SDAT process comments

[sebastacat]

The SDAT presentation just finished. I thought it was excellent! Lots of good ideas, some more practical and feasible than others, some more controversial than others.
...

Barry:

I'm afraid that I have to disagree. While some points of merit were made, I found the Friday forum to be poorly planned. The lack of microphone access for those asking questions was particularly irritating. And when one of the attendees asked for microphone access for those asking questions, he was quickly marginalized. This was not acceptable.

Also, when Colleen asked a question and made a comment, one of the members of the SDAT team asked the audience if they had heard her comments, to which the audience replied loudly and resoundingly, "NO!" However, in all fairness, one of the members of the team attempted to summarize after the fact what Colleen said; however, it would have been much more meaningful if we had been able to hear it from Colleen instead. The same goes for the other members of the audience who asked questions as well.

I can attest personally that I never once fully and clearly heard even ONE question which was asked by members of the audience, and I was making a stellar effort to do so. In my opinion, this was a classic example of poor planning.

While I am grateful for all of the hard work that the SDAT team put into this project, I hope that they will learn from what I feel were some rather serious shortcomings of the Sebastopol forum which detracted from what could have been an outstanding exercise in civic participation.

[Barry]

Barry:
I'm afraid that I have to disagree. While some points of merit were made, I found the Friday forum to be poorly planned. The lack of microphone access for those asking questions [emphasis added] was particularly irritating. And when one of the attendees asked for microphone access for those asking questions, he was quickly marginalized. This was not acceptable.

I'm afraid I have to disagree.

However I grant you that there was at least one serious flaw in the planning for last night's community event. The "question and answer" section should have been more tightly controlled so that it was actually an "question and answer" section, where questions are asked, rather than abusing the public forum to make their own statements to a captive audience, as was the case several times last night. Apparently the SDAT team was not aware of our natural abundance of citizens who would co-opt the public's attention.

Questions tend to be relatively short, such as "What is a Greenway?" that was asked last night. In any case, 15 seconds is all that is needed to ask a thoughtful question. If the SDAT team had stated that they were allotting up to 15 seconds to state your question, it would have prevented/mitigated the abuses of last night. A microphone would have been nice, too - but that's a boogie, and restating a 15 second question isn't that hard. Again, all and all it was an exceptional forum.

Last night was for the presentation of the SDAT committee's findings/recommendations and questions about that. There was plenty of time in the input gathering phase and the town hall for members of the public to make their thoughts known.

BTW, I missed the town hall. Anybody want to post their report and thoughts about how that went?

Also, when Colleen asked a question and made a comment, one of the members of the SDAT team asked the audience if they had heard her comments, to which the audience replied loudly and resoundingly, "NO!"

I had a different experience about how that went down. After Colleen took the invitation to ask a question, and used it to make another extended presentation of her ideas, the audience responded with a loud and resounding "NO" to giving her a microphone or otherwise having more time being spent on her off-topic comments [it was not a question about their presentation]. When the video comes out, I think that will be clear. The "world domination guy" (Delphi something?) was even a worse case of this. I thought it was pretty funny that he was using "domination" to get his message out, that he didn't even try to pretend was a question.

If the format had constrained their remarks (and others) to 15 seconds, there would have been a much better use of this exceptional opportunity to understand what this impressive team of civic designers had to share with us. I expect I will be chewing on it for a while, and I hope you'll join me.

[sebastacat]

Barry.....

When one of the presenters asked if people had heard the question, I, along with several others, answered, "No."
That's how I remember it. Perhaps I misheard.

Also, I do not believe that questions should be limited to 15 seconds in length. There was absolutely no time limit put in place as to the length of questions which would be allowed prior to the forum taking place. To do so after the fact would have been totally improper.

As for people using the forum to advance their cause, you are entitled to your opinion. But I will say this: At least they made an effort to show up. At least they made an effort to participate. At least they had the guts to get up and either ask a question or advance an idea. At least they made an effort to participate in this thing that we cherish that we call a democracy.

Just because you and others may not agree with them is totally irrelevant. To paraphrase a great statesman, I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Let us all remember and be guided by those exceptional words.

APPENDAGE TO ORIGINAL POST: When you review the tape of the proceedings, you will see that other members of the community expressed similar frustrations with being unable to hear the original questions posed by audience members as well as the lack of microphone access.