Circling back

[Daniel Sewell]

Hey Gary,

Thank you again for taking the time to discuss all the things with me before the Thanksgiving holiday. I have enjoyed reading your articles and I wanted to deliver some research to review despite not having any connections to the folk who might utilize such material for marketable insight… now I already explained to you how to format this meeting, including engaging live anonymous polling… with that in mind please see attached, each of these topics has extensive potential for education and deliberation. 

I do have one connection that I would like to refer you to… that being the current publisher of the Trail-Gazette, Jill Stravolemos (ji...@prairiemountainmedia.com; jstravolemos@prairiemountainmedia.com) she seems to be not interested in talking to me despite me being her associate under M. Romero for 7 years. Maybe you could mention I would be interested in furthering the discussion about community dialogue. 

Thanks again,

Daniel

[Gary Hall]

Thanks, Daniel, those are certainly good lists, and well-written, of top issues for the State, Larimer, Estes. 

What do you see the deliverable, the end result (or ongoing result) be, were one or more of these broad listening sessions be? What would come out of it, what actionable items? 

Given some of the challenges of recent months, I haven't spent time envisioning how these types of dialogues could come together. Some thoughts are below, but I haven't seen the light as to how the high-level collection of information on these broad topics  translates into operational tasks and progress. It would be good to listen but are there tactics that move us forward on the other end? 

How do you see that? 

To make these full Town Board study/listening sessions would be different from our typical work, where we're being educated on specific potential resolutions, ordinances, amendments, projects, etc. These discussions (or listening sessions) would be a very broad swath of shared philosophy, information, and opinion from many sources. It could be educational for the Board to help them in future decision-making, but it also might be so broad as to be not actionable. 

For these to be handled by a single trustee, or two trustees, and to be like a "trustee talk" or "mayor coffee" as a broad listening session, again, what happens to all the input after it's given? To be of value to the whole Board, it'd have to be heard by the whole Board, but then -- what are the actionable steps from hearing the whole spectrum of opinions? 

For these to be handled by one of our future ad-hoc committees to gather such input, perhaps with Town Staff on that committee, well, that might be best where it belongs, citizens listening to all input and then summarizing that for the Town Board. Of course, that could run into the same problem that we've had with advisory boards, where the Town Board really doesn't see/hear the whole spectrum of ideas, but just a filtered executive summary.

So I've played with some ideas of broad "listening sessions", but I've done nothing to see what the thoughts of the Board might be in regard to these. 

Gary M. Hall

Mayor of the Town of Estes Park

Office phone: 970-577-3706

Email: gh...@estes.org

The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing accessible information and services. If you need any accommodations to view or interact with this email, please reply with your request or contact me at the phone number listed above.

[Daniel Sewell]

Hey Gary,

Thank you for giving this topic some serious consideration. Your questions are getting into a theoretical level that I’m sure my former professor Dr. Carcasson could provide clearer answers to, like where does this process fit in the existing structure; from the listening sessions to informal conversations with individual board members?

From my vantage however, I believe the value afforded up front is for the people to learn and the take away value on the back end is for the representatives like yourself to feel confident in their constituents’ actual opinions. Each issue has a life cycle that can begin with opening the topic to exploration, analyzing the data critically, then closing the topic with actionable recommendations. 

As you mentioned, this would have the same hurdle any ad-hoc committee has in getting their recommendations translated into actionable results but the deliberative format is meant to provide more access and greater democratic engagement. This would help breach the gap in trust that exists between those on the outside vs. those on the inside and perhaps could become a model for civic engagement that embodies a welcoming assimilation program.

I’ve been pushing this idea since CU Boulder closed their Journalism school in 2010 and I learned about the Center for Public Deliberation at CSU. The public deliberation model utilizes advances in technology and maintains a foundation of community collaboration that can fundamentally evolve local governance which in turn could revolutionize the entire political system. It starts by empowering people with knowledge and agency in a system that welcomes it.

I understand that starting a community deliberation like this is like paying people to criticize you… but this is much greater than one person. I hope you can find a way to pursue this action here in Estes and please let me know if you have recommendations on how to support the administrative tasks associated with this work.

Thank you,

Daniel

[Gary Hall]

Thanks, Daniel, and I'd be happy to talk to an expert in the process, for example Professor Carcasson. 

Criticism is normal to hear for elected officials about many issues; few issues don't have their critics. Many have many critics. The challenge is to somehow get a group that truly represents a cross-section of the population such that you would truly hear a representative sample of what you would get if you put the topic to a vote of the people. In an open door listening session on a controversial topic, statisticians might argue that you'll get a much higher voluntary turnout by those opposed than by those in favor. 

The topics that have a high level of public interest generate many dozens, even a couple of hundred written comments and public comments in the BoardRoom. The board receives all of those, con and pro, for their consideration when they weigh and vote. 

I've said it before, if the Board simply voted based on the number of letters/emails/comments received pro vs. the number of letters/emails/comments received con, the Board is simply rubber stamping an opinion based on a very small number of vocal constituents -- pro or con. 

I don't think a rubber-stamping Board is what the great majority of constituents want. 

So, I like the idea of listening sessions, different from the well-established study sessions (which are very important for education to, and discussion by, the Board). I'm still unclear how they could be structured to get something close to a true representation of broad and varied constituent opinion. 

If your contact would be interested in chatting, yes, have him email, call, or text me, thanks, that might help further my understanding. Take care and Happy New Year. 

Gary M. Hall

Mayor of the Town of Estes Park

Office phone: 970-577-3706

Email: gh...@estes.org