LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for NCDD-DISCUSSION Archives


NCDD-DISCUSSION Archives

NCDD-DISCUSSION Archives


NCDD-DISCUSSION@LISTS.NCDD.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

NCDD-DISCUSSION Home

NCDD-DISCUSSION Home

NCDD-DISCUSSION  March 2014, Week 3

NCDD-DISCUSSION March 2014, Week 3

Subject:

Re: More on Planners and Engagement

From:

"Mills, Joel" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Mills, Joel

Date:

Mon, 17 Mar 2014 20:58:59 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (913 lines)

Ron,

Thanks for your message back. I'm almost tempted to take our dialogue offline as I suspect you and I could go back and forth on this topic all day long, but I'll go one more time with everyone copied.:) 

I will acknowledge that there is certainly MUCH progress to be made in "certified" planning establishment-run agencies, but I'd still maintain that it is improving rather than retrenching. To my knowledge, there has never been much IAP2 presence in the southeast, but I'd suggest that is more an issue of our field and the fact that most practitioners don't readily associate themselves with the few organizations that are trying to represent national or international hubs for their work -- and there I'd agree, there is much work to be done. However, these are existing conditions that have been static rather than regressing. There's no doubt that more work needs to be done - I'm currently fighting off the "opportunity" to be brought into a major foundation's initiative for similar reasons - they still don't get it, which is sad - but for every case like that there are new stories emerging that are encouraging, and I think the big picture is reason for optimism.

When we look at current practice, I think there is progress being made. More importantly, when we look at the future of the field, I think there is reason to be downright optimistic, because the millennial generation explicitly holds values that support participatory work. It is already causing institutional change. For instance, according to the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA), more than 70% of schools of architecture now have in-house design build programs, most of which include a specific mission to provide services to communities in need, and some of whom have represented the best values in community process work. According to a 2013 survey, 81% of architects reported that they were currently engaged in public interest design and 77% had worked pro bono, or for a reduced fee. Is all of this public interest work sufficiently participatory? Undoubtedly not. However, it does represent some progress. I know some of the projects we've done over the past couple of years, which always involve a university component where possible, have involved students specifically from participatory methods classes - and in jurisdictions as diverse as Massachusetts and Texas. And, while I might have concerns about what's being taught and how its being taught in some of those classes, I'd still maintain it represents a step forward that these things now exist. 

I was involved in a similar dialogue at the New Partners for Smart Growth conference a couple of years ago, with some similar dynamics. And, of course there was an overflow crowd of participants because so many people are now trying to understand why some places/processes never experience "outrages" or antics like theirs did. It represents a growing awareness that there is a better way out there, and hopefully it will continue to gain more traction. All of this work is continually changing, and communities strong in one area are weak in others. I can remember sending officials from Mozambique and Angola to learn about participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre, Brazil during the late 1990s as we were trying to help democratize those nations. I was always disappointed that their process didn't get more widely adapted…ironically, in the last few years a number of US jurisdictions are adapting/modeling it…and in full circle mode, I'm now being engaged by officials in Porto Alegre who want us to train them in our processes because they are experiencing all of the usual problems surrounding the lack of participatory processes regarding their land use and development decisions.

There are plenty of challenges, but I'm still optimistic.:)

Best Regards, 


Joel Mills
Director, Communities By Design
American Institute of Architects
(202) 626-7405
[log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Ronald L Thomas [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 7:53 PM
To: Mills, Joel; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [NCDD-DISCUSSION] More on Planners and Engagement

Joel - I appreciate your perspective but still hold that true
collaborative planning between leadership, their professionals (staff and
consultants) and the community is not thriving from the inside-out. There
are growing activities from the public interest sectors and perhaps
positive indicators from leadership but the proactive initiatives from the
"certified" planning establishment-run agencies have been increasingly
reverting to opinion measurement tools and/or public relations tools (open
house, etc) rather than advancing collaborative planning except in those
places where it has been practiced our the last couple of decades or so.
Where it is an established practice, it continues; where it has been the
exception, it is stagnant or regressing. To paraphrase the old nursery
rhyme "When its good, its very,very good and when its badŠ its horrid!"
Some of this trend is regional as well as local. IAP2, for instance, has
no Southeastern chapter and hardly even any members in this sector of the
country. I also know too many participation professional colleagues (who
have been professional leaders) that have left the field in the last
couple of years frustrated by with a lack of work or disingenuousness of
their assignments. One very interesting indicator for APA is that in the
67 years of their PAS (Planning Advisory Service reports) I find no issue
in the 576 issue library (I coauthored #569 BYW) dealing with public
participation/engagement.

When we received the APA National Award for a Plan in 2006 for the Chicago
regional planning project (got 2 more last year), I said publicly that I
appreciated the honor but had to ask why after almost four decades was
this and similar models of participatory planning still receiving awards
for their innovations when these demonstrated approaches should have
become the norm and standard by now for public planning.

I still maintain the position, that while there may be a rise (sometimes
reactionary such as the Tea Party) in grassroots action, governance and
engagement, it is from the outside and not a hand-in-hand partnership with
the public's (government) planning activities. At the more fundamental
level, it is hard to find a course in public engagement/participation
methods in planning, architecture or landscape architecture curricula.
While there are practitioners/academics who do bring it into the
curriculum, it is most often (sub rosa) in a course by another name and it
is certainly not a course requirement for accreditation like history, law
and ethics in planning.

Another indicator is that in the last several years there has hardly been
a session on public engagement at the national APA conference except those
on digital tools, surveys and online social media. All for these (going
back to our work with television electronic town meetings starting in 1979
in Roanoke) are powerful extension compliments to a face-to-face
collaborative strand of "getting around the table and working it out
together." But they are being totaed in many corners as a replacement fro
face to face interaction. The most recent "ploy" it seems is to commandeer
the term "stakeholder" and put in place a "Stakeholder" process whereby
those in charge pick representative stakeholders to "come to the Table."
When smartly done, the activist voices are invited in (increasing their
own organizational status) and defusing pressure for public involvement
with a "control group" that becomes a managed surrogate for truly opening
the doors to the public (APA session in 2013 Chicago Conference). The
Catch 22 today is that public officials and staff have been under attack
for some time in some very unsettling ways and are understandably "gun
shy" of their own public constituents. In turn the public is angry,
frustrated or just tired of being ignored and is either walking away or
becoming more unruly. Each side, thereby, is moving itself farther from
the other side.

About a year ago there was an APA webinar on dealing with Tea Party
aggressive actions. The webinar was mostly about PR and messaging but we
did get some traction to bring up collaborative engagement with positive
responses from places that had a trusted, established culture of
participatory democracy. In these places they had not "suffered the
outrages" of Tea Party tactics. In those communities the experience has
been that the contrarian  voices have shown up and sat down to voice their
opinions along with the rest of the community.

While I agree with Joel on the vitality of the participatory indicators he
cites, I will hold that the planning/design professionals within the
established agencies (and their consultants) are not usually the leaders
these days.

Ron Thomas, FAIPC
Coordinator
Gwinnett Environmental Planning & Design Program (MEPD)
College of Environment and Design
University of Georgia
Office: 205 Tanner Hall
Athens, GA 30602
312-513-2243 cell


On 3/14/14 12:35 PM, "Mills, Joel" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>I think that it is really tough to generalize about the state of the
>practice for a number of reasons. There are some great general surveys
>that hint at broad numbers on this question, so if you are looking for
>research data I'd suggest the National League of Cities work in 2009/10
>("Municipal Officials Views on Public Engagement", "Making Local
>Democracy Work," etc) and the American Planning Association's public
>opinion poll from 2012 ("Planning in America: Perceptions and
>Priorities") and the great study that Bill shared from ICMA, of course.
>In general, these studies have found that a) public processes are much
>more widely used (generally) than in the past, b) that there is both a
>growing recognition of the need for public participation processes AND a
>clear demand and desire for the public to be involved in decision-making,
>and c) wide disparities in the quality of public processes and practices
>across the country. I think you can infer major progress in public sector
>awareness and the general spread of public participation without making
>conclusions about quality. (I think it's pretty fantastic that the ICMA
>used the IAP2 spectrum as the tool for their survey, for instance). Local
>government's are also increasingly investing resources in this area -
>think of the cities/agencies/organizations that now have public
>participation officers, for instance. That survey does demonstrate what
>we as practitioners know from our work - that the appetite for the lower
>end of the spectrum is much higher, and it speaks to issues of capacity
>and comfort levels more generally that are based on prior experience in
>all likelihood (not to mention the point that lower levels of the
>spectrum may often be the appropriate way to go depending on what they
>are addressing).
>
>Beyond that, the simple fact is that we have a democratic vernacular at
>the local level, no matter where you are, that is a product of both
>systems of governance (council-manager vs. strong mayor vs. others, etc)
>and ongoing participatory traditions (or lack thereof) and civic culture.
>And then, within those civic frameworks, there are a host of different
>traditions and capacities as well (to Bill P's earlier point, you can
>often find extreme various in participatory practices across agencies or
>systems in a single jurisdiction, and it is changing all the time
>depending on leadership and issues). Every community has its own unique
>contextual reality to work with, and it is ever-changing, and certainly
>not linear. I'm in the process of working with several jurisdictions
>outside the U.S. right now, and they all think that they want what they
>perceive to be the local civic culture in the U.S., and I keep telling
>them that it is not monolithic or static here, and what you find (for
>instance) Philadelphia is night-and-day-different from what you find
>across the bridge in Camden, NJ, for instance.
>
>I served on IAP2-USA's Core Values awards jury last year, and I'd also
>point out that of our two winners, one was public sector (West Hollywood)
>and the other was civic sector (Healthy Democracy - Oregon). I think that
>there is often way too much attention to local government's orientation
>to public participation, and not nearly enough attention to the great
>stuff that is happening with civil society. Civil society often has much
>more capacity than the public sector these days. Planner's are
>desperately trying to create all kinds of jargon to keep up with what the
>community is already doing on its own these days (i.e. "crowd funding,
>tactical urbanism,"etcŠ). On the process side, think about the Great
>Expectations process in Philly a few years back that set the public
>agenda for the Nutter administration (as well as the waterfront planning
>processes that Penn Praxis led), or the Envision Utah process way back,
>etc. While local government still has most of the resources and capacity,
>its relative strength (again, generally) has been declining, and at the
>local level, the civic sector is increasingly where the interesting
>progress is being made, making governance writ large a more interesting
>area to study.
>
>The other interesting thing to consider in the US context particularly is
>that the millennial generation will represent 50% of the workforce in
>another five years, and unlike the baby boomers, the millennials desire
>tech-savvy, highly collaborative, broad communities of interest in
>pursuing their aspirations ---so a lot of our more traditional
>organizations and governing mechanisms are about to be turned on their
>heads by public demand and new generational leaders.:)
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Joel Mills
>Director, Communities By Design
>American Institute of Architects
>(202) 626-7405
>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>________________________________
>From: NCDD Discussion List [[log in to unmask]] on behalf
>of Jean-Daniel Cusin [[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 11:27 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [NCDD-DISCUSSION] More on Planners and Engagement
>
>Hi Bill,
>
>This ³virgin territory² we are specifically talking about here is the
>right half of the IAP2 spectrum of public
>participation<http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/import
>ed/IAP2%20Spectrum_vertical.pdf>.
>
>Itıs obviously harder to prove absence than the presence of a phenomenon.
>In this case, what is politically correct is for all sides to say that
>increased public engagement is needed and wanted.  Indeed, it is!
>
>But there is ample evidence that we are not yet there. Here are a few
>examples:
>
>A 2012 research report by Public
>Agenda<http://www.publicagenda.org/pages/public-engagement-in-california>
>on public engagement in California seems hopeful in its assessment, but
>it confirms that the public engagement in California is rather all on the
>left side of the IAP2 spectrum. Their research was quite broad. Itıs a
>good read.
>
>Mayor Williams in DC was indeed getting into this right side of the IAP2
>spectrum. It was his special initiative, and thus it could be killed by
>his successor, and it was. As long as public participation is dependant
>on the personal disposition of the person in power rather then being
>institutionalized as business as usual, it will remain ³virgin territory².
>
>The point is that being able to weigh in on decisions that affect oneself
>is a human right, not a privilege granted to us by some higher power.
>Taking part in the conduct of public affairs is a fundamental human right
>spelled out in Art. 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and
>Political Rights (1966).
>
>The Global Integrity<https://www.globalintegrity.org/> organization
>assesses the quality of governance of most countries around the world.
>³Public engagement in decision making² isnıt even on their list of
>criteria yet. Itıs still as if democracy simply amounted to the ability
>to vote. However, they are preoccupied with public engagement. On March
>7, they posted an
>article<https://www.globalintegrity.org/posts/how-to-give-citizen-engageme
>nt-impact-finish-the-loop/> about this which starts with:
>Yesterday, the World Bank hosted a panel session on Maximizing the Impact
>of Mapping and
>Crowdsourcing<http://wbi.worldbank.org/wbi/event/maximizing-impact-mapping
>-and-crowdsourcing> with experts from across the globe at both the civil
>society and government level. As expected, everyone agreed that while
>citizen engagement is absolutely essential to international development
>efforts ­ whether it is to monitor local elections in Nairobi, or to
>decide where to build 2,000 new public toilets in Chennai ­ they also
>agreed that the challenges to effectively include this engagement are
>substantial. (my emphasis)
>
>These findings validate the findings of a more global United Nations
>sponsored a consultation, GLOBAL THEMATIC CONSULTATION ON GOVERNANCE AND
>THE POST-2015 DEVELOPMENT
>FRAMEWORK<http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.363.234
>3&rep=rep1&type=pdf&utm_content=buffer6db51&utm_medium=social&utm_source=t
>witter.com&utm_campaign=buffer>, which links the general lack of public
>engagement to human abuse, war, poverty, corruption and most of the other
>dysfunctions of our species.
>
>Bill, you may be right when you write ³most local governments have used
>deliberative and participatory processes at some time on some issue.²
>However, sporadic efforts by well-meaning politicians when it suits them
>are not enough. Democracy is not just about the right to vote. Itıs about
>being able to exercise that fundamental human right that says that you
>have the right to weigh in on decisions that affect you.
>
>Jean-Daniel
>
>Jean-Daniel Cusin
>Chief Solutions Architect
>[e-Deliberation Pictoria]e-Deliberation
>E [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>| W
>https://www.e-Deliberation.com/<https://www.e-deliberation.com/>
>T 778-351-1814| F 778-426-1830| C 250-634-4974| skype jdcusin
>e-Deliberation is a secure, on-line platform for teams and communities
>to comfortably and effectively collaborate and achieve a meeting of the
>minds about tough, multifaceted issues, policies or goals.
>
>From: NCDD Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>Behalf Of Bill Potapchuk
>Sent: March 12, 2014 6:25 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [NCDD-DISCUSSION] More on Planners and Engagement
>
>Greetings Jean-Daniel:
>
>What data are you drawing from to support that assertion?
>
>And are you looking at particular policy arenas in offering that
>conclusion?  Planning and zoning?  Human services?  Education planning
>and reform?  Budget development and approval?  Environmental planning and
>protection?  Sustainability strategies?  Transportation planning?
>Neighborhood planning?  Youth development?  Public safety?  I ask about
>policy arenas because, in my experience, one finds different kinds and
>levels of engagement in the same community, depending upon the issue.  Do
>you notice differences by policy arena?
>
>I also find differentiation within policy arenas, often by the nature of
>work. For example, some cities have a very deep commitment to community
>policing.  In these places, certain aspects of policing and public safety
>strategy are managed through a shared decision making process with the
>community.  Other aspects of policing are managed through the command and
>control hierarchy.  Is this an appropriate delineation of decision making?
>
>I also find that the profiles of participation vary between cities that
>have a council-manager form of government (where government is run by a
>professional manager and the mayor does not have any direct authority
>over city staff) and those that have a mayor-council  form of government
>(where the Mayor runs the government).  In my experience, the profile of
>participation varies more in strong mayor cities depending upon who is
>mayor.  For example, participatory and deliberative engagement blossomed
>in extraordinary ways under Mayor Williams in DC and that all ended with
>the election of Mayor Fenty (Is that virgin territory or not?).
>
>In council manager cities there is often a more consistent approach to
>engagement (positive or not) and many city and county managers seek to
>foster more community engagement.  In places like Hampton, VA, which is
>led by a council manager form of government, there has been a consistent
>effort to share power with the community and foster deep and broad
>community engagement. Hampton was a finalist for the 2011 Reinhard Mohn
>prize for Vitalizing Democracy through participation
>http://www.vitalizing-democracy.org/index.php?page=viewcompiler&id_view=14
>2&menucontext=43 and I find the stories from each of the finalists to be
>inspiring.  ICMA, the professional association for city managers also
>actively promotes (through training, publications, and evangelizing) more
>engagement.  Do you notice any differences based upon form of government?
>
>I offer all of these questions and requests for clarification  because
>when we look more closely and do not seek to generalize,  I think we
>would find that most local governments have used deliberative and
>participatory processes at some time on some issue. It may have been two
>mayors ago or focused on particular issue and the experience was
>compartmentalized. The challenge has been that the use of these processes
>in a community on a particular issue or with a certain leader has not led
>to a wholesale change in the way these communities conduct public
>business.
>
>Best .. . Bill
>
>
>Bill Potapchuk
>Community Building Institute
>703-425-6296 office
>703-431-9943 cell
>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>[LinkedInLogo95x32]<http://www.linkedin.com/pub/william-potapchuk/6/478/39
>9>
>
>
>
>From: NCDD Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>Behalf Of Jean-Daniel Cusin
>Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 4:25 PM
>To:
>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
>RG>
>Subject: Re: [NCDD-DISCUSSION] More on Planners and Engagement
>
>Terry, Roger,
>
>What I meant by ³virgin territory² is that the practice of:
>governments welcoming residents into the process of governance itself
>where the decisions and policies that impact the residents are debated,
>deliberated and wrought
>is for all intents and purposes non-existent.
>
>What we usually see from government are efforts to inform and consult,
>but the power that comes with decision making us jealously guarded, and
>that is the virgin territory.
>
>Jean-Daniel
>
>From: NCDD Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>Behalf Of Terry Amsler (Institute for Local Government)
>Sent: March 11, 2014 8:46 PM
>To:
>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
>RG>
>Subject: Re: [NCDD-DISCUSSION] More on Planners and Engagement
>
>Roger,
>
>I canıt be sure what exactly Jean-Daniel meant by ³virgin territory² in
>this regard so Iım somewhat hesitant to respond.
>
>However I would suggest that at least in terms of public engagement (or
>³participation²) initiated or sponsored by local governments in
>California (the state with which I am most familiar) that language could
>be dangerously misleading if the subject includes the number of public
>engagement activities undertaken in the state, the range of public
>engagement strategies and methods employed, or the range of topics/issues
>addressed.
>
>I also think that the willingness of local officials in California to use
>public engagement processes, their growing direct experience with and
>appreciation of these efforts, and their sense that they have capacities
>to develop such approaches successfully, do not suggest the ³virgin
>territory² language and may mask a recognition of these activities and
>capacities as they are actually occurring. See, for instance,  the recent
>Public Agenda reports on their survey of local officials and civic
>leaders in California on these topics.
>
>If, on the other hand, the ³virgin territory² comment is meant to suggest
>the distance between what is happening now and what might be ultimately
>possible in terms fully creating, embedding and institutionalizing
>capacities for effective, inclusive and appropriate public engagement in
>the structures, operations and habits of local governance  throughout the
>united States, then the language of ³virgin territory² may have some
>meaning.  I would still suggest, however,  that this broad brush language
>would not be the most clarifying or helpful to use even in this case.
>
>Best,
>
>Terry Amsler
>
>From: NCDD Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>Behalf Of Roger Bernier
>Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 6:34 PM
>To:
>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
>RG>
>Subject: Re: [NCDD-DISCUSSION] More on Planners and Engagement
>
>All,
>
>I am curious to ask to what extent those of you on the list with relevant
>experience agree with the statement made by Jean-Daniel that meaningful
>engagement by local governments (i.e., collaborative deliberation) is
>still "virgin territory".
>
>In the article Bill Potapchuk circulated recently from the ICMA, it noted
>that only 12% of the respondents in their survey indicated that there is
>a high level of resident participation.
>
>This seems to support Jean-Daniel that meaningful engagement is still
>"virgin territory".
>
>Roger Bernier
>
>
>In a message dated 3/11/2014 8:41:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> writes:
>Ron,
>
>Vancouver is certainly leading the pack it seems.  I wanted to draw
>attention to PlaceSpeak.com<http://www.placespeak.com/> which is located
>in Vancouver. They provide a web-based service where residents can
>identify themselves as living in a specific geographical location and be
>alerted whenever there is a local government project, such as rezoning or
>a new development, that needs feedback from people living in the affected
>zone. Only people identified to that zone can leave feedback about the
>project on the PlaceSpeak site. The site has residents signed-up from all
>over North America.
>
>But more specifically to your question, Ron, I think that the old model
>where City Hall consulted with people, got the feedback, and then did
>whatever they wanted to do anyway is way past itıs best before date.
>Moving past informing and consulting is a whole spectrum of engagement
>that seems still virgin territory to most local governments: actual
>collaborative deliberation, where residents are engaged into the decision
>making process itself.
>
>While being elected confers a mandate to govern, it does not confer
>infinite wisdom, omniscience or intelligence. And given the ³wickedness²
>of the issues faced by many communities, elected officials would do well
>to get the persons most affected by their decisions to weigh in on the
>decision making process itself.
>
>Jean-Daniel Cusin
>Chief Solutions Architect
>[e-Deliberation Pictoria]e-Deliberation
>
>E [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>| W
>https://www.e-Deliberation.com/<https://www.e-deliberation.com/>
>T 778-351-1814| F 778-426-1830| C 250-634-4974| skype jdcusin
>
>e-Deliberation is a secure, on-line platform for teams and communities
>to comfortably and effectively collaborate and achieve a meeting of the
>minds about tough, multifaceted issues, policies or goals.
>
>From: NCDD Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>Behalf Of Ronald L Thomas
>Sent: March 11, 2014 2:07 PM
>To:
>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
>RG>
>Subject: [NCDD-DISCUSSION] More on Planners and Engagement
>
>Folks ­ Here is a recent Planetizen article entitled  10 Lessons in More
>Engaging Citizen Engagement from Vancouver that does well with engagement
>and planning.
>http://www.planetizen.com/node/67656
>
>Would be interested how this community sees this article.
>
>Ron Thomas, FAIPC
>Gwinnett Environmental Planning & Design Program (MEPD)
>College of Environment and Design
>University of Georgia
>Office: 204 Tanner Hall
>Athens, GA 30602
>312-513-2243 cell
>
>From: Roger Bernier <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>Date: Monday, January 20, 2014 12:32 AM
>To:
><[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
>ORG>>
>Subject: Re: [NCDD-DISCUSSION] Categorizing Deliberation Approaches
>
>Terry,
>
>I will take a crack at suggesting how elements of a public deliberation
>design could further the objective of greater accountability. I am
>curious to know to what extent NCDD members agree with these propositions.
>
>I am now speaking of what I call decision-focused public engagement which
>seeks to better inform a pending decision by a sponsoring agency or
>organization. This is not about conflict resolution, increasing
>understanding, or collaborative action as primary objective. .
>
>1. I believe that engaging the public later than earlier in a decision
>making process has the advantage of making it easier for the participants
>to see a connection, if there is one, between their advice and the final
>decision made. If there is no connection, participants may proactively
>seek accountability.
>
>2.Having the public reach a decision such as a recommendation or
>preference is a clear cut result and harder for decision makers in
>government to ignore than a summary of "input" or a list of "ideas"
>generated.
>
>3. I also believe that not all of the work participants can be asked to
>do in a decision making process is equally difficult and/or equally
>rewarding. I believe the later stage work can be more challenging and
>requires more effort. For this reason, it may have a greater potential to
>build ownership of the results among the participants. If so,
>participants who feel a sense of ownership may be more likely to seek
>accountability for their contributions.
>
>4. Another element of deliberation that builds accountability is the
>participation of the sponsoring agency's representatives as stakeholders
>along with other interest groups. To the extent that the result arrived
>at is a group result, the agency representatives may have a sense of
>ownership of the result and be more likely to promote the results with
>the leadership making the actual decision. This would also produce more
>accountability.
>
>5. Asking sponsors to commit to providing feedback to participants,
>including the reasons why a particular decision was made is another way
>of promoting accountability. Participants will be able to tell if their
>fingerprints are on the decision or not, and if not, if their advice
>received serious consideration.
>
>Roger Bernier
>
>
>
>
>In a message dated 1/19/2014 9:24:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> writes:
>All,
>
>I'd like to offer a bit of context (to this quite interesting
>conversation) to clarify my intent a bit.
>
>It seems to me that Kenoli believes that his D&D technique provides a
>superior alternative to our current governance structure.  Whether
>Kenoli's technique could serve as a practical, let alone a superior
>replacement, might be an interesting NCDD discussion topic.
>
>However, as Kenoli correctly observed and I emphasized, my interest is in
>improving the current representative democratic process, through the
>infusion of additional, more deliberative, elements.  I have a sense that
>such increased deliberation would further the objective of identifying a
>far more effective means of political accountability (compared to the
>status quo).
>
>Thus, D&D techniques whose objective is to replace our existing
>governance process (such as Kenoli's, I think), fall outside the
>techniques of most interest to me, at least at this time.
>
>Regards,
>
>Terry Steichen
>TopicCentral.com
>On 01/19/2014 03:27 PM, Kenoli Oleari wrote:
>Rosa and Ele (and Terry and others) ‹ Thanks for you ideas.
>
>I didnıt mean to offer Terry simple alternative categories; I was
>commenting on how I thought these categories themselves (and, perhaps,
>this may be related in some ways to the attempt at simplification) may
>distort what we are doing in ways that miss the critical value that we
>bring through our work.
>
>There is a substantive issue here: are we simply offering more effective
>and efficient processes that can be applied willy-nilly to the activities
>and goals that go under the name of public engagement in the world today
>or are we proposing a fundamental shift in the way we engage in the
>public arena?
>
>Saying this another way: are we simply talking about process, or are we
>saying that the process and functions that we see acted out in the world
>reflect a problematic approach to public engagement and offering
>different approaches to public engagement that support fundamental shifts
>in the current framework of public engagement?
>
>If I thought all we were doing was making what flies under the name of
>public engagement today more efficient and effective, I would not be very
>interested in this work.  In fact, if we do this, in someways what we are
>doing is lending credibility to a political system that has done more
>damage in the world than any (perhaps since Genghis Khan) political
>system that went before it.  This larger issue becomes particularly
>important if one holds, as I do, that these issues stem from fundamental
>design flaws in the constitution under which our country is governed (as
>well as historical and cultural forces that shaped this nation).
>
>Getting back to ground level:
>
>Regarding Rosaıs work (thanks, Rosa), I tried to follow in her footsteps,
>but got hung up on the fact that to give these categories meaning, the
>very perspectives reflected in the categories would need to change.  If I
>were permitted this leeway, I might produce something like the following:
>
>1) To increase the participants' personal knowledge (about some topic)
>
>Alternative:  To bring all voices together to share their knowledge and
>experience and develop a common data pool and shared understanding of
>that data.
>
>2) To reduce polarization among participants (about some topic)
>
>Alternative:  Create a shared experience among and between all
>stakeholders that validates every perspective in the room and generates a
>shared understanding about what the group shares in common.
>
>3) To produce a description of participants' aggregate point of view (on
>some topic)
>
>Alternative:  This outcome should naturally flow from 1) & 2)
>
>4) To produce a solution or recommendation (on some topic)  and Rosaıs:
>5) To help a cross-sectional group of the community develop shared
>understanding and move into action.
>
>Alternative:  Once 1, 2 & 3 are accomplished well, both of these should
>pop out if the group is asked what they would like to do to implement the
>shared vision and understanding they have created (Open space).
>
>
>In reflecting on this, one thing that I am seeing is that some of the
>issues here grow out of identifying these items as separate issues or
>activities.  In making good decisions or taking meaningful actions, there
>are precursors that are needed along with a flow of developing
>understanding and relationship among participants.  Iım not going to go
>into those here as I and others have done this in various previous posts.
> These things just canıt be accomplished effectively in isolation.
>
>Rosa refers to my approach as future search.  We use lots of the
>methodologies chronicled in the NCDD database and elsewhere.  I think
>future search brings a high level and a down to earth practical
>understanding of large group process that is unrivaled.  If one never
>actually does a future search, I think any person's knowledge of large
>group process and practical skill at convening people would be greatly
>moved forward by delving into this process.  I also think there are
>things to be learned from every process I have learned and used.  We have
>found that they all defy categorization if what one wants to do with
>those categories is to say, ³This should be used here and this there.²
>At the same time, various process lend themselves to various stages in a
>larger process in ways that can enhance each of those stages.  Sometimes,
>as well, one process or another, more or less out of the box, can be
>useful, though we almost always integrate various process into a given
>process flow.
>
>We always work with a planning team that includes a microcosm of
>stakeholders from the system we are working with along with our process
>experience.  Even in the planning, we are experts in some things and
>other stakeholders are experts in other things, all of which are needed
>to produce a good outcome, even in planning.
>
>Thanks for stirring some interesting thoughts.
>
>Warmly,
>
>‹Kenoli
>
>
>
>
>
>
>In fact, I think that some of the issue may be over-simplification.  We
>live in a society that wants 140 word tweets, executive summaries and
>
>On Jan 18, 2014, at 5:59 PM, Rosa Zubizarreta
><[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>Ele, with all due respect to Kenoli, and apologizing ahead of time for
>any misunderstanding on my part,
>I will make an attempt to do what you asked Kenoli forŠ
>
>But first, I think we may need to clarify, "who" is coming together in a
>public participation process,
>Much of what Kenoli is saying makes good sense in a Future Search context,
>where months are invested in bringing together a particular kind of
>cross-section of the community.
>
>This creates a very specific and useful context,
>yet it is very different from other kinds of groups that may come
>together as part of a public participation process.
>
>Sandy, I agree that the Streams of Engagement is work that is already
>done on this, and it is valuable to reference it.
>At the same time, I think we can all benefit from, someone's fresh
>thinking about thisŠ
>
>As I laid out the main elements I've heard so far in the conversation,
>I realized that one of the categories Terry laid out, may NOT be in the
>Streams already...
>
>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-cE31VTAOTwC6EBWVN0Ai8f6ZKpRrQTiTITVTN
>JqgHg/edit?usp=sharing
>
>with all best wishes,
>
>Rosa
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>[http://ncdd.org/]<http://ncdd.org/>
>
>NCDD's discussion and announcement lists are generously donated by L-Soft
>(www.lsoft.com<http://www.lsoft.com/>) and are powered by L-Soft's
>LISTSERV mailing list management software
>(www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html<http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered
>.html>). Learn more about all of NCDD's email lists at
>www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434> -- and please
>read over the NCDD Discussion list's ground
>rules<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/2624> before you post.
>
>Email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> to change the email address
>you're subscribed with or to switch to a daily digest. To unsubscribe
>from the NCDD-DISCUSSION list, click the following link:
>http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=NCDD-DISCUSSION&A
>=1
>
>________________________________
>
>[NCDD Logo]<http://ncdd.org/>
>
>NCDD's discussion and announcement lists are generously donated by L-Soft
>(www.lsoft.com<http://www.lsoft.com/>) and are powered by L-Soft's
>LISTSERV mailing list management software
>(www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html<http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered
>.html>). Learn more about all of NCDD's email lists at
>www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434> -- and please
>read over the NCDD Discussion list's ground
>rules<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/2624> before you post.
>
>Email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> to change the email address
>you're subscribed with or to switch to a daily digest. To unsubscribe
>from the NCDD-DISCUSSION list, click the following link:
>http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=NCDD-DISCUSSION&A
>=1
>
>________________________________
>
>[NCDD Logo]<http://ncdd.org/>
>
>NCDD's discussion and announcement lists are generously donated by L-Soft
>(www.lsoft.com<http://www.lsoft.com/>) and are powered by L-Soft's
>LISTSERV mailing list management software
>(www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html<http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered
>.html>). Learn more about all of NCDD's email lists at
>www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434> -- and please
>read over the NCDD Discussion list's ground
>rules<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/2624> before you post.
>
>Email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> to change the email address
>you're subscribed with or to switch to a daily digest. To unsubscribe
>from the NCDD-DISCUSSION list, click the following link:
>http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=NCDD-DISCUSSION&A
>=1
>
>________________________________
>
>[http://ncdd.org/]<http://ncdd.org/>
>
>NCDD's discussion and announcement lists are generously donated by L-Soft
>(www.lsoft.com<http://www.lsoft.com>) and are powered by L-Soft's
>LISTSERV mailing list management software
>(www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html<http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered
>.html>). Learn more about all of NCDD's email lists at
>www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434> -- and please
>read over the NCDD Discussion list's ground
>rules<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/2624> before you post.
>
>Email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> to change the email address
>you're subscribed with or to switch to a daily digest. To unsubscribe
>from the NCDD-DISCUSSION list, click the following link:
>http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=NCDD-DISCUSSION&A
>=1
>
>________________________________
>
>[NCDD Logo]<http://ncdd.org/>
>
>NCDD's discussion and announcement lists are generously donated by L-Soft
>(www.lsoft.com<http://www.lsoft.com>) and are powered by L-Soft's
>LISTSERV mailing list management software
>(www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html<http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered
>.html>). Learn more about all of NCDD's email lists at
>www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434> -- and please
>read over the NCDD Discussion list's ground
>rules<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/2624> before you post.
>
>Email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> to change the email address
>you're subscribed with or to switch to a daily digest. To unsubscribe
>from the NCDD-DISCUSSION list, click the following link:
>http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=NCDD-DISCUSSION&A
>=1
>
>________________________________
>
>[NCDD Logo]<http://ncdd.org/>
>
>NCDD's discussion and announcement lists are generously donated by L-Soft
>(www.lsoft.com<http://www.lsoft.com>) and are powered by L-Soft's
>LISTSERV mailing list management software
>(www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html<http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered
>.html>). Learn more about all of NCDD's email lists at
>www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434> -- and please
>read over the NCDD Discussion list's ground
>rules<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/2624> before you post.
>
>Email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> to change the email address
>you're subscribed with or to switch to a daily digest. To unsubscribe
>from the NCDD-DISCUSSION list, click the following link:
>http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=NCDD-DISCUSSION&A
>=1
>
>________________________________
>
>[NCDD Logo]<http://ncdd.org/>
>
>NCDD's discussion and announcement lists are generously donated by L-Soft
>(www.lsoft.com<http://www.lsoft.com>) and are powered by L-Soft's
>LISTSERV mailing list management software
>(www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html<http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered
>.html>). Learn more about all of NCDD's email lists at
>www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434> -- and please
>read over the NCDD Discussion list's ground
>rules<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/2624> before you post.
>
>Email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> to change the email address
>you're subscribed with or to switch to a daily digest. To unsubscribe
>from the NCDD-DISCUSSION list, click the following link:
>http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=NCDD-DISCUSSION&A
>=1
>
>________________________________
>
><http://ncdd.org/>[NCDD Logo]<http://ncdd.org/><http://ncdd.org/>
>
>NCDD's discussion and announcement lists are generously donated by L-Soft
>(www.lsoft.com<http://www.lsoft.com>) and are powered by L-Soft's
>LISTSERV mailing list management software
>(www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html<http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered
>.html>). Learn more about all of NCDD's email lists at
>www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434> -- and please
>read over the NCDD Discussion list's ground
>rules<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/2624> before you post.
>
>Email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> to change the email address
>you're subscribed with or to switch to a daily digest. To unsubscribe
>from the NCDD-DISCUSSION list, click the following link:
>http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=NCDD-DISCUSSION&A
>=1
>
>________________________________
>
>[NCDD Logo]<http://ncdd.org/>
>
>NCDD's discussion and announcement lists are generously donated by L-Soft
>(www.lsoft.com) and are powered by L-Soft's LISTSERV mailing list
>management software (www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html). Learn more
>about all of NCDD's email lists at
>www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434> -- and please
>read over the NCDD Discussion list's ground
>rules<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/2624> before you post.
>
>Email [log in to unmask] to change the email address you're subscribed with or
>to switch to a daily digest. To unsubscribe from the NCDD-DISCUSSION
>list, click the following link:
>http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=NCDD-DISCUSSION&A
>=1
>
>---
>
>NCDD's discussion and announcement lists are generously donated by L-Soft
>( www.lsoft.com ) and are powered by L-Soft's LISTSERV mailing list
>management software ( www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html ).  Learn more
>about all of NCDD's email lists at www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434 -- and
>please read over the NCDD Discussion list's ground rules at
>www.ncdd.org/rc/item/2624 before you post.


---

NCDD's discussion and announcement lists are generously donated by L-Soft ( www.lsoft.com ) and are powered by L-Soft's LISTSERV mailing list management software ( www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html ).  Learn more about all of NCDD's email lists at www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434 -- and please read over the NCDD Discussion list's ground rules at www.ncdd.org/rc/item/2624 before you post.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2017, Week 3
October 2017, Week 2
September 2017, Week 5
September 2017, Week 4
September 2017, Week 3
September 2017, Week 2
September 2017, Week 1
August 2017, Week 5
August 2017, Week 4
August 2017, Week 3
August 2017, Week 2
August 2017, Week 1
July 2017, Week 5
July 2017, Week 4
July 2017, Week 3
July 2017, Week 2
July 2017, Week 1
June 2017, Week 4
June 2017, Week 3
June 2017, Week 2
June 2017, Week 1
May 2017, Week 5
May 2017, Week 4
May 2017, Week 3
May 2017, Week 2
May 2017, Week 1
April 2017, Week 5
April 2017, Week 4
April 2017, Week 3
April 2017, Week 2
April 2017, Week 1
March 2017, Week 5
March 2017, Week 4
March 2017, Week 3
March 2017, Week 2
March 2017, Week 1
February 2017, Week 4
February 2017, Week 3
February 2017, Week 2
February 2017, Week 1
January 2017, Week 5
January 2017, Week 4
January 2017, Week 3
January 2017, Week 2
January 2017, Week 1
December 2016, Week 5
December 2016, Week 4
December 2016, Week 3
December 2016, Week 2
December 2016, Week 1
November 2016, Week 5
November 2016, Week 4
November 2016, Week 3
November 2016, Week 2
November 2016, Week 1
October 2016, Week 5
October 2016, Week 4
October 2016, Week 3
October 2016, Week 2
October 2016, Week 1
September 2016, Week 5
September 2016, Week 4
September 2016, Week 3
September 2016, Week 2
September 2016, Week 1
August 2016, Week 5
August 2016, Week 4
August 2016, Week 3
August 2016, Week 2
August 2016, Week 1
July 2016, Week 5
July 2016, Week 4
July 2016, Week 3
July 2016, Week 2
July 2016, Week 1
June 2016, Week 5
June 2016, Week 4
June 2016, Week 3
June 2016, Week 2
June 2016, Week 1
May 2016, Week 5
May 2016, Week 4
May 2016, Week 3
May 2016, Week 2
May 2016, Week 1
April 2016, Week 5
April 2016, Week 4
April 2016, Week 3
April 2016, Week 2
April 2016, Week 1
March 2016, Week 5
March 2016, Week 4
March 2016, Week 3
March 2016, Week 2
March 2016, Week 1
February 2016, Week 5
February 2016, Week 4
February 2016, Week 3
February 2016, Week 2
February 2016, Week 1
January 2016, Week 5
January 2016, Week 4
January 2016, Week 3
January 2016, Week 2
January 2016, Week 1
December 2015, Week 5
December 2015, Week 4
December 2015, Week 3
December 2015, Week 2
December 2015, Week 1
November 2015, Week 5
November 2015, Week 4
November 2015, Week 3
November 2015, Week 2
November 2015, Week 1
October 2015, Week 5
October 2015, Week 4
October 2015, Week 3
October 2015, Week 2
October 2015, Week 1
September 2015, Week 5
September 2015, Week 4
September 2015, Week 3
September 2015, Week 2
September 2015, Week 1
August 2015, Week 4
August 2015, Week 3
August 2015, Week 2
August 2015, Week 1
July 2015, Week 5
July 2015, Week 4
July 2015, Week 3
July 2015, Week 2
June 2015, Week 5
June 2015, Week 4
June 2015, Week 3
June 2015, Week 2
June 2015, Week 1
May 2015, Week 5
May 2015, Week 4
May 2015, Week 3
May 2015, Week 2
May 2015, Week 1
April 2015, Week 5
April 2015, Week 4
April 2015, Week 3
April 2015, Week 2
April 2015, Week 1
March 2015, Week 5
March 2015, Week 4
March 2015, Week 3
March 2015, Week 2
March 2015, Week 1
February 2015, Week 4
February 2015, Week 3
February 2015, Week 2
February 2015, Week 1
January 2015, Week 5
January 2015, Week 4
January 2015, Week 3
January 2015, Week 2
January 2015, Week 1
December 2014, Week 5
December 2014, Week 4
December 2014, Week 3
December 2014, Week 2
December 2014, Week 1
November 2014, Week 5
November 2014, Week 4
November 2014, Week 3
November 2014, Week 2
November 2014, Week 1
October 2014, Week 5
October 2014, Week 4
October 2014, Week 3
October 2014, Week 2
October 2014, Week 1
September 2014, Week 5
September 2014, Week 4
September 2014, Week 3
September 2014, Week 2
September 2014, Week 1
August 2014, Week 5
August 2014, Week 4
August 2014, Week 3
August 2014, Week 2
August 2014, Week 1
July 2014, Week 5
July 2014, Week 4
July 2014, Week 3
July 2014, Week 2
July 2014, Week 1
June 2014, Week 5
June 2014, Week 4
June 2014, Week 3
June 2014, Week 2
June 2014, Week 1
May 2014, Week 5
May 2014, Week 4
May 2014, Week 3
May 2014, Week 2
May 2014, Week 1
April 2014, Week 5
April 2014, Week 4
April 2014, Week 3
April 2014, Week 2
April 2014, Week 1
March 2014, Week 5
March 2014, Week 4
March 2014, Week 3
March 2014, Week 2
March 2014, Week 1
February 2014, Week 4
February 2014, Week 3
February 2014, Week 2
February 2014, Week 1
January 2014, Week 5
January 2014, Week 4
January 2014, Week 3
January 2014, Week 2
January 2014, Week 1
December 2013, Week 5
December 2013, Week 4
December 2013, Week 3
December 2013, Week 2
December 2013, Week 1
November 2013, Week 4
November 2013, Week 3
November 2013, Week 2
November 2013, Week 1
October 2013, Week 5
October 2013, Week 4
October 2013, Week 3
October 2013, Week 2
October 2013, Week 1
September 2013, Week 5
September 2013, Week 4
September 2013, Week 3
September 2013, Week 2
September 2013, Week 1
August 2013, Week 5
August 2013, Week 4
August 2013, Week 3
August 2013, Week 2
August 2013, Week 1
July 2013, Week 5
July 2013, Week 4
July 2013, Week 3
July 2013, Week 2
July 2013, Week 1
June 2013, Week 4
June 2013, Week 3
June 2013, Week 2
June 2013, Week 1
May 2013, Week 5
May 2013, Week 4
May 2013, Week 3
May 2013, Week 2
May 2013, Week 1
April 2013, Week 5
April 2013, Week 4
April 2013, Week 3
April 2013, Week 2
April 2013, Week 1
March 2013, Week 5
March 2013, Week 4
March 2013, Week 3
March 2013, Week 2
March 2013, Week 1
February 2013, Week 4
February 2013, Week 3
February 2013, Week 2
February 2013, Week 1
January 2013, Week 5
January 2013, Week 4
January 2013, Week 3
January 2013, Week 2
January 2013, Week 1
December 2012, Week 4
December 2012, Week 3
December 2012, Week 2
December 2012, Week 1
November 2012, Week 4
November 2012, Week 3
November 2012, Week 2
November 2012, Week 1
October 2012, Week 5
October 2012, Week 4
October 2012, Week 3
October 2012, Week 2
October 2012, Week 1
September 2012, Week 5
September 2012, Week 4
September 2012, Week 3
September 2012, Week 2
September 2012, Week 1
August 2012, Week 5
August 2012, Week 4
August 2012, Week 3
August 2012, Week 2
August 2012, Week 1
July 2012, Week 5
July 2012, Week 4
July 2012, Week 3
July 2012, Week 2
July 2012, Week 1
June 2012, Week 5
June 2012, Week 4
June 2012, Week 3
June 2012, Week 2
June 2012, Week 1
May 2012, Week 5
May 2012, Week 4
May 2012, Week 3
May 2012, Week 2
May 2012, Week 1
April 2012, Week 5
April 2012, Week 4
April 2012, Week 3
April 2012, Week 2
April 2012, Week 1
March 2012, Week 5
March 2012, Week 4
March 2012, Week 3
March 2012, Week 2
March 2012, Week 1
February 2012, Week 4
February 2012, Week 3
February 2012, Week 2
February 2012, Week 1
January 2012, Week 5
January 2012, Week 4
January 2012, Week 3
January 2012, Week 2
January 2012, Week 1
December 2011, Week 5
December 2011, Week 4
December 2011, Week 3
December 2011, Week 2
December 2011, Week 1
November 2011, Week 5
November 2011, Week 4
November 2011, Week 3
November 2011, Week 2
November 2011, Week 1
October 2011, Week 5
October 2011, Week 4
October 2011, Week 3
October 2011, Week 2
October 2011, Week 1
September 2011, Week 5
September 2011, Week 4
September 2011, Week 3
September 2011, Week 2
September 2011, Week 1
August 2011, Week 5
August 2011, Week 4
August 2011, Week 3
August 2011, Week 2
August 2011, Week 1
July 2011, Week 5
July 2011, Week 4
July 2011, Week 3
July 2011, Week 2
July 2011, Week 1
June 2011, Week 5
June 2011, Week 4
June 2011, Week 3
June 2011, Week 2
June 2011, Week 1
May 2011, Week 5
May 2011, Week 4
May 2011, Week 3
May 2011, Week 2
May 2011, Week 1
April 2011, Week 5
April 2011, Week 4
April 2011, Week 3
April 2011, Week 2
April 2011, Week 1
March 2011, Week 5
March 2011, Week 4
March 2011, Week 3
March 2011, Week 2
March 2011, Week 1
February 2011, Week 4
February 2011, Week 3
February 2011, Week 2
February 2011, Week 1
January 2011, Week 4
January 2011, Week 3
January 2011, Week 2
January 2011, Week 1
December 2010, Week 5
December 2010, Week 3
December 2010, Week 2
December 2010, Week 1
November 2010, Week 5
November 2010, Week 4
November 2010, Week 3
November 2010, Week 2
November 2010, Week 1
October 2010, Week 5
October 2010, Week 4
October 2010, Week 3
October 2010, Week 2
October 2010, Week 1
September 2010, Week 5
September 2010, Week 4
September 2010, Week 3
September 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 1
August 2010, Week 5
August 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 3
August 2010, Week 2
August 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 5
July 2010, Week 4
July 2010, Week 3
July 2010, Week 2
July 2010, Week 1
June 2010, Week 5
June 2010, Week 4
June 2010, Week 3
June 2010, Week 2
June 2010, Week 1
May 2010, Week 5
May 2010, Week 4
May 2010, Week 3
May 2010, Week 2
May 2010, Week 1
April 2010, Week 5
April 2010, Week 4
April 2010, Week 3
April 2010, Week 2
April 2010, Week 1
March 2010, Week 5
March 2010, Week 4
March 2010, Week 3
March 2010, Week 2
March 2010, Week 1
February 2010, Week 4
February 2010, Week 3
February 2010, Week 2
February 2010, Week 1
January 2010, Week 5
January 2010, Week 4
January 2010, Week 3
January 2010, Week 2
January 2010, Week 1
December 2009, Week 4
December 2009, Week 3
December 2009, Week 2
December 2009, Week 1
November 2009, Week 5
November 2009, Week 4
November 2009, Week 3
November 2009, Week 2
November 2009, Week 1
October 2009, Week 5
October 2009, Week 4
October 2009, Week 3
October 2009, Week 2
October 2009, Week 1
September 2009, Week 5
September 2009, Week 4
September 2009, Week 3
September 2009, Week 2
September 2009, Week 1
August 2009, Week 5
August 2009, Week 4
August 2009, Week 3
August 2009, Week 2
August 2009, Week 1
July 2009, Week 5
July 2009, Week 4
July 2009, Week 3
July 2009, Week 2
July 2009, Week 1
June 2009, Week 5
June 2009, Week 4
June 2009, Week 3
June 2009, Week 2
June 2009, Week 1
May 2009, Week 5
May 2009, Week 4
May 2009, Week 3
May 2009, Week 2
May 2009, Week 1
April 2009, Week 5
April 2009, Week 4
April 2009, Week 3
April 2009, Week 2
April 2009, Week 1
March 2009, Week 4
March 2009, Week 3
March 2009, Week 2
March 2009, Week 1
February 2009, Week 4
February 2009, Week 3
February 2009, Week 2
February 2009, Week 1
January 2009, Week 5
January 2009, Week 4
January 2009, Week 3
January 2009, Week 2
January 2009, Week 1
December 2008, Week 5
December 2008, Week 3
December 2008, Week 2
December 2008, Week 1
November 2008, Week 5
November 2008, Week 4
November 2008, Week 3
November 2008, Week 2
November 2008, Week 1
October 2008, Week 5
October 2008, Week 4
October 2008, Week 3
October 2008, Week 2
October 2008, Week 1
September 2008, Week 5
September 2008, Week 4
September 2008, Week 3
September 2008, Week 2
September 2008, Week 1
August 2008, Week 4
August 2008, Week 3
August 2008, Week 2
August 2008, Week 1
July 2008, Week 5
July 2008, Week 4
July 2008, Week 3
July 2008, Week 2
June 2008, Week 5
June 2008, Week 4
June 2008, Week 3
June 2008, Week 2
June 2008, Week 1
May 2008, Week 4
May 2008, Week 3
May 2008, Week 2
May 2008, Week 1
April 2008, Week 5
April 2008, Week 4
April 2008, Week 3
April 2008, Week 2
April 2008, Week 1
March 2008, Week 5
March 2008, Week 4
March 2008, Week 3
March 2008, Week 2
March 2008, Week 1
February 2008, Week 5
February 2008, Week 4
February 2008, Week 3
February 2008, Week 2
February 2008, Week 1
January 2008, Week 5
January 2008, Week 4
January 2008, Week 3
January 2008, Week 2
January 2008, Week 1
December 2007, Week 4
December 2007, Week 3
December 2007, Week 2
December 2007, Week 1
November 2007, Week 4
November 2007, Week 3
November 2007, Week 2
November 2007, Week 1
October 2007, Week 5
October 2007, Week 4
October 2007, Week 3
October 2007, Week 2
October 2007, Week 1
September 2007, Week 4
September 2007, Week 3
September 2007, Week 2
September 2007, Week 1
August 2007, Week 5
August 2007, Week 4
August 2007, Week 3
August 2007, Week 2
July 2007, Week 4
July 2007, Week 3
July 2007, Week 2
July 2007, Week 1
June 2007, Week 5
June 2007, Week 4
June 2007, Week 3
June 2007, Week 2
June 2007, Week 1
May 2007, Week 4
May 2007, Week 3
May 2007, Week 2
May 2007, Week 1
April 2007, Week 5
April 2007, Week 4
April 2007, Week 3
April 2007, Week 2
April 2007, Week 1
March 2007, Week 4
March 2007, Week 3
March 2007, Week 1
February 2007, Week 4
February 2007, Week 3
February 2007, Week 2
February 2007, Week 1
January 2007, Week 5
January 2007, Week 4
January 2007, Week 3
January 2007, Week 2
January 2007, Week 1
December 2006, Week 4
December 2006, Week 3
December 2006, Week 2
November 2006, Week 1
October 2006, Week 4
October 2006, Week 2
October 2006, Week 1
September 2006, Week 4
September 2006, Week 3
September 2006, Week 2
September 2006, Week 1
July 2006, Week 5
July 2006, Week 4
July 2006, Week 3
June 2006, Week 4
June 2006, Week 3
June 2006, Week 2
June 2006, Week 1
May 2006, Week 5
May 2006, Week 4
May 2006, Week 2
May 2006, Week 1
April 2006, Week 3
April 2006, Week 2
April 2006, Week 1
March 2006, Week 4
March 2006, Week 3

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.NCDD.ORG

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager