ADAMS COUNTY STORMWATER UTILITY TASK FORCE: MAY 22, 2013 – SEPTEMBER 25, 2013

In response to public outcry over the imposition of a stormwater fee on landowners in unincorporated Adams County, on April 1, 2013, the Adams County Board of County Commissioners passed a resolution creating the Stormwater Utility Task Force.  A diverse group of 22 citizens were selected from people who answered the call for volunteers for the Task Force.  The Task Force has been charged with developing recommendations to be given to the County Commissioners concerning alternatives to the fee as it is presently constituted.  The County Commissioners placed no restrictions on the scope or content of the recommendations they expect.

I was selected to be the contract Task Force facilitator for its eight (and perhaps up to ten) two-hour meetings.  The schedule for these meetings and the topics for each are given at the Adams County website given above.  Two of the meetings have already occurred (on 5/22/13 and 6/12/13).

The first introductory meeting allowed the Task Force members to be greeted and then briefed by the County Commissioners on the expectations for the group.  The members all introduced themselves, and I introduced myself to them as the facilitator of the Task Force.  A discussion of the various members’ questions and concerns followed.  I described the concept of consensus decision making to the group, and they agreed that they would use that method to arrive at group decisions.  Then, the members considered a general set of twelve ground rules I proposed to them and discussed tailoring them specifically to this Task Force by adding a rule number thirteen about the role of non-member observers.  The group arrived at a consensus for ground rule number thirteen (to be finalized at the second meeting).

The first thing the Task Force did at the second meeting was to ratify ground rule number thirteen, thus completing the adoption of the entire set of ground rules for their meetings to come.  There was controversy concerning whether or not the County should continue to provide dinner at each meeting.  So, I facilitated a discussion about this question.  Although the group was not unanimous in its feeling on this matter, the overwhelming consensus was for the provision of dinner to continue.  The rest of the meeting was devoted to presentations by guest speakers from the EPA and the Colorado Water Quality Control Division.  I moderated the questions and answers during these presentations, recording them on a flip chart.  Then, as is planned for every meeting, the group had a dialogue about what they had heard and what was to occur during the next meeting(s).

I will continue to facilitate the work of this Task Force during its meetings to come.  I expect a challenging time when the group considers its recommendations in September.  Group Facilitation of a public task force discussing a complex and controversial issue such as this is indeed a challenge, but it is one that I have met several times before in my career as a Group Facilitator.  I look forward to the upcoming meetings and to assisting the members of this Task Force in reaching consensus on their recommendations.  I commend the Adams County Commissioners and staff for their excellent judgment in seeking this type of public input on an issue that affects the lives and pocketbooks of all of their citizens.

For more information about the Adams County stormwater fee, the conflict about it and the development of the Stormwater Utility Task Force, please refer to the following Denver Post articles:

Denver Post Article

By |10:53 pm|Group Facilitation Denver|Comments Off on ADAMS COUNTY STORMWATER UTILITY TASK FORCE: MAY 22, 2013 – SEPTEMBER 25, 2013
Read More

GROUP FACILITATION – An Action Plan for a Public Board

A couple of years ago, I was asked to facilitate a series of meetings involving the members of a public board appointed by a City Council in Colorado.  The Board was going through a period of transition, with a few new members having been appointed to the Board whose styles and values differed from their predecessors.  Furthermore, a new Board member was soon to become the chair, and the Director of the staff of the organization over which the Board had authority was soon to retire.  Many things were in flux, and Board meetings had become laden with conflict and less productive than in the past.  The goal of the meetings I was hired to facilitate was to develop an Action Plan to allow the Board to have more civil and productive deliberations and operations in the future.

After conducting a personal interview with each of the Board and staff members, I facilitated two planning meetings with the Board members, as a group.  After agreeing to a set of ground rules for their meetings (something I always help the members of any group to do at their first meeting), the group discussed the issues that had brought them to the table.  I was able to suggest an agenda with potential topics because I had already spoken one-on-one with everyone there.  Although the details of each interview were kept private, it was understood by everyone that I would produce proposed issues for discussion based on those interviews.  I made detailed notes at each group meeting, noting areas of agreement when they happened.

Finding the time for these special meetings had been a challenge for the Board.  Other business had to be postponed, and getting everyone on the Board to the table for the meetings was difficult.  The Board also wanted to complete the discussion process as quickly and economically as possible.  Therefore, the members avoided a third meeting to finalize their written agreement (an “Action Plan for the Future”) by asking me to find the areas of agreement among the notes from their first two meetings and to use them to draft the Action Plan for everyone to consider and sign at a future Board meeting.

When making flip chart notes during a facilitated meeting, I always make note of the main issues of concern, and I highlight the areas of group consensus when I transcribe the notes.  All of the Board members had been given copies of the transcribed notes – so they had seen those areas of agreement.  Thus, I was able to review the meeting notes, find the areas of agreement and draft the Action Plan, as requested.  I presented the draft Action Plan to the Board members at their next regular meeting.  The plan was for them to discuss the agreement on their own, make minor modifications and then sign the document.  Since my work as a facilitator was complete once the Action Plan was produced, I do not know the final fate of my draft Action Plan.  I do know that I was able to create a credible agreement document based on my understanding of the issues facing the Board and the notes I made at each meeting.

This is not a standard plan for producing an agreement after a series of meetings; however, for this case, it worked!

By |9:35 pm|Group Facilitation Denver|Comments Off on GROUP FACILITATION – An Action Plan for a Public Board
Read More