BOS Debate & Luther Standing Bear

It was heartening to see several BOS candidates reply to my previous blog entry on “Ethics & Good Faith Effort”. The question, carefully crafted, was about giving the voters a decent and fair shake -- giving them the respect due both as people, and as citizens in a democratic land. Government belongs to all, and should be treated as such.

All agreed with the premise of my ethical question, but each indicated that my request for a simple yes, or no, to tell the tale so to speak, was not sufficient. My initial reaction was to want to quickly respond, and convince them that a simple answer was ‘the’ key. As I formed a reply in my head, however, I was reminded of something I had recently read: It was written years ago by Luther Standing Bear, a chief of the Oglala Sioux. There is wisdom to be found in his words; well worth the read. - (http://www.unitedearth.com.au/standingbear.html )

“Conversation was never begun at once, not in a hurried manner. No one was quick with a question, no matter how important, and no one was pressed for an answer. A pause giving time for thought was the truly courteous way of beginning and conducting a conversation.”

Luther’s words would not leave me, and so, I took his advice; to pause and think about what the candidate’s were trying to say, to thus be respectful toward each of them. It now occurs to me that they were all aiming for the same target -- trying to suggest that the voters need to be informed and respected by the members of the BOS. The answer to my simple yes or no question should be a forgone conclusion. How we, as a town, go about the process of ‘informing and thus respecting’ the electorate should be the rightful debate.

So, I thought some about Jessie Powell’s passion, Michael O'Shaughnessy’s analysis and Bob Dunphy’s directness. -- My mind wandered to similar experiences I have been a part of in my 30+ years working for computer related companies. On several occasions, I have been part of a small team which had to make a relatively quick selection of computer hardware and software in response to new business opportunities. The selection would have significant technical and financial impact on the organization, and the people whose livelihood depended on it.

Before these experiences, I had sort of assumed that there was always a group of sharp, experienced and savvy folks somewhere way up in the organization who would make these decisions. But, I noticed that this was not always the case when venturing into new areas. What I did find however, was that there was always a ‘process’ in place; a process designed to insure that those who had the authority to make the final choice, saw a well done, balanced analysis, giving them the right information at their fingertips in time to properly digest it and render a decision.

This, I believe, is what Jessie, Michael, Bob and the voters want: a balanced analysis with the right information in time to properly digest it and render a decision. With deference to Bob’s directness, I shall forgo a description of my work experiences, and translate them into a concrete suggestion. The process I am suggesting is intended to be used to in the future to analyze items to be set before the voters. It is based on the premise that those on both sides of an issue, have a vested interest in the issue, and can be used, if properly controlled, to help gather and make available information for both sides on a voter issue in a timely and fair manner:

Proposed Approach for a ‘Voter Data Forum Process’

The basic thread in this approach is to incorporate the aid of all town groups who want a voice in the gathering of information about an item which is to be put on the town ballot. Having them help identify the issues involved, along with the aid of appropriate subject matter experts and general public input, can develop a 'pro and con' analysis on each of the issues in a timely manner.

• Selectman choose an initial public data forum committee: 5 or 6 townspeople, not including any current town officials or employees.

• Committee Makes Requests for Participants:

1. Put out a request for any interested town group to participate in the data gathering and analysis effort.
2. Interview all ‘interested town groups’, and select ‘all those who can demonstrate a useful grasp of some aspect of the subject to be presented to the voters.

• Perform Initial Data Gathering

1. Have groups each present an initial statement or position paper to committee. Presentation must include an itemized list of what they see as pertinent issues.
2. Committee reviews these materials, and compiles a composite list of all pertinent issues.

• Round 1: Initial Analysis

1. Invite all groups to present formal positions on the total composite issue list.
2. Acquire inputs from subject matter experts and consultants as needed. (All affected town department heads, the selectman and the Finance Committee are automatically included as ‘subject matter experts’ in their respective areas only.)
3. Data forum committee analyzes inputs, adding new items for the issue list as necessary.
   
4. Publish composite issue list with the initial ‘pro or con’ positions.

• Round 2: Competitive Analysis

1. Invite groups & subject matter experts to update their issue positions given the 'opposition' inputs from Round 1.
2. Publish updated ‘pro and con’ issue list.

• Round 2 +: Repeat round 2 as may be necessary.

• Round 3: Public Input

1. Solicit public input on all items in the ‘pro & con’ issue list
2. Groups & Subject Matter Experts may use public inputs, as desired, to update their final ‘pro or con’ positions.
3. Add selectman’s oversight opinion relative to the readiness of the updated ‘pro and con’ issue list.
   
4. Publish updated ‘pro and con’ issue list together with the selectman’s oversight opinion for voter use.

Public Availability of Information:

• All data group and subject matter expert position papers are to be made available to the voters in hard copy and internet web form when they are accepted for consideration by the data forum group.
• All ‘Published’ versions of the composite ‘pro and con’ issue list are likewise to be made available,
• All ‘Public Input’, to the Round 3 review of the ‘pro and con’ issue list, whether selected for use or not, shall also be made likewise available assuming that they do not contain confidential or defamatory material.

Commentary:

I have seen this approach of utilizing opposition groups, subject matter experts and general public input to form an effective 'pro and con' issue list, work to inform those who had 'the vote', in a 40 to 6o day period. Certainly, with the the concerns Middleboro will be facing in the coming years, it would be wise to start incorporating such a system now or face the likelihood that town government will slide primrarly, into the hands of those who have power.