Places are laboratories of diversity and complexity, mixing social functions and natural processes. A place has a human history and a geologic past: it is a part of an ecosystem with a variety of microsystems, it is a landscape with a particular flora and fauna. Its inhabitants are part of a social, economic, and political order: they import or export energy materials, water, and wastes, they are linked by innumerable bonds to other places. A place cannot be understood from the vantage point of a single discipline or specialization. It can be understood only on its terms as a complex mosaic of phenomena and problems (Orr, 1992, p. 129).
In his book The Next Form of Democracy, Leighninger (2006) relays his observations of political change happening across America. For effective group discussions, he discerns four-main components as essential to collaboration:
1) An impartial facilitator is critical for success of the discussion;
2) Allow group to set their own ground rules;
3) Follow a written guide that helps structure meeting sessions;
4) People valued the opportunity to compare personal experiences.
Impartiality
From experience, PPR and the community knew that having a third-party facilitator would be invaluable to the process. As explained above, a majority of the planning group had gone through the initial mediation with Damon and Forst, and felt that the positive outcome was largely achieved because of their ability to arbitrate between the disparate groups while remaining neutral to the subject.
Facilitators trying to “educate” participants had the potential to backfire, as members had joined the conversation to start with a clean slate and plan without priorities already outlined. Damon and Forst steered clear of any attempt at giving the lay of the land themselves, letting planning group members provide background when appropriate. As impartial facilitators, their job was to allow everyone the opportunity to speak, manage meeting time, and work through conflicts.
A Chance to Speak
With a large contingency present at every meeting, managing time while allowing everyone a chance to participate was a constant challenge. To encourage everyone to have a voice in the process, various communication tools were incorporated into the meetings to expedite the flow of discussions, produce decisions, and provide opportunity for feedback.
One of the tested ways to produce discussion in a large group that allows for multiple voices is to break the larger group into smaller working groups. Each group is then tasked with answering specific questions and returning to the larger group to share their findings. This structure was attempted at the first two meetings, but a contingency of members felt it was a complete failure, feeling they were missing out on key insight from the brainstorming sessions of other groups. Others felt that the small groups slowed the process down as information had to be repeated over and over again.
Frustrations in the small group process were taken to the facilitators and a new approach was immediately implemented. Rather than break into small groups, members were seated in a large circle so that individuals could face and talk with each other as a whole.
Having facilitators that were approachable and open to change raised the comfort level and creativity of the group as members realized that voicing their concerns had an impact on the process.
Setting Ground Rules
The second standard that Leighninger (2006) highlights as an effective strategy for groups is to empower members to set their own ground rules. Doing so gets the group to commit to protocols that they themselves have established as important and have agreed to comply with. This opportunity was available to the group from the start, with the facilitators providing a template, and members adding or subtracting comments according to their own values and needs.
With a diverse group commenting on and forming the protocols, the process took nearly a month and encompassed much more than conduct. Weighing many issues, members expanded on meeting etiquette to write a model that would guide all aspects of the project, accomplishing the third priority that Leighninger points out as important for effective group process.
Blueprint
Working off of the resolution that City Council passed in September 2007, members crafted a document stating the purpose and responsibilities of the group starting with a mission statement, establishing goals and defining objectives. In addition, the document laid out the responsibilities of individuals and the group:
Mission Statement:
The purpose of the Mt. Tabor Central Yard & Nursery Planning Group is to fulfill the intent of City Council Resolution No. 36539: for community members to work in partnership with Portland Parks & Recreation staff to update the Mt. Tabor Master Plan to include the acreage of the Mt. Tabor Park Central Maintenance Yard, Nursery, and Long Block; and in so doing to create a comprehensive plan to restore and improve these important pieces of Mt. Tabor Park, which provide critical maintenance and horticultural services for the entire park system.
Goal:
The Planning Group will undertake an open, transparent, community-wide, and inclusive public involvement process that meets or exceeds the standards of Bureau Innovation Project #9, to develop and recommend a plan for the future of the Mt. Tabor Park Central Maintenance Yard, Nursery, and Long Block that:
Objectives:
- Considers the best public use for the Yard, Nursery, and Long Block, consistent with the public interest and the values articulated in the current Mt. Tabor Park Master Plan.
- Honors this land’s — and indeed the entire park’s — 2004 designation on the National Register of Historic Places.
- Improves the working conditions in these areas to better meet the needs of Portland Parks & Recreation’s workers, and to provide safe and efficient workspaces.
- Considers how best to maintain, refurbish, and enhance the Yard, Nursery, and Long Block, in an efficient, sustainable, and environmentally sound manner, in order to meet the maintenance and horticultural needs of Portland’s entire park system through the twenty-first century.
- Considers the original intent that the Olmsted Report of 1903 articulated as a vision for Mt. Tabor Park.
- Includes financial analyses and facilities-maintenance analyses.
Responsibilities:
- Attend bimonthly (approximately) meetings over the next 11 months beginning in February 2008.
- Review materials in advance of meetings.
- Actively participate in the meetings.
- Abide by the agreed upon meeting guidelines.
- Have a time commitment of approximately 8 hours every month. Additional time may be required as the work evolves.
- Ask questions to understand facts, ideas, or suggestions,
- Share differences of opinion on ideas.
- Help create an atmosphere in which differences can be raised, discussed, and melded into group decisions. Divergent views and opinions are expected and are to be respected.
- Talk to others in the community, to give and receive information.
- Stay informed about issues related to Mt. Tabor (at the yard; in the neighborhoods; with agencies; at the park (Mt. Tabor Planning Group, 2008, April)
Sharing Personal Experiences
The fourth parameter for effective group discussion that Leighninger (2006) champions, is to allow group members the opportunity, or opportunities, to share their personal reflections, experiences and values. Unfortunately, this aspiration didn’t materialize, though I don’t believe that was the intention of the facilitators.
At the first several meetings, when group members were broken into small discussion groups, the ability to share personal experiences was much greater than in the large group discussions that replaced them. In the small groups, facilitators led exercises designed to have members get to know one another; exercises such as members sharing where they were from, their hobbies, their careers, and what brought them to the planning group.
Even when the small groups weren’t specifically set up for “get-to-know-you” exercises, grouping individuals with different backgrounds encouraged conversation that was more detailed and personal than was possible in the large group, especially when a foundation of support hadn’t been laid.
Though I agreed with the effort to shift away from small groups in favor of “getting work done” due to the pressure of producing something huge in a limited amount of time, I think rushing this portion of the process hurt the group’s ability to connect in ways other than structured, managed snippets of discussion.
I am not making the observation that connections haven’t been made, because each group meeting brings more insight into the backgrounds and interests of members as they find opportunities to speak to the group. This has been especially true since the committees became established during the homework phase, essentially taking the place of the small group discussions, but connection has been slower.
One of the reasons bonds have been slow to form is that some members are more vocal in meetings than others. Some individuals, either because they’re more passionate and informed about issues, or because they’re more comfortable with speaking in front of a large group, can dominate discussions, leaving little room for new ideas to be presented. At some of the meetings, certain individuals must dominate discussion. PPR Services and City Nature managers are the authority on many of the issues of the land, and their presence on the planning group has many conversations directed toward them.
As written in the protocols, members have agreed to “share differences of opinions on ideas” but the lack of time didn’t deepen the conversation to share real differences and thoughts.
For example, I had to opportunity to talk with Patty Cassidy, a Mt. Tabor neighbor and planning group member about her experiences with Mt. Tabor. Cassidy, a horticultural therapist by trade, volunteers as a naturalist, teaching Portland Public School students about habitat at area parks. She came to the group to express the need to keep public land wild so that children could re-connect with nature. Her insight into this need comes from her first hand experiences working with inner city youth and seeing how deep the disconnect from nature runs in the next generation. Adding the fact that she was trained for the program through Metro’s Nature University, she brings a unique perspective on the vision for Mt. Tabor, but the opportunity to present that special knowledge hasn’t presented itself.
I recall my experience in mediation when discussion was much more personal and neighbors shared why they appreciated the extinct volcano in their backyard. There were time constraints then, too, and it could be difficult at times to get your voice heard, but there were opportunities to share our values and not just technical details.
In mediation, I made mention that we needed to remember that whatever we did to the land should take into consideration what our children seven generations from now would have to contend with. It was a point that stuck with many, but it’s a point that needs to be reiterated throughout the process. In the rush to get objectives accomplished, I hope we haven’t let those values get away from us, especially when we have the opportunity to deliberate on how both the land and how parks maintains the land for future generations.
There were ways around this, however. As a sustainability educator, I was continually chomping at the bit to relay my experiences for the need of tying this process together under an umbrella of sustainability.
Fortunately for me, sustainability was a top priority for the planning group, and the formation of the Sustainability Committee allowed me to relay my ideas, theories and experiences to a small group with the potential to present culminating ideas to the large group at periodical homework updates done at the group meetings.
Communication
Communication that is clear, transparent, reciprocal and straightforward is cornerstone to an effective partnership between diverse groups. It is also a huge obstacle as different groups have different communication tools, needs and abilities. To overcome this hurdle, a variety of methods were tried, tested and combined to give everyone more opportunity to be heard.
Green, Yellow, Red
Rather than having to vote on every issue that came up in the group process, something that the group was uneasy with, facilitators handed out green, yellow, and red flashcards to members that would be used to help gauge group interest on further discussion. If a topic was introduced or a decision was needed, participants held up a green card if they agreed, a yellow if they were unsure and required more information, or a red card if they disagreed and wanted further discussion.
The cards were a practical solution for a group that strived for consensus, but would settle for a 2/3 majority if a decision was needed and the issue was contentious. The tool kept discussions flowing, but they also took some getting used to.
At the first meeting the cards were issued, discussion was running past the scheduled end time, and an issue came to “vote” that seemed contentious. The suggestion for an “Executive Committee” (which would later become the “Coordinating Committee”) was brought up, but with little background information. The idea came from a dozen neighbors about wanting a small group of people who could be easily mobilized in case they were needed, such as meeting with City Council, and to strategize with Parks about process, communication, and agenda setting.
While there was support in the full group for this committee, evidenced by the majority of green cards that were held up, a handful of yellow and red cards halted the conversation. The decision was suspended for another two weeks for further discussion (until the next meeting), but the members that brought the idea to the group were livid. If a count of the green cards had been made, a 2/3 majority would have prevailed and an Executive Committee would have been immediately empowered to work closer with the support team and facilitators. Technically they were correct, but the discussion was tabled regardless.
Though I was aware of the reasons an Executive Committee was needed, as I was one of the dozen neighbors who had met between meetings to brainstorm ideas on increasing communication, I red flagged the vote because of the lack of explanation.
As I mentioned above, time was running out, and the reasons for the formation of the Executive Committee weren’t explained. Indeed, it was only introduced as “executive” – language that raised concerns regarding the level of authority such a committee would have, how members would be selected, and whether it could cause a split in the group. Even though it delayed the development of an official committee, taking the extra time allowed for further explanation between meetings and got everyone on board. It also took the original concerns of the name seriously, and the group green flagged changing the name to Coordinating Committee.
Questions/comments
One of the later developments in the meetings, sparked largely because of time constraints, individuals were asked to write their comments and questions on worksheets that were handed out before the meetings. We’d had comment forms at all of our meetings, collected at the end of each evening by the support staff, that asked “what went well in the meeting”, “what didn’t go well”, and “do you have suggestions for improvement”?
These new forms were different in that they were meant to address questions and comments for presenters. For several weeks in a row, meetings veered away from group discussion and were instead spent listening and interacting with experts. Eileen Argentina, PPR’s Service manager, and Dave McAllister, PPR’s City Nature manager, gave presentations on the service delivery plans for their departments, giving invaluable big picture insight into Park’s maintenance needs. A week later, the group held committee check-ins where representatives gave updates on their research.
In both meetings, a brief question and answer session followed each presentation, and face-to-face discussion was thoughtful. The depth of questions that came back from the worksheets, however, went far beyond those that were brought up in the group. The stark difference highlighted how limiting a tight timeframe can be. Capturing feedback from many people this way helped the process by challenging the committees to expand their thinking.
No comments yet
Comments feed for this article