LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

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  May 2013, Week 1

NCDD-DISCUSSION May 2013, Week 1

Subject:

Re: Your participation needed in an important survey on disrupting deliberative public forums

From:

Sarah Read <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Sarah Read <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 6 May 2013 12:49:42 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (239 lines)

Joel - This is a different model than either the Civic Index or the 
Civic Health Index developed by the NCOC although there are some areas 
of overlap and I think the Civic Index in particular could be a very 
complementary tool. What our tool is designed to do is to help planners 
map out the "conflict terrain" in a particular community so as to better 
assess whether or how well a collaborative process might work at a 
particular point in time, and to plan for productive dialogue.  It 
provides for an integrated look at three key components, "assets", 
"conflicts", and "intensity".  The "asset" section would encompass the 
"civic infrastructure" strengths and weaknesses considered in the Civic 
Index and the civic participation  activities looked at in the Civic 
Health Index, but also includes some additional components.  The 
conflict section is designed to identify both current and long simmering 
conflicts and their core sources (as mapped to conflict theory - 
differences in information/interests/values/relationships/structure).  
Working through the analysis outlined in the workbook would help 
identify the points of intersection among conflicts, interrelationships 
among groups involved in the conflicts, and conflict or grievance 
"themes".  It is these intersections, relationships and themes that help 
identify "hot spots" or potential breaks or impasses when planning for 
engagement.  In addition we have provided a means of scoring the 
intensity level of various conflict components which would help you 
analyze the volatility of various issues and the potential for flare-ups 
or disruption.  You can think of it as a kind of "3D mapping" tool for 
conflict in the community. You can get a sense of how the analysis works 
by looking at some of the free resources on our blog, although the 
explanation in the workbook is of course, more complete. As we were 
working on this, we did have several outside reviewers involved with 
local government read  through drafts, and none thought it duplicated an 
existing tool.  Hope that helps, and if you do review or use it, we 
would welcome your comments.  SJR

Sarah J. Read, President
The Communications Center, Inc.
www.buildingdialogue.com
910 E Broadway, Suite 208
Columbia, MO 65201
573.447.0499
Fax: 573.447.1789

On 5/4/2013 10:28 AM, Mills, Joel wrote:
> Thanks very much Sarah. I might have to check out the resource - how would you compare it to some of the long-standing guidebooks like the National Civic League's Civic Index? Just curious. I think with Big Data, the level of analysis for these things may become far more rich/robust in the next few years in larger jurisdictions. Personally, I'm not available for a call for a while - I've got successive project trips coming up to CA, the Virgin Islands, KY, and the Rockaways, through mid-June - but others may be interested.
>
> I think some of the national associations (like the National League of Cities and ICMA) have been doing a lot to promote a change in mindset regarding the public sector, but with over 20,000 local jurisdictions across the U.S., there is much work to do - especially with mid-size and smaller jurisdictions. When you look at cities, there are plenty of (seemingly) ready examples (though some are made out to be more than they are). I think Philadelphia, for instance, is making enormous strides - when you can see active civic leadership outside of government, a growing experience with civic-led large public processes, and innovation within and outside of local government, that's a pretty exciting dynamic. However, a lot of smaller jurisdictions don't think they can relate to that experience, and don't realize that community-generated success is just as (or more) obtainable for them. We've been trying to spread that message with many of our constituencies, on both a project-by-project basis, and via occasional presentations - here's one recent related presentation that included a range of great stories/cases from a variety of both large/small jurisdictions: http://www.slideshare.net/CivicStudios/smart-growth-citizenship.
>
> I think sharing the stories is an important part of the work, and it can help spread more desire for good practice.
>
> 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: Sarah Read [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 3:07 PM
> To: Mills, Joel
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NCDD-DISCUSSION] Your participation needed in an important survey on disrupting deliberative public forums
>
> Joel - I very much agree with you and a key element here is trust - poor processes undermine trust, and disruption of processes is more likely where trust in government and a sense of community among participants is low.  We developed an analytic tool over the last few years to help educate local government leaders on the importance of high quality processes, the role of trust, and the factors that are predictive of whether an engagement process is likely to be effective.  As Kenoli observed, disruptions are generally indicative of a systemic problem and one that needs to be addressed at a root level, and during planning. Our framework can be used both to guide the type of "up-front leg-work" needed to assess local conditions that you mention, and also to evaluate processes and monitor progress within a community.  You can read more about it here: http://buildingdialogue.wordpress.com/about-our-civic-health-diagnostic-workbook/  I would like to think the public sector is looking for high quality process design, they just aren't always sure what that looks like or what questions to ask or how to plan for it. I would be happy to set up a small GTM call to walk through this framework and share ideas on how to demonstrate the value that comes with the type of process you have outlined if you (and others) are interested.  Sarah
>
> Sarah J. Read, President
> The Communications Center, Inc.
> www.buildingdialogue.com<http://www.buildingdialogue.com>
> 910 E Broadway, Suite 208
> Columbia, MO 65201
> 573.447.0499
> Fax: 573.447.1789
>
> On 5/3/2013 11:47 AM, Mills, Joel wrote:
> I’ll chime in on this topic since it relates at a broader level to some of my work. I’ve worked in over 50 communities during the last 5 years and I’ve not had processes disrupted (so I didn’t take the survey), but I have noticed that the level of interest/concern about this topic is pretty big. We put together an interactive session at the New Partners for Smart Growth conference a year and a half ago on this topic, and we had standing room only turnout. Many of the participants were local officials who are concerned about the pressure that such activism can bring to important issues in their jurisdictions. Most of the local officials I work with these days always ask me how we will “deal with” such groups. There are a lot of communities facing controversy concerning the UN’s Agenda 21, as it’s being tied to local efforts to plan more sustainably as some kind of global conspiracy to suppress individual rights and thwart democracy. I wrote a short piece on the irony of this campaign for Planetizen a couple years back: http://www.planetizen.com/node/47902.
>
> These efforts have had more success at the state level, by influencing elected officials – the Governor of Maine pulled funding for an award-winning regional process there as a result of tea party influence, and some efforts in FL were derailed based on local tea party organizing. They’ve also been successful getting conservative state legislatures to pass resolutions stating their opposition to Agenda 21 and “sustainable development”.  For instance, this summer, I have a project in a community in Utah (part of our Sustainable Design Assessment Team program), where they passed legislation this year that encourages local governments to reject anything that might resemble Agenda 21. Here is one opinion piece regarding the legislation: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/55915867-82/agenda-planning-private-utah.html.csp. (It is particularly ironic that the State of Utah would take such a position against “regional visioning processes,” after having served as a real model for early efforts through Envision Utah). In CA, and other areas, there have been local planning processes that were disrupted or derailed as a result of specific actions by anti-Agenda 21 activists to disrupt public meetings (and more importantly, grab press attention and build a narrative that emphasizes controversy concerning whatever gets proposed).
>
> The challenge for our field here regards the quality of every public process. Their strategy has focused not only on opposing the outcomes of public processes, but questioning the legitimacy of those processes and discrediting them as disingenuous and manipulative – and let’s face it, in some of these places, that has probably been close to a fair criticism.  This is not just about the tea party or anti-Agenda 21 crowd. In many communities, the narrow interests are using increasingly ‘hot’ tactics to try and thwart the outcomes of public processes. Therefore, the burden is on practitioners to have clearly articulated processes which engage the whole community and are community-driven in terms of outcomes. Secondly, it requires special attention to public information and press, and careful attention to both the content of the message and how it is distributed. Thirdly, beyond the usual facilitation tools, it requires some up-front leg work to assess the local state-of-dialogue, and potentially some adaptations to the usual processes to mitigate the extreme elements (for instance, using variations on an open space meeting to marginalize your extreme elements, etc).  Part of the problem is that in the public sector there isn’t enough value placed on quality process design and facilitation, so you end up with a half-hearted approach to “collect public input” instead of a genuine community process, and extreme groups are eating those folks for breakfast.:) A more potent criticism has underscored the dialogue. Opponents have accused local leaders and planners of waging an elitist, top-down campaign. As a result, those working in the field have an obligation to make the defining character of their processes citizen-driven, and they need to convince local officials of the value that comes with such an approach.
>
> Joel Mills
>
>
>
>
>
> From: NCDD Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sandy Heierbacher
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 5:54 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [NCDD-DISCUSSION] Your participation needed in an important survey on disrupting deliberative public forums
>
> I'm not sure if this helps put the survey into perspective, but I think these researchers are trying to gather information about how people in our field are handling (successfully or otherwise) disruptions of organized groups like those opposing Agenda 21.
>
> For those on the list who may now know, an organized effort that has been growing in power over the past couple of years of people who think the UN's Agenda 21 is an effort to turn America into a government-controlled communist country (see http://www.glennbeck.com/agenda21/ for an idea of how this is being propagated).  Agenda 21 protestors will show up at town meetings and planning meetings that cover concepts that are inspired in part by Agenda 21 like sustainable development and smart growth, and try to discredit the whole process and prevent the meeting from functioning at all.
>
> This has affected some NCDD members' work in alarming ways, and it's very hard to know how to handle it -- especially since these groups don't seem to want to be included in the discussion.
>
> Here's a link that summarizes the extremist view on Agenda 21:
> http://www.infowars.com/agenda-21-is-being-rammed-down-the-throats-of-local-communities-all-over-america/
>
> The wikipedia page on Agenda 21 provides a less biased view:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21
>
> Hope this is helpful.  It would be fantastic if one or two people on the list who have experience this kind of organized protest could share their experience here so we can get a better picture of what practitioners are facing.
>
> Sandy Heierbacher
> Director, National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> • www.ncdd.org<http://www.ncdd.org> • @ncdd & @heierbacher
>
>
> On May 2, 2013, at 2:54 PM, Kenoli Oleari <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>
> I have some comments on this survey.
>
> The survey looks at disruptions of public forum events.  I would suggest if we really want to understand this issue, we need to start long before the actual event. In our experience, a key part of our work, including addressing histories of organized disruption, take place in the planning, outreach and design of an event, long before the event itself takes place.
>
> We have been involved in designing and implementing a number of public forums on issues and with populations that have histories of failing due to organized and unorganized disruptive elements.  We have been 100% successful in changing that dynamic.  As a result, I was immediately kicked out of your survey because those disruptions ended up not occurring in any of our events.
>
> I wanted to share this fact about your survey and to lend some experience about this dynamic that your survey was not designed to catch.
>
> If we wait until an event occurs to try to deal with the kind of disruptions your refer to, we are undermining ourselves.  The dynamics of a system, including disruptive dynamics, need to be dealt with at a root level, and can't be addressed fully or effectively once an event is taking place.  In addition, I think it is a mistake to single out the dynamic of disruption from other important system dynamics.  It is common, for instance, to conduct an event that involves no disruptions, but which is also not a very successful event.  The same dynamics that we need to build into our work for success will inevitably get to the root of the forces, groups or individuals driving disruption (doing this groundwork may even be the way we find out about potential disruptions) as well as putting in place other dynamics for success.  The best we can do at an actual event, if this groundwork has not been laid, is to impose some facilitation or dialogue skill when they occur, that largely puts the disruptive people off with promises of changes in the future.  We might even modify an event so that some of these voices, if willing, can be heard.  In the end, these kinds of strategies are temporary and superficial, needing attention to deeper and more longterm dynamics.  Why promise disruptors that we will change our dynamic in future future when we can change it before the event and have a good meeting?
>
> I could go into the elements I am talking about, but I think they are pretty much know to this group, though I think they are more commonly known than practiced.  An issue I find interesting is why are well known D&D principles so commonly poorly implemented?
>
> I am concerned that we get so caught up in our skills, roles and influence, that we forget that good dialogue is rooted in good system dynamics and good event preparation and design, not good facilitation skills.  What we can add at the level of personal intervention is superficial and can, itself, be disruptive by making people think "we did it" and not "they did it."
>
> Two examples of events we designed where disruptions might have seemed inevitable but were avoided (and, even more important, resulted in great meetings), include:
>
>
>    *   A dialogue between all stakeholders (including biotech scientists) the evening before a week of organized demonstrations was planned intending to disrupt an industry/scientific biotech conference in San Francisco.  No disruptions occurred at our event and a great conversation between potential adversaries ensued.  Both skeptical protestors and skeptical scientists attended.
>    *   In an event related to the registration of green lumber criteria, we met, prior to the event, with people who had been historically committed to disrupting the agency sponsoring this event.  While, even after meeting with us, the "disruptors" were distrustful and while they showed up at the event ready to disrupt, the groundwork we had laid with them, along with what they saw when the event occurred resulted in their joining the event and speaking highly of their experience at the event.
>
> As an aside, I have been part of organized efforts to disrupt events that I thought needed to be disrupted.  In some cases, our issue had to do with power imbalances or control/manipulation strategies endemic in the event or sponsor.  In one case it was because the design of an event that was called participatory was so non-participatory that I felt it was dangerous to allow it to go on record as meaningful public engagement pertaining to an issue that was important to me.  In each of these cases, we tried to work with the sponsors ahead of time who told us to come to the event which was designed in a way that "our voice could be heard."  When it was clear that this was not really the case, we felt our only recourse was disruption.  I think people resort to disruption when they feel that their voice has no impact on an issue that they hold in high importance.  Why not disrupt these kinds of events?  Going along with them might cause even more harm.
>
> --Kenoli
>
>
>
> On May 1, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Sandy Heierbacher <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>
> Hi, everyone!  I wanted to bring your attention to something important that I posted on the blog this morning.  Some top scholar-practitioners in our field are conducting a survey on instances of organized disruptions at public forums (like folks protesting UN Agenda 21 at town planning meetings).  This is an important challenge for our field to get a better handle on, and this research is a vital step.  If you have experienced this at any level, please take a few minutes to participate in this survey!
>
> Sandy Heierbacher
> Director, National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> • www.ncdd.org<http://www.ncdd.org/> • @ncdd & @heierbacher
>
>
> Your participation needed in an important survey on disrupting deliberative public forums
> Add Comment<http://ncdd.org/11390#respond>
>
> Posted by Sandy Heierbacher<http://ncdd.org/author/sandy-heierbacher>  |  May 1st, 2013
>
> Have you experienced organized disruptions in your public engagement work?  At last fall’s NCDD conference in Seattle, we had a great workshop on “Embattled Public Forums – When Vocal Opponents Try to Discredit/Derail the Process” facilitated by Susan Stewart Clark, Janet Fiero and Christine Whitney Sanchez.  Yet not much systematic research has been done to explore and learn from this phenomenon, how it effects our work in dialogue and deliberation, and how we can best handle organized disrupters.
>
> Our colleagues Kirk Emerson, Frank Dukes, Wendy Willis, and Kim Hodge Cowgill (some of whom are NCDD members) are conducting an important survey on these occurrences, and would like all of you who have experienced this challenge to participate.  The researchers will forward their findings back to the network, so we all can benefit from the data gathered.
>
> Please note that the survey is time sensitive, and responses must be submitted by May 10th.
>
> ________________________________
>
> Dear Colleague:
>
> I am writing to you on behalf of a collaborative research team from the University of Arizona, the University of Virginia, Portland State University, and Virginia Tech University that is studying organized disruptions to deliberative discourse. As a member of the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation, we are very interested in your responses on this issue. All results will be anonymous unless you choose to give us your contact information for follow-up purposes. You can access the survey instrument by clicking on the link below. We ask that you complete the survey by Friday, May 10th. More detailed information about the research project is provided below.
>
> https://arizonacsbs.co1.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_7WilrRnRblMFFBz
>
> Project Description:
> Anecdotal evidence suggests that orchestrated activity by organized groups intended to disrupt or shut down forums for public deliberation is occurring in a variety of settings. Even the most carefully designed efforts to engage diverse stakeholders in open public deliberation have been vulnerable to organized strategies to disrupt them.
>
> We are studying organized attempts to impede, delegitimize and shut down deliberative forums that are explicitly or ostensibly designed to foster discussion. By “deliberative forums” we mean government-sponsored meetings or series of meetings to which the public has been invited to discuss issues, opportunities, problems, or conflicts. Such forums are generally designed to include and engage diverse people with a range of different perspectives on the policy matter at hand. Examples of such forums include roundtables, visioning, community planning exercises, public conversations, community dialogues, hearings, etc.
>
> This project does not presume that disruption of deliberative forums per se is inherently harmful. Rather, we are specifically exploring instances in which planned disruptive activity may threaten the ability of others to engage in public discussion or exercise their own rights of free expression and/or of peaceful assembly and petition. Though we acknowledge the existence of disruptions caused by individuals acting independently, we are specifically interested in the occurrence of planned disruptions by organized groups.
>
> We are conducting this survey to explore the extent to which such activities are occurring, the nature and purposes of the activities, the conditions under which they are occurring, and how forum participants, facilitators, and conveners are reacting to them. The distinction between legitimate protest as public participation and activities that hinder democratic engagement is not clear cut, and so we will be asking you to reflect on your direct experiences and consider where you might draw that line.
>
> We will forward the results of our study to you through your member organization. Again, please complete the survey by May 10th. Thank you in in advance for your participation.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Kirk Emerson, PhD
> Professor of Practice in Collaborative Governance
> School of Government and Public Policy
> 306 Social Sciences Building
> University of Arizona
> Tucson, AZ 85721-0027
>
> Phone: (520) 621-3315
> Email: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>
> Research Team:
> Kirk Emerson, PhD and Alexandra Joosse (University of Arizona)
> Frank Dukes, PhD
> Wendy Willis, JD (Portland State University)
> Kim Hodge Cowgill (Virginia Tech University)
>
> ________________________________
>
> [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
>
> ________________________________
>
> [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'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

March 2019, Week 2
March 2019, Week 1
February 2019, Week 4
February 2019, Week 3
February 2019, Week 2
February 2019, Week 1
January 2019, Week 5
January 2019, Week 4
January 2019, Week 3
January 2019, Week 2
January 2019, Week 1
December 2018, Week 3
December 2018, Week 2
December 2018, Week 1
November 2018, Week 4
November 2018, Week 3
November 2018, Week 2
November 2018, Week 1
October 2018, Week 5
October 2018, Week 4
October 2018, Week 2
October 2018, Week 1
September 2018, Week 4
September 2018, Week 3
September 2018, Week 2
September 2018, Week 1
August 2018, Week 5
August 2018, Week 4
August 2018, Week 3
August 2018, Week 2
August 2018, Week 1
July 2018, Week 5
July 2018, Week 4
July 2018, Week 3
July 2018, Week 2
July 2018, Week 1
June 2018, Week 4
June 2018, Week 3
June 2018, Week 2
May 2018, Week 4
May 2018, Week 3
May 2018, Week 2
May 2018, Week 1
April 2018, Week 5
April 2018, Week 4
April 2018, Week 3
April 2018, Week 2
April 2018, Week 1
March 2018, Week 5
March 2018, Week 4
March 2018, Week 3
March 2018, Week 2
March 2018, Week 1
February 2018, Week 4
February 2018, Week 3
February 2018, Week 2
February 2018, Week 1
January 2018, Week 5
January 2018, Week 4
January 2018, Week 3
January 2018, Week 2
December 2017, Week 3
December 2017, Week 2
December 2017, Week 1
November 2017, Week 5
November 2017, Week 4
November 2017, Week 3
November 2017, Week 2
November 2017, Week 1
October 2017, Week 5
October 2017, Week 4
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