Re: Democratic Forums
Mike Ryan
TSC and AGS Members,
We have heard from a number of AGS members regarding the format of the public forums. A range of opinions have been expressed as to how these forums should be structured and even some internal negotiations within the AGS as to who should speak, etc. We feel it is important to make clear that when the MODR team designed these public forums - it was with the general public in mind and not the AGS. The AGS members have had an opportunity to be present during this process and to directly provide comments and state their views at several points during these last several months. We have heard from several members of the public and other groups who have not been part of the FFVP that they have been patiently waiting for their turn to review the TSC's draft recommendations and to provide their feedback.
We have also heard concerns from some AGS members that their "dissenting" opinions will not be heard by the public. There are differences across the spectrum from the AGS. Simply stated - the purpose of these forums is to present the TSC's draft recommendations to the general public who have not yet had the opportunity to hear from the TSC and for members of the general public to ask questions of the TSC and to provide their feedback/comments to the TSC. The overview of the draft recommendations will highlight where significant differences remain. However, these forums are not intended to be a debate. They were designed to give the general public the opportunity to consider the TSC draft recommendations and form their own conclusions on their merits including where differences remain within the TSC.
We have designed the forums to maximize participation and offer comfortable methods for feedback. This has been done according to established practices. We have also heard that some feel strongly that a traditional format where members of the public make a statement to the full audience is something they would like. In an effort to be responsive to these requests, we will be extending the Amherst Forum to do the small table format followed by about and hour and a half for a tradition format. An email will go out on that soon.
Take care,
Bill
Joseph Zorzin
----- Original Message -----From: Bill LogueSent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 2:25 PMSubject: ForumsTSC and AGS Members,
We have heard from a number of AGS members regarding the format of the public forums. A range of opinions have been expressed as to how these forums should be structured and even some internal negotiations within the AGS as to who should speak, etc. We feel it is important to make clear that when the MODR team designed these public forums - it was with the general public in mind and not the AGS. The AGS members have had an opportunity to be present during this process and to directly provide comments and state their views at several points during these last several months. We have heard from several members of the public and other groups who have not been part of the FFVP that they have been patiently waiting for their turn to review the TSC's draft recommendations and to provide their feedback.
We have also heard concerns from some AGS members that their "dissenting" opinions will not be heard by the public. There are differences across the spectrum from the AGS. Simply stated - the purpose of these forums is to present the TSC's draft recommendations to the general public who have not yet had the opportunity to hear from the TSC and for members of the general public to ask questions of the TSC and to provide their feedback/comments to the TSC. The overview of the draft recommendations will highlight where significant differences remain. However, these forums are not intended to be a debate. They were designed to give the general public the opportunity to consider the TSC draft recommendations and form their own conclusions on their merits including where differences remain within the TSC.
We have designed the forums to maximize participation and offer comfortable methods for feedback. This has been done according to established practices. We have also heard that some feel strongly that a traditional format where members of the public make a statement to the full audience is something they would like. In an effort to be responsive to these requests, we will be extending the Amherst Forum to do the small table format followed by about and hour and a half for a tradition format. An email will go out on that soon.
Take care,
Bill
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Forest Futures Technical Steering Committee" group.
To post to this group, send email to forest-futures-techni...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to forest-futures-technical-st...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/forest-futures-technical-steering-committee?hl=en.
Mary Booth
Bill,
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the small group “circle” approach is infantilizating. The Manomet meeting was a prime example. Everyone milled around for a while while the moderator shrieked into the microphone that people should get started, then we sat around and looked at each other blankly. When it was time for the groups to report out, we got a recitations of often boring, repetitive and off-the-wall comments, read as quickly at possible. It was an almost entirely content-free component of the evening.
I know this may be the latest greatest thing in facilitated discussion, but we Massachusetts types don’t like these cuddly interactions. We want to speak, and be heard, and we want the whole room to hear us. We're adults, and we're used to Town Meeting formats. I say this with no intention of speaking at any of the public forums myself – I’m more interested in what the public has to say. But I *was* just “public” at the Manomet meeting, and to me, the clear message of that meeting came across as wanting to give the appearance of a open forum, while it actually netutered what was meaningful about the process.
I suggest that you open up the floor and abandon the circle idea at the FIRST public forum. If it’s a disaster, then send everyone back to kindergarten.
Mary
Hi Bill,Well now that you have opened the door to modifying the format of the Forums, I have to wonder why only one of them and why one near the end of the schedule? If you are just testing the idea, wouldn't it make sense to try out the dual format at an earlier forum and then extend them all if it proves more effective? I know that after the Leominster forum early in this process I heard frustration from participants regarding the filtering and translating and thoughts lost due to misunderstanding by the table scribes. Allowing for attendees to express their own original thoughts will help avoid that problem but it seems all forums would benefit.Cathy
From: Bill Logue <Bi...@LogueGroup.com> Sent: Wed, January 27, 2010 2:25:49 PM
Subject: Forums
--TSC and AGS Members,
We have heard from a number of AGS members regarding the format of the public forums. A range of opinions have been expressed as to how these forums should be structured and even some internal negotiations within the AGS as to who should speak, etc. We feel it is important to make clear that when the MODR team designed these public forums - it was with the general public in mind and not the AGS. The AGS members have had an opportunity to be present during this process and to directly provide comments and state their views at several points during these last several months. We have heard from several members of the public and other groups who have not been part of the FFVP that they have been patiently waiting for their turn to review the TSC's draft recommendations and to provide their feedback.
We have also heard concerns from some AGS members that their "dissenting" opinions will not be heard by the public. There are differences across the spectrum from the AGS. Simply stated - the purpose of these forums is to present the TSC's draft recommendations to the general public who have not yet had the opportunity to hear from the TSC and for members of the general public to ask questions of the TSC and to provide their feedback/comments to the TSC. The overview of the draft recommendations will highlight where significant differences remain. However, these forums are not intended to be a debate. They were designed to give the general public the opportunity to consider the TSC draft recommendations and form their own conclusions on their merits including where differences remain within the TSC.
We have designed the forums to maximize participation and offer comfortable methods for feedback. This has been done according to established practices. We have also heard that some feel strongly that a traditional format where members of the public make a statement to the full audience is something they would like. In an effort to be responsive to these requests, we will be extending the Amherst Forum to do the small table format followed by about and hour and a half for a tradition format. An email will go out on that soon.
Take care,
Bill
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Forest Futures Advisory Group of Stakeholders" group.
To post to this group, send email to forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to forest-futures-advisory-grou...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/forest-futures-advisory-group-of-stakeholders?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Forest Futures Advisory Group of Stakeholders" group.
To post to this group, send email to forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to forest-futures-advisory-grou...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/forest-futures-advisory-group-of-stakeholders?hl=en.
--
Mary S. Booth, PhD
mbo...@massenvironmentalenergy.org
**********************************************
check out our website:
www.massenvironmentalenergy.org