Format of the forums

[Nan Finkenaur]

The TSC and the AGS did not reach a consensus on several important issues, and there is not enough time before these public meetings and the draft release to the public, to work out critical differences in opinion, per Bill’s email.

I have heard that the planned format for is for MODR to explain the FFVP in about 3 minutes, give TSC members about 20 minutes to present the recommendations, and then have citizens break into groups, where their comments will be recorded. This type of format restricts information and excludes alternate points of view from being aired before the entire group.

I support the Friends Network proposal for public feedback on recommendations presented to the Stewardship Council December 5, 2009. Following the approach of scientific meetings, this format promotes open discussions, presentations of alternate views, and direct questions from the floor that all participants may want to hear.:

The Friends Network recommends the following format:
TSC panel presents recommendations
Dissenting panel presents view
Citizens ask questions of both panels in an open forum for all to hear
Comment forms collected from citizens at the end of the meeting
We also request:
The FFVP Recommendations Draft and the dissenting statement/s be made available and advertised to the public well in advance of the meetings.
DCR to keep official records of the forums, including comments or materials presented by citizens, and that this information be made available to the public.
DCR to define the mechanism by which public information and ideas can or will be incorporated into the final Forest Future Vision Recommendations.
Comments gathered from the forums and through written submission be made public.
Comments be analyzed and weighted according to knowledge and expertise. Comments from an expert in forestry, natural science, etc., should carry greater weight. For example, comments from someone such as Robert Leverett, who would have served on TSC except for health issues, should have more influence on the final recommendations than someone with no expertise. Therefore, it is important to ask people to identify their areas of interest and expertise on the comment forms.
DCR should invite expert evaluation of the Forest Futures Vision Recommendations and adjust the recommendations accordingly.

Nan

[Heidi Ricci]

I support a format for the public forums that includes presentation of dissenting views and that enables citizens to speak directly to all gathered, not just within confined small groups.  I communicated this to Bill Logue previously and was not satisfied with the response I received.

 

Heidi

 

E. Heidi Ricci
Senior Policy Analyst
Mass Audubon
208 South Great Road
Lincoln, MA  01773
781-259-2172
FAX 781-259-1089
hri...@massaudubon.org
If you support our public policy initiatives, advocacy positions & environmental projects, join over 100,000 other people as a Mass Audubon member at: www.massaudubon.org

[Dicken Crane]

I think it is important that the input from these forums gets equal weight as the input from the AGS. The smaller groups give more people more opportunity to present their points of view. The AGS has had its turn. It's time to let the public speak to the TSC
Dicken

[Heidi Ricci]

I disagree that smaller groups allows more people to present their points of view. On the contrary, it prevents people from speaking to everyone present including the public officials and possibly media who may attend the forums. It dilutes any one individual's input into notes taken around a table which may or may not accurately and adequately reflect the opinions or suggestions offered by each of the individuals at the table.

I am not seeking another opportunity for each individual AGS member to speak. Rather, I want to make sure that members of the PUBLIC have an opportunity to state their opinions in an open public forum (whether or not I agree with them).

I would be willing to agree as an AGS member to not take up any time presenting my own thoughts at the forums, so long as someone from the AGS has the opportunity to present the dissenting views held by the AGS members who are so concerned that the core issues have not been addressed and who want to make sure that the 80% reserves option is at least mentioned within the range of options proposed during the process.

But my overriding concern is that there is little point in holding the public forums if the public will not be allowed to state their views to all present and have that recorded and included in the documentation of this process.

Heidi

E. Heidi Ricci
Senior Policy Analyst
Mass Audubon
208 South Great Road
Lincoln, MA  01773
781-259-2172
FAX 781-259-1089
hri...@massaudubon.org
If you support our public policy initiatives, advocacy positions & environmental projects, join over 100,000 other people as a Mass Audubon member at: www.massaudubon.org

[James McCaffrey]

Hi Dicken,

I fully support your view that the public should have their turn to speak
their views to the TSC, but I disagree that the "smaller groups give more
people more opportunity to present their points".

I have participated in many forums like this over the years and sadly the
opposite is true.

I have run these types of sessions myself at public forums. This type of
format does not allow everyone to speak directly to the decision makers. It
requires "reporting out" of groups, which condenses and/or potentially
censors people's views, depending on who sits at which table, who is taking
notes, and who "reports out".

In short, this format marginalizes individual's views... It replaces them
with outcomes based on a restrictive "format" and a "process".

Breakout groups is absolutely the wrong format for the public listening
sessions.

Any individual who wants to should be offered the opportunity to speak at
the forums, directly to the decision makers and those making the
recommendations to DCR.

Jay

On 1/21/10 11:20 AM, "Dicken Crane" <dicke...@mac.com> wrote:

> The smaller groups give more people more opportunity to present their points
> of view.

________________________________
James McCaffrey
Director
Massachusetts Sierra Club
10 Milk Street, Suite 632
Boston MA 02108

617.423.5775 voice
617.890.0338 fax
www.sierraclubmass.org
dire...@sierraclubmass.org
__________________________________

The Sierra Club is a non-profit environmental organization with 21,000
members in Massachusetts and 700,000 members nationwide dedicated to the
preservation, protection, and exploration of the earth¹s natural
environment. Join us! www.sierraclubmass.org

[Mike Ryan]

Having attended the Manomet public meeting in December with 200 people in attendance I can say that it was very clear how much of a time waster the group session format was.

Pandemonium while the groups shuffle around and then the clock just spins as folks share their stories concerns opinions in the discussion circles.  

And then what individuals express all gets filtered through the jotting down of the 'scribe' who then again filters expressed sentiments again in his/her 'presentation'... 

...so evident that whomever designs such a format is not interested in hearing directly from the public.

Some at the Manomet public meeting who expressed concerns in the group sessions had to yell out when when the 'scribe' failed to convey the meaning of what the person has said, 'hey that isn't what I said or meant!' or worse, 'hey, why didn't you convey my comment I made in the small circle?'

Not acceptable. 

Let the conveners hear from the public directly.  

And let the dissenting views by the AGS be heard directly from the AGS.

Mike

[Cathy Kristofferson]

I agree that the smaller groups does NOT allow more people to be heard since the smaller groups' "views" are distilled by the table monitors into a view of each group.  Also, at the previous FFVP forums I have seen tables where one individual dominates that whole table's view leaving the remaining voices unspoken.  I think that the PUBLIC should be heard - this means that no AGS, no TSC, and no DCR employees/contractors should be heard from the floor.  The format proposed was to allow MODR to present a quick overview, one TSC member to present their findings, and one AGS member to present the dissenting view then it will opened up for comment and questions to be recorded from the floor.  This seems to allow for the proper balance in my view.

 

Cathy

---

From: Heidi Ricci <hri...@massaudubon.org>
To: forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com; forestfutur...@googlegroups.com
Cc: slhe...@comcast.net
Sent: Thu, January 21, 2010 11:36:37 AM
Subject: RE: Format of the forums

[mandchurley]

I agree with Heidi's comments below. I have been a participant in public
input sessions where the group format was used. At the end, some leaders of
the groups were required to use their personal judgment as to whether or not
to present some of the opinions shared in the groups. In some cases,
opinions were not shared with the larger audience because they "repeated"
something that had been said before. Some opinions were not shared because
they were not expressed in the form of a "question", when the group leader
thought they should have been. Additionally, some group individual comments
were "added together and generalized" in ways that did not capture the exact
meaning of individual comments.

I completely support the format suggested by Nan on behalf of the Network of
Friends Groups where all individual comments will be heard by the entire
room of participants, leaders and media present. Claudia Hurley

----- Original Message -----
From: "Heidi Ricci" <hri...@massaudubon.org>
To: <forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com>;
<forestfutur...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: <slhe...@comcast.net>

[Michael Kellett]

I agree with those opposed to the small groups approach. I have also
been involved in may forums that used small groups, and have always
thought they were ineffective, cumbersome, and counterproductive. I
also agree that this should be an opportunity for the public to speak
their mind, and that it should not be dominated by TSC and AGS members.

Michael

Hi Dicken,

Jay

--
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
.

[Ted Cady]

I like Cathy's idea of no input from TSC, AGS or DCR at the public forums (other than to present the report) to allow time for citizens who have not been involved in the program to speak.  Sometimes at public forums one particular interest group will "stuff the meeting" but that is what democracy is about.  I also have a minor concern that at a public forum everyone should be allowed to speak, so maybe rather than bar TSC, AGS and DCR folks it would be better to have them agree not to speak, and if they felt a great need to speak then it should be at the end after everyone else has had their chance.  It is a challenge for the scribe to take good notes, especially if it is a long session, so written comments along with the verbal testimony should be encouraged.

-----Original Message-----
From: Cathy Kristofferson
Sent: Jan 21, 2010 12:00 PM
To: forestfutur...@googlegroups.com, forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com
Cc: slhe...@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Format of the forums

I agree that the smaller groups does NOT allow more people to be heard since the smaller groups' "views" are distilled by the table monitors into a view of each group.  Also, at the previous FFVP forums I have seen tables where one individual dominates that whole table's view leaving the remaining voices unspoken.  I think that the PUBLIC should be heard - this means that no AGS, no TSC, and no DCR employees/contractors should be heard from the floor.  The format proposed was to allow MODR to present a quick overview, one TSC member to present their findings, and one AGS member to present the dissenting view then it will opened up for comment and questions to be recorded from the floor.  This seems to allow for the proper balance in my view.

 

Cathy

From: Heidi Ricci <hri...@massaudubon.org>
To: forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com; forestfutur...@googlegroups.com
Cc: slhe...@comcast.net

Sent: Thu, January 21, 2010 11:36:37 AM

Subject: RE: Format of the forums

I disagree that smaller groups allows more people to present their points of view.  On the contrary, it prevents people from speaking to everyone present including the public officials and possibly media who may attend the forums.  It dilutes any one individual's input into notes taken around a table which may or may not accurately and adequately reflect the opinions or suggestions offered by each of the individuals at the table.

I am not seeking another opportunity for each individual AGS member to speak.  Rather, I want to make sure that members of the PUBLIC have an opportunity to state their opinions in an open public forum (whether or not I agree with them).

I would be willing to agree as an AGS member to not take up any time presenting my own thoughts at the forums, so long as someone from the AGS has the opportunity to present the dissenting views held by the AGS members who are so concerned that the core issues have not been addressed and who want to make sure that the 80% reserves option is at least mentioned within the range of options proposed during the process.

But my overriding concern is that there is little point in holding the public forums if the public will not be allowed to state their views to all present and have that recorded and included in the documentation of this process.

Heidi

E. Heidi Ricci
Senior Policy Analyst
Mass Audubon
208 South Great Road
Lincoln, MA  01773
781-259-2172
FAX 781-259-1089
hri...@massaudubon.org
If you support our public policy initiatives, advocacy positions & environmental projects, join over 100,000 other people as a Mass Audubon member at: www.massaudubon.org





-----Original Message-----
From: forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com [mailto:forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dicken Crane
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:21 AM
To: forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Format of the forums

I think it is important that the input from these forums gets equal weight as the input from the AGS. The smaller groups give more people more opportunity to present their points of view. The AGS has had its turn. It's time to let the public speak to the TSC Dicken

________________________________________
PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http://www.peoplepc.com

[Mike Ryan]

Ted, 

Bear in mind that the proposal that no member of the TSC or AGS speak from the floor of the public meetings is conditioned

on there being a presentation at the outset of the meeting from the AGS to present a view independent of the TSC summary, as Heidi has stated:

I would be willing to agree as an AGS member to not take up any time presenting their own thoughts at the forums, so long as someone from the AGS has the opportunity to present the dissenting views held by the AGS members who are so concerned that the core issues have not been addressed and who want to make sure that the 80% reserves option is at least mentioned within the range of options proposed during the process 

Mike

[Bill Boles]

I also agree that a "true" public forum is needed.  People need to be able to get up in front of a microphone and tell everyone present just how they feel. Otherwise they'll feel that their opinions are marginalized. I've taken part in a number of public forums with this proposed format and each time I've gone away thinking that it's been a waste on my time, and that of everyone else. People will be expecting that they've come to a public meeting where they'll be allowed to speak. They'll go away unsatisfied, and probably angry, if they don't get that opportunity. Bill Boles New England Mountain Bike Association http://www.nemba.org/ Dirt Rag Magazine http://www.dirtragmag.com/ Friends of Wompatuck State Park http://www.friendsofwompatuck.org/ --- On Thu, 1/21/10, Cathy Kristofferson <ckm...@verizon.net> wrote:

From: Cathy Kristofferson <ckm...@verizon.net> Subject: Re: Format of the forums

To: forestfutur...@googlegroups.com, forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com Cc: slhe...@comcast.net

[Mary Booth]

I think the small group forum is totally mickey mouse. I agree with Mike’s comments about the Manomet forum, as well.

 

Sometimes at big meetings there is a need to organize the way public input is given so that enough people get to speak, but the small groups approach “emasculates” the process and is not the way to go.

 

Mary

--

Mary S. Booth, PhD
mbo...@massenvironmentalenergy.org
**********************************************
check out our website:
www.massenvironmentalenergy.org

[Ted Cady]

Mike,

I agree with you completely.  I was thinking of it and should have included AGS in my comment. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Ryan
Subject: Re: Format of the forums

Ted, 

Bear in mind that the proposal that no member of the TSC or AGS speak from the floor of the public meetings is conditioned

on there being a presentation at the outset of the meeting from the AGS to present a view independent of the TSC summary, as Heidi has stated:

I would be willing to agree as an AGS member to not take up any time presenting their own thoughts at the forums, so long as someone from the AGS has the opportunity to present the dissenting views held by the AGS members who are so concerned that the core issues have not been addressed and who want to make sure that the 80% reserves option is at least mentioned within the range of options proposed during the process 

Mike

[Fred Heyes]

I support a format that encourages input from members of the public that have not been already heard.

As ags member we have had direct access to the TSC and total ability to input almost anything to them.

 

It is time for us to be quiet and listen to "the public"

and not our each individual publics, and make them comfortable.

Table discussions will do that.

We have talked too much , too long, and repetitively on our interests.

We have been heard. It is not now our turn

 

fred

 

---

From: forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com [mailto:forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Heidi Ricci
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 10:50 AM
To: forestfutur...@googlegroups.com; forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Sharl Heller

Subject: RE: Format of the forums

--

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.

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2634 - Release Date: 01/21/10 07:34:00

[Alexandra]

I dunno who should talk and who should listen at the forums but it had better be made clear BEFORE THE FORUM START or there will be lots and lots of bad feeling and sqwaks from people who took a lot of trouble to come in expectation of speaking.  alexandra

[Alexandra]

agree with Ted.  claudia thinks the big four AGS issues are reserves, early habitat, FSC, biomass use of public wood.  I would add, clearcuts by any other name.  alexandra

----- Original Message -----

From: Ted Cady

To: forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 8:33 AM

Subject: Re: Format of the forums

Mike,

I agree with you completely.  I was thinking of it and should have included AGS in my comment. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Ryan
Subject: Re: Format of the forums
Ted, 

Bear in mind that the proposal that no member of the TSC or AGS speak from the floor of the public meetings is conditioned

on there being a presentation at the outset of the meeting from the AGS to present a view independent of the TSC summary, as Heidi has stated:

I would be willing to agree as an AGS member to not take up any time presenting their own thoughts at the forums, so long as someone from the AGS has the opportunity to present the dissenting views held by the AGS members who are so concerned that the core issues have not been addressed and who want to make sure that the 80% reserves option is at least mentioned within the range of options proposed during the process 

Mike

________________________________________
PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http://www.peoplepc.com

--

[mandchurley]

Yes, Alexandra, anything that looks like a clearcut!

 

Instead of just being against FSC I'm beginning to think that a better way to express those concerns is to say that we need and have needed very good oversight of forestry.  I question whether FSC can possibly be the one to do it... we need it somehow.  So I'm willing to fight for what we want, rather than waste more energy fighting against FSC.   We want dependable, credible, thorough oversight that enforces our BMP's and state laws.... and holds people accountable.  How will we get that?    We just can't allow for bad forestry to harm our woodlands.

[Alexandra]

Until the uberforester on a white horse arrives, we need to lock up the public lands in reserves--it is the only way right now. 

   We are wasting time arguing about the forum setup and whether Quabbin should have been in the study.  TOO LATE.  alexandra