violent offenders was a recurring theme throughout all study circle results. There was a definite attitude of warning "whatever it takes ,i implemented. including additional taxes. Although many groups reported that they were unwilling to pay for more prisons, they agreed that expansion would be important if needed to lock up violent offenders, Some participants believed that prisons should be used as a punishment of last resort for lower level offenders because of the problems of reinte~ation into society Imprisoning offenders for a short period of time isolates them from their job and farrely, therefore making it more difficult for them to be productive citizens upon release. View 2: Emphasize the rehabilitation of offenders As in the goals of the first session, rehabilitation was a very popular option among the study circle panicipams. This was emphasized for both practical and humanitarian reasons. Participants believed that helping offenders change their ways would make them more productive members of society, able to pay taxes and raise their children. The rehabilitation discussion results had four main points: evaluation, education, treatment, and transition. Several groups believed that resources should be spent on careful evaluation of offenders prior to sentencing. This evaluation should have psychological, substance abuse, and educational components. One Potmwktomie county group writes: gre need to do a better job qf evaluating criminals (the nature of their crimes, drug/~lcohol dependency, emotional and mental disabilities, etc.). This should be done as soon as possible on entry into the justice system asjuremle or The Stillwater report states: The Legislature should encourage the develqomott of better pre-sentencing tools to predict who is like& to retina'rate. Judges should be provided with more/better pre-sentencmg i~(ormation regarding offenders, such as prior offenses Ui other coultties or states. After evaluation and sentencing, offenders should then be given a plan for improvement for them to work in prison or in the community.. One Norman Foup reported: .4 plan shouM be established for the offender attd progress on the plan will allow more privileges, such as lower security level, work release, or weekend visits home. This wouM also help offenders retntegrate ittto The need for education and job training was one of the most discussed points in study circles. .~lmost all believed offenders should obtain a GED and job training before their sentence is over, either in prison or the community. One Oklahoma City church group stated: Try as we would we could not get away from the idea that those incarcerated must receive as much education as possible... We have cut opportunity to teach and motivate inmates through education. and no matter what path our lives take. we become better people because qfeducatton. Education allows)'ou to make a living, relate to other people attd to survive better tn this world In addition to job sicills and basic education, several groups recommended that offenders also be ~ven life-ski!Is training. It was mentioned that many offenders come from dysfunctional homes and do not know how to manage in societS.' Conflict management and patenling classes were mentioned as possibilities ~3r this training. 8 Because of the high rate of substance abuse among offenders. participants believed that substance abuse treatment should be a.n mtegrai pan of the corrections system. Many felt strongly that offenders should be/breed into treatment and not released from supen'ision. in prison or in the community., until a treatment program was completed. Several participants were concerned about the prisoner's transition into society. axter a term of incarceration. One Oklahoma City, group stated: '.'N~ore needs to be done in the area of transition programs. Help needs to be available for released offenders and their fanulies." Another Oklahoma City group reported: ".L~er release, jobs are non-e,,dstent so the offender is set up to fail." Some groups suggested that there should be a government\business partnership to encourage the employment of ex-offenders. This could include work release, day reporting, and tax incentives for business. The Weatherford report states: [There is] a need for stronger e. tforts at after care cuM retntegrat~on into the commutU.tv once the q~etu2'er is reieased from the criminal justice .system. ]Tiere ~ as the Idea of ,orovtding incentives to en(t~lo. vers who htre_tbrmer q~renders and of establishing partnerships between departments q~'correcttons and businesses in which q[fenders receive training cmd employers receive labor. View 3: Make prison time harsher Several different perceptions on this point were presented in study circles. Some believed that an unpleasant prison experience was an important part of deterrence and punishment. Others thought that a harsh prison environment impeded rehabilitation. There was, however, strong consensus that prisoners should work. Some study circle participants believed a punitive approach would make offenders accountable. The Lawton report on this section states: "Spend fewer dollars..3dl luxuries should be prohibited. ,lake prison time harsher -- eliminate air condition. TV's. ',~eight rooms. etc. Prison stay should be unpleasant. Limit access to telephones." The opposing viewpoint was that making prison time harsher could hinder the rehabilitation of offenders and make prisons very. dangerous places to work. As one Oklahoma City participant said: "Part of rehabilitation is experiencing normaicy" Those on both sides of this controversy believed that prisoners should work and receive training. A Norman group reported that citizens who want to make prison time harsher are just venting their frustrations against a system that is not working If prisoners had to work on a plan for improvement which included employment. treatment. and education. taxpayers ~vould not be so insistent on harsh prisons. The Stillwater report states: Most participants thought that przsoners shouM be made to work and contrtbute towards the expenses of therr t~carceratton. .?'~rtsol~ers ~ere ~ren meanmgT~d work to peC~'orm, it would occupy their time m a proaucttve manner. give them jobs s/all& w~d "expose them'to the American work ethic. " There was some controversy over what work should be performed by inmates. Some participants believed menial chores were a part of punishment. Other participants voiced opposition to work such as picking up litter because this does not teach inmates a usable skill for when they are returned to society.. There was an acknowledgmem that care should be taken not to have prison industries compete with private business. View 4: Cream a range of punishments to fit the crime This viewpoint presented punishments which were alternatives to incarceration. There was strong interest and consensus for this policy option in almost all study circles. As taxpayers, many participants believed this option to be most cost effective. (Non-violent offenders would stay in the community attending treatment and education programs, keeping jobs. This would reserve prison space for violent offenders.) Also there was concern that when a parent is incarcerated, children of'ten lose their home and are forced into foster care, or families are forced to survive on public assistance. An Oklahoma City group reported: Consensus of this group was to be able to look at a combination and range of options for punishment and rehabilitation. IYe want to look at options beyond prison time...A perception, perhaps, of the general public is to put criminals in prison, and so they c .rv for prison, perhaps not realizing that there are other alter?tattves that offer the punishment and do so in a more appropriZ~te way and a more cost effective wc~. : .. To put someone in prison is absolutely, without a doubt, the most expet}sive wa). , of dealing with a criminal..~4any other programs mentioned in this section caz~ be as effective in terms of punishment, more e.~eective in terms of rehabi!itatton, attd at the same time more cost effective with the taxp~,er dollar. The Weatherford study circles believed it was important to track research on the effectiveness of punishments. Alternatives to incarceration were further discussed in the third session of study circles where participants discussed and learned more about individual punishments. View 5: Make sure the sentence sticks This view reflects "truth in sentencing" and requires that offenders serve all or most of their semenco. Because of the low percentage of time served in Oklahoma, many participants favored this approach. There were two major points of discussion involving this viewpoint: accountability and equitable sentencing. Strong consensus existed that offenders should ser~,e all or most of a reasonable sentence. There was great concern for system accountability when even judges cannot tell how long an offender will sen'e alter he or she is sentenced. "There should be 'truth in sentencing", said one Oklahoma City group. !0 "Five years should mean five years." One study circle. aj. so in Oklahoma City, believed that lack of truth in sentencing impedes offender rehabilitation. There is no incentive to participate in programs if you could be released the next week or month. However, there was no consensus on sentencing guidelines. Some groups reported concern over the difference in punishment between jurisdictions and believed the idea of guidelines was important. One Oklahoma City study circle report states: We were dismayed by the wide rcvzge of sentencing. ~is is a range that ts so wide as to be totally inttppropHate. HTe are not talking the dt?ference between a one year sentence and a two year sentence, but t~e d~fference of years m prison, or of hundreds of hours of difference between comrnunt.tv service for the same crtme [depending on the jurisdiction.]. Some study circles reported that they believed that judges should be given the flexibility to consider the circumstances of the offender and the need for rehabilitation. instead of just the crime itself2 They trusted judges to look at the entire situation and sentence accordingly. "We did not favor a gridx approach, because the human factor is important in sentencing," reports.~ne Norman study circle. "However, when a sentence is set. the offender should serve most of the sentence." "It was noted that the 'three strikes and you're out' legislation seemed like a good idea but has, in fact, radically reduced judges ability. to use flexibility in sentencing," the Stillwater repor~ states. View 6: Keep parole Most study circle participants believed that parole was an important part of a complete corrections system. However, concern was voiced about how it was currently being implemented. Participants were concerned that parole was being driven by prison overcrowding, not by an offender's rehabiiitative status. They believed it was im=ortant that the offender:s substance abuse. education. and psychological status be carefully considered before parole. Many of the study circles wanted a full time Pardon and Parole Board which would removed from the political process. Participants viewed parole as critical to the successful return of offenders back into society. Several wanted case loads reduced so that parole officers could do a better job helping offenders rehabilitate. "Parole is important for reintegration of offenders." reports a Norman group. "Resources should be spent on parole to help offenders slav on track. Require follow-up meetings such as AA for substance abusers." : "Grid approach" rctErs to a ~.'stcm of strucmrcd scntcncmg m x~ inch judges use Scnmncmg grids ~ntaining expected saacuons for crimes. Thcse grids u~ually ha~c mcrc&sed puntsmeats Ibr prior offcases and a_e~avatmg or mangalmg cu'cumstances II Session II1: Balancing Justice in the Corrections System In the third meeting, participants discussed eleven graduated punishments ranging from basic probation to prison. Citizens compared a range of sentencing options against their goals for the system. ,-Mmost all study circles wanted to expand the range ofpunishmems in Oklahoma to include alternatives to incarceration. However, it was always stressed that these options should be left to non-violent offenders and that offenders should be carefully assessed before entering intermediate programs. Basic Probation Basic probation was usually not a favored approach in study circles. Even though this punishment is usually applied to early offenders, participants wanted more supervision to ensure rehabilitation of the offender. Intensive Supervision Probation Study circle participants almost always preferred this punishment to basic probation. Citizens believed the additional supervision would reduce recidivism and help an offender become a productive citizen. Several groups mentioned that probation caseloads should be reduced so that offenders in the community. can be monitored properly. Restitution and Fines As mentioned earlier, there was confusion about the effectiveness of restitution programs, It seemed to be an interesting concept to some, however it was not usually listed as one of the favored approaches. Community Service Community Service was often listed as a favoreci punishment for non-violent offenders. The Weatherford report states: The idea of commum.tv sen,ice as a means qf ensurmg that the former qfJ~nder interacts with the community rather than remains isolated was mentioned Churches with their outreach programs couM incorporate former offenders m cPatrch programs... Many stated lhat a crime hurts the community m ctdditiOn to the victim; thereJbre, restitution neec~ to be made. certatid. v to the vlcllm. but to the commum.rv as well. [Vhi[e restitution would be easier for some crimes than others. [addingJ some community sen'ice for all or most crimes would show that crime is important and that merely paying a fine or doing time was not enough. Commumty sen'ice couM help create a bond curiorig victim. offender. and communt .p,': lack of some sense qf unt .ty has been sho}vtl lo be a factor ill many crimes. 12 Substance Abuse Treatment and Drug Courts Because a large percentage ofoffenciers are involved in substance abuse, treatment was often listed as a favored program in study circles. It was im=ortant to the participants that this option be available both inside and outside prison walls. Another important aspect of treatment discussions was the need for careful assessment of offenders and aftercare. The idea of drug courts as a way to implement treatmere programs interested many of the study circles. Day reporting This option was especially popular in the northeastern portion of the state because the study circles coincided with the opening of the new day-reporting center in Muskogee. "There should be more "day centers" as a way to catch 'slackers' early," the Stillwater study circles write. The Tulsa report states: There was much interest in institutions, like the new ahy reporting center m Muskopec, as ideally situated to prowde support aizd super,,,tston for such [communt.rv correcttolzs] programs. Parttctpants were also ve ,rv plectsed that such programs wouid likely cost the same or less than incarceration and thus would ,or increase taxes. while providing opportunities for rehabilitation. House arrest and electronic monitoring This option alone was not favored among study circle participants. However, some believed that house arrest or electronic monitoring could be useful when used with rehabilitative programs such as treatment or community service. Non-prison residential programs Study circles did not report much on these programs either pro or con. Boot camps Although not a majority. point of view. there was a si~m~ificant interest in boot camps especially for young offenders. Some study circles believed this approach could work like the military to instill discipline and self esteem. Other groups doubted the effectiveness of this program Prison and Jail As stated before. prisons were believed by all stuciy circies to be necessary.' for violent offenders. 13 Community Involvement and the Passage of HB 1213 David Mathews of the Kettering Foundation iists four times when policy makers reach out for direction from the public: · when values are at issue and conflict erupts. · when trade-offs have to be made, · when the nature of the problem is unclear. and · when there is political gndloclc 2 It could be said that some of these points were true of the state's corrections system during the summer of 1996. However, Oklahomaas rolled up their sleeves and got to work, deliberating with public officials both as a group and individually, about how to handle this incredible challenge to the state. The two highest goals for the corrections system chosen by study circles can be seen in the passage of I-IB 1213. The incapacitation goal for violent offenders is implemented in the truth-in- sentencing section. After July 1, I998. violent offenders will serve 85 percent of their sentence before being considered for parole. This will result in increased time served by violent offenders in many categories. The rehabilitation goal and the support for alternative sanctions which was evident in the study circle reports can be seen in the community corrections section of the legislation. It is important to note that in addition to the reasons listed by Mathews above, legislative leaders have turned to the people of Oklahoma for another important purpose: the implementation of the community. corrections sections of lIB 1213. HB 1213 is a devolution bill ~vhich turns the responsibiliW for some low-level offenders back to local government. ]'he decisions regarding the local implementation of this legislation will be made by community boards. This process was started in the study circles where citizens identified priorities for their individual communities. .-kt~er the study circles in their individuai communities. participants have continued to be involved in this issue. They have received legislative newsletters and information on how to impact the process. '~Ve would like for the Balancing Justice circles to be effective in being 'change agents.' and helping to set policies that are balanced." an Oklahoma City group said. The important work, however, will be done this year as each county plans a program for commuruty corrections. The Tulsa r, eport states: "David Mathews, Pot'sttcs Jbr People: F:natn~ s .;~espul:stbie Public i btce. Urbaxta and Chicago. Illinois: Uaiversx~' of Chicago Press. 1994. pg. 81-84 .4 .fourth quite common recommena~t~on was for more cornmum.n2 mvoivement at all levels of the correcnotLv ?,.'stem both to cut costs atut to increase e. rfectlveness. i ~>lunteering, support groups. mentoring programs both ill prison and to support remtegratton into the communt.ty, (as well as prevent cmme2 were recommended. In conclusion, an Oklahoma City group writes: There was considerable discussion about the necessity of changing the attitudes of "the people ", "the public mind "how to make them appreciate a system which wetlid lead to a healthy society, Eather than focusing on vengeance. One person said that our group attd others like us, as concerned citizens taking time to work on these things, should have a say. Concurring, one person quoted Margaret Mead, ".%'ever doubt that a small group of committed people can chcalge the world,' indeed it is the oni. v thing that ever has." 15 Co Sponsoring Organizations Statewide Oklahoma Conference of Churches Oklahoma Academy for State Goals NAAC? Oklahoma Public Employees Association Catholic Charities Citizens League of Central Oklahoma Oklahoma University Institute for Public Affaks Oklahoma Chapter of the National A. ssociation of Blacks in Criminal Justice Ardmore Oklahoma City Axdmor= Public Schools Evangclistic Baptist Church Aidmorn Higher Educauon Center Oklahoma Ci~' Nei~borhood Alliance Arbuckle Drug and Alcohol Informanon Center Ardinorc Chamber of Commerce Pontotoc CounW Pontotoc Area Vocauonal Tcch.ical School Banlesville Pontotoo Counv,.' Bar Associalion East Cross United Methodist Church First Presb)lerian Charch Pottawatomie County Tfi-Cotm.ty Tcclmolo~ca.l Center Gordon Cooper Area Vo-Tech YWCA Gatr. vay to Prevention and Recover'. inc. Youth and Fatal.k, Resource Center Edmond Action. Inc. SL John the Baptist Cathotic Chtu'ch Rogers County Rogrrs Unlversi.ty Cl'~rnin~lj .hzsL~ce Department Lawton Claxemore Chatabet of Commerce Lawton Chlmber of Commerce Lawton Jumor Lea[me Stillwater Mayor's Commission on the S~tus of Women St~v,'ater .'~ Commtlaity COLLGCtl StiJlv,'atcr Ch:zmber of Commerce Business and Professional Women Stillwater Pubtic Schools Grcat Plains Improvemere Foundanon Stillwater Evening Lions Center for Creative Living Artillen., Commumcators: Imernauonai Tulsa Training in Commumcauon Tulsa Mctropohtan Mini-;Lncs .~dnerican Association of Universx~' Women Ttd, sa H'orld Indian Nattons Courted of Govcmmcnts Muskogee C.U.R_E Muskog~ Johoentx \Nluskoge¢ Miresrenal A2hancc Weatilerford ~ c~_ o-~ C..A.~:e./J--/ .~encan Assocmuon oat' L'niverstt?,' \Vomcn Norman Norman Chamber or'Commerce Norman Public Libra~.' NAIC -- C~nter l~r ,~cohol and Drug ~erv~ccs t6