How could visioning work?

In 2008, Oak Ridge Mayor Tom Beehan supported a broad based visioning process that involved a thousand or more people in this town of 27,000. That was a tall order. The National Civic League outlines a process that has a slightly different approach and is based on the same principles that make polls results representative of a larger population.

In polls, you interview a random sample and if the selection is truly random, the expected accuracy of the result is defined mathematically. The National Civic League proposes selecting a representative group of people to conduct the creative and negotiative process of visioning. However, rather than selecting them randomly, the people are chosen based on demographics. The criteria is that the group as a whole closely represents the community and that each individual in that group has committed to months of meetings that make up the process.

The result is that you start with 100-150 people who are in for the duration and as a whole represent the town. This is in opposition to the earlier concept of wider participation and the accompanying issues of keeping them involved during the subsequent give and take where goals are reduced, compared and contrasted, ordered and prioritized into a consensus vision statement. I think that having these individual commitments is the key success factor to getting through the hard work of refining all the good contributed ideas into a workable set of goals that embody the best future for our community.

This is not to say that wider participation is not desirable. In fact, it is necessary. It is very important to have the widest possible number of people involved when the visioning process is introduced, when good ideas are being requested, when progress is reported, and when the final vision statement is released. This involvement could be described as gaining wide buy in from the public and keeping them informed throughout, which is far easier than having a large segment of our city carving out time over the course of several months to move visioning forward.

So how do these approaches compare?

The earlier format emphasized the act of bringing people together and reaching consensus since that is what this town needs. However the process outlined by the National Civic League looks more to assuring success by identifying representative people who are committed to the realities of intensity and duration required for real visioning. Both stand in contrast with top down processes which work by starting with the power brokers and ultimately presenting to the citizens the plan that is "right for them". Top down approaches get into trouble here in Oak Ridge.

I like the National Civic League's approach since it captures the public involvement in a bottom up, grass roots orientation with a practicality that emphasizes success.

Next, I would like to talk about if visioning is so great, what do we do with it?

Visioning, Revisited

I mentioned that visioning currently has wide spread support among the City Council members. The last version (~18 months ago) failed to garner sufficient support to even be considered publicly. Reasons tended to include perceived lack of need, high costs, and questionable goals. I think I could deal the need and goals objections, but the price was a turn off that I did not know how to address.

I have also mentioned that the National Civic League has a "Do It Yourself" guide to visioning and strategic planning that includes a cost estimate for the visioning process. Here is their data from page 17:

• staffing ($15,000-$25,000)


• facilitation costs ($30,000-$75,000)


• food ($7,500-$15,000)


• printing, copying and office/administrative costs ($4,000-$7,500)


• travel ($1,500-$7,500)


• community meeting-related costs ($4,000-$7,500)


• outreach-related costs ($3,000-$10,000)


• research-related costs ($1,000-$10,000)


• equipment and meeting materials ($2,500-$7,500)


• the final report ($3,500-$15,000)


• the community celebration ($3,500- $10,000)


• Total Cost ($75,500-$190,000)

These costs are based on experience so we ought to pay attention to them. And since costs were one of the reasons that visioning did not get traction in early 2008, then we really ought to pay attention to them.

The good news? Since we are pretty small, the lower cost is probably more realistic for Oak Ridge. The bad news? These figures are pretty much in line with the estimates we got back then, and if it was too much then...

So what are we going to do about this? The Nation Civic League has Fund Raising as one of the key success factors. They are not putting all of these costs onto the backs of taxpayers as long as there are groups interested in supporting the project.

Another source could be volunteers. We are an active community with talented people. Why not recruit and train a pool of facilitators who would support this process, for example? That would attack the largest single cost and there are other categories that local organizations and companies would be willing to support.

The danger in this "DIY" approach is that we are not paying for experience so we would be likely to have more miscues along the way.

Next, I will talk about the 2008 approach versus one based on the National Civic League's model.

Thanks, Charter Commission

Friday afternoon, I proposed to the Charter Commission the process to take ideas submitted by the public and select from those the supported changes that could be applied to the City Charter. The Commission voted 5 to 2 to support that proposal as a guide for their own process.

What can we expect? Well, we should see ideas flow in an orderly way once they are identified as being of interest to the Commission. Supporting input will be sought early and these ideas will be on published agendas to alert the public about their progress.

The Commission also decided to convert their evening meetings into work sessions where the interested citizens who cannot attend the daytime meetings have a chance to express their views. This will allow the Commission to make some headway against their backlog.

In fact we can already see some changes in their lists, identifying those ideas still under consideration and those that do not have support.

Isn't this hard to do?

Is it difficult to implement a process to take ideas submitted by the public, select the few that that the Charter Commission thinks may have merit, gather the supporting material to make a decision one way or the other, give the public a chance to a formal review, form an acceptable proposal, and vote on it twice in public meetings?

The short answer is, "No!" You do it with lists.

The Charter Commission already has a list of the ideas submitted on the Articles in the Charter that they are focused on. And that list is a great starting point. Think of it this way: the list is an ordered set of items and each of those items is a suggestion for a change to something in the Charter.

In an electronic form like this blog, we could make each suggested idea be a separate post. A better example would be a word processing document where we could give each idea a separate page (or more if it required more space than a single page). The next idea would start on a fresh page. This is important because each idea will travel through the process depending on its own value and the support that this value generates among the Commissioners. Think about printing this document where the list is now a stack of pages. You can pull out the page(s) for an idea while considering that idea without affecting any other ideas. If it has support it, moves to the next list. If not, it goes to the UnSupported list.

It turns out that this process can be implemented with just 6 lists. The first is the list of suggested ideas that the public contributes. You can see this list on the Charter Commission web site. Currently, they have the parts of the list for the Articles of the Charter that they are examining.

The second list would be for those ideas that are not supported by a majority of the Commission. Some may not be supported from the beginning and some may lose support as more information about the problem raised or the solution offered becomes known.

Let's look at the process again to identify the other lists:





The first procedural vote separates the collected ideas into those that are UnSupported and those that are Under Consideration which is the third list. This also triggers input on this topic from MTAS and the City and puts this idea on the next agenda.

The second procedrual vote separates ideas Under Consideration into those that are UnSupported on the basis of the new information or they may become Under Review which is the fourth list. Being added to the Under Review list triggers the idea being added to the agenda of the next Public Hearing and the following regular meeting to review what was heard at the Hearing.

At that next regular meeting after the Public Hearing, the Committee discusses everything known about this idea including the original information from its submission, the input provided by MTAS and the City, and the input from the public at the recent Public Hearing or from other communications. They may reword the idea to their liking and reform it into a proposal which is put to a vote. As a result of that vote the idea/proposal is either UnSupported or it becomes a Proposal Under Review Pending Second Vote which is the fifth list. Going on this list triggers putting the proposal on the agenda of the next meeting for a second reading and vote.

At the following meeting, the proposal faces a second review vote and if successful, it is moved to the Proposed Changes Pending Final Review list which is our sixth and final list. If it fails to show support at this second reading, it moves to the UnSupported list.

To sumarize, there is a list to collect ideas and a list to hold UnSupported ideas. Successful ideas face 4 votes and each of the favorable outcomes of those votes will move it along the path to becoming a proposed change to our City Charter by putting that idea on the next list.

Here is a more formal accounting of the lists and their contents. Most often went an idea moves to the next list, we will add the date of the vote and any information gathered that is needed for the next vote.

List of Lists
1. Ideas Collected
2. UnSupported Ideas
3. Ideas Under Consideration
4. Ideas Under Review
5. Proposals Under Review Pending Second Vote
6. Proposed Changes Pending Final Review

Ideas Collected List Contents
1. Section of Charter Original Language
2. Section of Charter Proposed Language
3. Who Submitted
4. When Submitted
5. Reasons for Submission

UnSupported Ideas List Contents
1. Data from Ideas Collected List
2. Date Voted to UnSupported Ideas List

Ideas Under Consideration List Contents
1. Data from Ideas Collected List
2. Date Voted to Ideas Under Consideration List

Ideas Under Review List Contents
1. Data from Ideas Under Consideration List
2. Material Supplied by MTAS, Affected City Organization, etc
3. Date Voted to Ideas Under Review List

Proposals Under Review Pending Second Vote List Contents
1. Data from Ideas Under Review List
2. Material from Public Review Meeting
3. Wording Supported by Commission
4. Date of First Review Vote

Proposed Changes Pending Final Review List Contents
1. Data from Proposals Under Review Pending Second Vote List
2. Date of Second Review Vote

Six lists to track the outcomes of the four votes is not tough. In the end, all ideas will either wind up on the UnSupported Ideas list, or a few will survive to the Proposed Changes Pending Final Review list. The only real issue is that single ideas must be able to be taken from one list and moved to the next without affecting other ideas along the way.

Outline of an effective and open process

I have emailed the Charter Commissioners the following diagrams in anticipation of presenting this proposal to them this Friday.

First is a outline of the steps that an idea could take on the way to becoming either a proposal of change to our City Charter or to becoming a member of unsupportable ideas that the Charter Commission will finally refer to the appropriate city organization to consider implementing.





This process starts with collected ideas which are voted on by the Commission to select those that will be Considered based on the material supplied by the persons who submitted the idea. If the Commission wants to Consider the idea, it triggers requests for pertinent data from MTAS and the City and places the idea on the next meeting agenda to accept this input.

At the next meeting, when this idea comes up on the agenda, the requested data is discussed, including perhaps input from the public since the idea was listed on the agenda. Based on this information from MTAS, the City and perhaps the public, the Commission then votes on whether this idea warrants further Review.

If so, it is placed on the next Public Hearing and the following regular meeting. Otherwise it joins other Unsupported ideas.

After hearing from citizens at the Public Hearing, the Commission takes up the Review of this idea, discusses all this input, determines acceptable wording and conducts the first of two Review votes on this idea which has now been transformed into a proposal. If it is still supported, it is placed on the next regular meeting agenda for a second Review reading and vote. This is the only time the Commission needs to spend any substantial time on this item.

At the second Review and vote, this proposal is considered for a final time and if still supported, it becomes a Proposal Pending Final Review where the Commission will take a last look at the approved proposals before submitting them to a referendum.

The ideas that are Unsupported can be refered to the appropriate City organization for possible consideration.





If you look at timeline of an example idea that becomes a proposal, you will notice that there are two major states. The first is the Consideration phase where other input beyond that from the submitters is evaluated. The second is the Review phase where additional public input is requested during a Public Hearing after which a proposal is formed and passes through two readings and votes.

The vertical green lines are votes on this idea/proposal. Vertical blue lines are the Public Hearings where this idea was first collected and where it was on the agenda of a subsequent Hearing. The intersections of the vertical meeting lines with the lower timeline shows when this idea is on a meeting agenda.

Any supported idea will have survived the Consider and the Review procedural votes and two Review votes of the final proposal based on this idea.

It also will be identified on four consecutive agendas including a Public Hearing where citizens are notified that this particular idea is being reviewed to become a proposed change to our City Charter. If any citizen cannot attend these meetings they can email the Commission or call them based on published information.

One final important point. In this timeline, we can consider the second Public Hearing, where this particular idea is listed on the agenda, shares that meeting with the collection of suggested changes to the next Article of the Charter to be considered. So these individual timelines for all the ideas that show any support overlap and are offset from each other and share time on any given meeting.

Tomorrow, I want to talk about how to easily implement this proposed process.

What I would like to see

A process that would be effective and open for considering citizen proposed changes to the City Charter should have a few basic features.

• Ideas submitted by the public need to be gathered and grouped by the Article/Section of the Charter that is affected by the proposed idea. This list needs to be made public to stimulate other contributions.


• Every idea needs to be voted on to determine if it should be considered. If, as we would expect, there are many more ideas than would be supported by the Commission, it makes sense to vote on the ones that some Commissioners like and then hold a vote to "UnSupport" the remainder. This is a gatekeeping or triage function that will reduce large possibilities to a manageable workload.


• Once an idea has been voted to be considered, the Commission will ask MTAS to comment on its legality and on solutions that other Home Rule Charters have made for the issue that this idea addresses. The Commission will also ask the affected departments of the city and perhaps other experts to also comment. The idea will then be placed on the agenda of the next meeting to discuss the results of these inquiries and vote for further review of the idea.


• At the next meeting, the item is discussed including the requested information from MTAS, the City, etc. The Commission will then vote whether this idea warrants further review. If so, it is placed on the agendas of the next Public Hearing and the following meeting to discuss any public input from the Hearing or from email. If it fails this vote, the idea joins other UnSupported items.


• At the Public Hearing, when the item appears on the agenda, the public will be asked for comments.


• At the following Commission meeting, the original idea is reviewed along with MTAS, City, expert, and Public comments. The Commission decides on the wording and votes for the first time on this as a proposal. If it passes, it is placed on the agenda of the next meeting for a second reading. If not, it becomes UnSupported.


• At the last review meeting, the Commission votes for the second time on this proposal. If it passes, it is added to a list of "Proposals Pending Final Review" which will be taken up at the very end of this process. Once again, if it fails, it becomes UnSupported.


• Successful proposals will have passed two procedural votes and two review votes in its final form. It will also have appeared on 4 meeting/hearing agendas to alert the public of its progress


• The Commission will have adequate input before being required to vote on any item. If the required data is not yet available, the vote should be tabled until the next meeting when the information is available.

I will propose this process to the Charter Commission during their July 10th meeting. If anyone has comments on this, please let me know.

Where do these ideas come from?

If you look at the lists of contributed proposed changes to the Oak Ridge Charter, you will notice two major groups of people proposing them. The first, represented by Robert Humphries, is the Tennessee Liberty Alliance, a local libertarian organization. The other, represented by Tom Burns, Don Hurtubise, Charles Jones, Commissioner Virginia Jones, Stella Schramm, Bill Schramm, and Commissioner Pat Fain, is Democracy for East Tennessee, a local splinter organization of Howard Dean's Democracy for America, although they are not listed as coalition group by DFA. DFET has also organized under the name Citizens Oak Ridge, COR, in the past.

These were the two local organizations that spearheaded the petition for the referendum to convene this Charter Commission under a combined effort they named CDAR, Citizens for District/At-Large Representation. CDAR ran a slate of candidates pushing for changes to the City Charter to revert back to dividing the city into districts despite the questionable record of districts in this city in the recent past.

That slate won 2 of the 7 Charter Commission seats with a total of 17% of the votes cast for the winning candidates with 83% going to the Oak Ridge Is One Neighborhood, ORION, candidates who won the other 5 seats.

Back to the proposed changes before the Charter Commission... If we look at the ideas that have gained support, the Tenneessee Liberty Alliance proposals have not gained traction while the ones from Democracy For East Tennessee have gained some, usually with some moderation from Commissioner Postma.

However, those DFET proposals seem to have a common heritage and that is the Model City Charter offered by the National Civic League. This proposed city charter takes on the very issues that were settled here in the last election. The CDAR slate campaigned on district representation and a directly elected mayor which are also planks in the Model City Charter of the NCL. Let me restate that these ideas got only 17% of the votes among the winning candidates here in Oak Ridge.

Now does that mean that we are a corrupt city? The kind of city that the National Civic League was formed to correct? Or does it just mean that a small town like Oak Ridge does not fit the assumptions that are the basis of the Model City Charter. After all it is never true that "one size fits all". For example, there is obviously a lower limit in the size of a population where geographical districts no longer makes sense. Our citizens believe that Oak Ridge is smaller than that limit as reflected by their vote. We also voted to support our process by which the Mayor is selected by the City Council members to represent them here in our city.

So what is going on? A majority were elected to the Charter Commission to not make these changes and yet one of the passed proposals is to strengthen the mayor. Another specifically leaves out how our elections are to be conducted pending some future considerations.

Even if you believe in the product of the National Civic League, why are we skipping the NCL's own steps to prepare for such Model City Charter changes. They offer a design for a visioning process to gain public consensus on where we want our city to go. They also offer a product named "The Civic Index" which is a process to measure our community's civic health. It only makes sense that if we are to adopt the Model City Charter we should first conduct a visioning process like that proposed by the National Civic League to confirm that this is what we want. Second, we should assess our community's strengths and weaknesses with a process like that proposed by the National Civic League's Civic Index. Only then should we try to adopt changes to our charter like the Model City Charter, as we see fit and where such changes are necessary.

So why are organizations like Democracy for East Tennessee and the Tennessee Liberty Alliance trying to push through these kinds of changes to our Charter? They know that they only won 17% of the votes among Charter Commissioners and secured only 2 of the 7 seats. I think the only answer is that they are doing this despite public opinion. They must believe that they are right and that 83% of the voters are wrong.

A better answer is to conduct a visioning process here in Oak Ridge. There appears to be near unanimous support for a cost effective and results oriented visioning process among the City Council members. Take the result of that process and revise the Comprehensive Plan accordingly. Use the annual Strategic Plan to be the incremental implementation of our vision. And finally plan on revisiting the community vision because as we make progress, we need to know what is next. And circumstances do change, you know. The Comprehensive Plan has not been publicly reviewed since the 1980's, and that is unacceptable.

As for the Charter Commission, we need an open process that allows majority public opinion to be considered. So far 83% of the voters are not being heard. And why are the questions that the election directly answered being deferred by the Charter Commission? Those decisions should be obvious.

Tomorrow, I will begin to outline the goals of such an open process that I believe the Charter Commission should consider adopting.

Were the Other Three Any Different?

Will a quick scan of the other three measures proposed reveal a better process?

Item 2: The Mayor's Role
This is a change to Article II, Section 6. Mayor

Existing language: The council at, at its first regular meeting following a regular city election and after all newly-elected members have been duly qualified shall elect one of its members mayor for a term of two years. Whenever a vacancy occurs in the office of mayor, the council shall elect one of its members to serve until the time fixed herein for the regular election of mayor. The mayor shall preside at meetings of council, shall have a vote on all matters but no veto power, shall be the ceremonial head of the city, shall sign ordinances and resolutions on their final passage, shall sign deeds, bonds and contracts when authorized by the council to do so, shall be the officer to accept process against the city, shall not have any regular administrative duties, and shall perform only such duties as shall be specifically conferred.

Proposed Change: Again we don't know exactly since the minutes are not posted yet, but the description from the Oak Ridger article seems to point to Commissioner Postma's proposal.

Once again there were three proposals for changes in this section.

The first was proposed by Commissioner Pat Postma and identified several new duties to be assigned to the Mayor. These include appointing the citizen representatives to the city's boards and commissions, assigning agenda items to those commissions, being "the non-partisan political and policy leader of the city", and giving an annual State of the City Address which will include the Mayor's personal priorities for the city.

The second was proposed by Tom Burns, Don Hurtubise, Charles Jones, Stella Schramm, and Bill Schramm who thought that the first sentence specifying the election of the Mayor by the Council from it membership be deleted pending further proposals on that matter.

The third was proposed by Don Hurtubise who proposed a State of the City Address.

Item 3: Powers to Subpoena
This is a change to Article II, Section 9. Powers to Subpoena

Existing Language: The council may by resolution subpoena and examine witnesses, and order the production of books and papers. Its presiding officer may administer oaths to witnesses.

Proposed Change: The only proposed change was by Tom Burns, Don Hurtubise, Charles Jones, Stella Schramm, and Bill Schramm so we can only presume that this is what passed pending minutes being published. It says:

The council may by resolution make investigations into the affairs of the city and the conduct of any city department, office, board, commission, committee, or agency and for this purpose may subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony, and require the production of evidence. Failure or refusal to obey a lawful order issued in the exercise of these powers by council shall be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine to be established by ordinance.

The Commission voted to remove that final sentence.

Item 4: Public Council Meetings
This is a change to Article II, Section 3. Council meetings to be public

Existing language: All council meetings shall be open to the public and citizens shall have a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The council shall exercise its powers only at public meetings.

Proposed change: There was only one proposed change so we must assume that that is the language adopted pending the minutes of the meeting. It was proposed by Tom Burns, Commissioner Pat Fain, Don Hurtubise, Charles Jones, Stella Schramm, and Bill Schramm. It changed the phrase "All council meetings" to "All council meetings and work sessions".

OK... The answer to the question of whether there was a better process for these approved changes appears to be, "No!" No external inputs were sought besides the people proposing changes and the Commissioners themselves. No MTAS input to reveal how other Home Rule Charters handle these issues. No MTAS or City Attorney input even on a satisfactory interpretation of the existing language. No identification of real problems needing to solved nor even whether they were already solved by the City Council, for example. And finally, no public hearings on these items as they were being considered by the Commission.

I know that we can do better than that.

They Passed What?

At the June Charter Commission meeting that was held on the 12th, the Commission voted to approve four items. This was documented in the John Huotari article in the Oak Ridger on the following Monday, June 15.

Item 1: City Council Meetings
This is a change to Article II, Section 1. Regular meetings of council

Existing Language: The council shall hold regular meetings in Oak Ridge at least once monthly. Increased frequency, time of day, and place of its meetings shall be established by resolution.

The Proposed Change: We don't know exactly but the Oak Ridger reports that it was, "Council shall hold at least two meetings per month 'at which the public is allowed to address the Council.' It also calls for Council to provide greater public access and engagement."

Oops, I thought I might be able to review all of these today, but it looks like this one change is enough for any one day, sorry...

OK, what was being considered? There were three competing proposals to this one section.

The first was submitted by Tom Burns, Don Hurtubise, Charles Jones, Stella Schramm, and Bill Schramm specified two meetings per month but they would include rotating meeting places through each elementary school at least once per year.

The second was submitted by Commissioner Pat Postma and is probably the text that was adopted, "The council shall hold two meetings in Oak Ridge monthly at which the public is allowed to address the council. In addition to monthly meetings, Council will seek ways to provide access and engage the public to the greatest extent possible."

The third was submitted by Robert Humphries that presumes City Council members will be elected by district and states that neighborhood associations will be formed in each of those districts to meet with their district Councilman twice a month and that the whole Council will meet twice additionally, once to hear from the neighborhood associations and the final meeting will be to vote on stuff.

Commissioner Fain said that lots of folks tell her that one meeting per month isn't adequate. In fact, she says, "I think that's been a real source of agitation in the community."

Commissioner Caldwell thought that this proposal does not belong in the Charter, but the City Council should be free to set its own schedule.

Commissioner Abbatiello also thought that it restricts the City Council and that adopting it may be a dangerous precedent.

We do not know yet how the vote went other than it passed. Perhaps after the minutes for the June meeting are adopted during the July meeting...

Other facts that are missing includes data from MTAS, the organization that assigns supporting personnel to assist home rule Charter Commissions wade through their considerations. They could provide information about how other Charters in Tennessee address this issue.

Apparently, the City Council was also not asked to provide input, either. For had they, the Commission might have learned that there are already two meetings a month. The first is an agenda review session that shares the same agenda with the monthly Council Meeting with the difference being that there are no votes. The council members just discuss the items on the agenda among themselves, and the public can weigh in as well before everyone's minds are made up.

Other points that deserve consideration include the fact that these agenda setting meetings are usually very sparsely attended. Perhaps a newspaper reporter or two, a representative from the League of Women Voters who reports back to the League, but never speaks during a session, and those whose proposals are on the agenda for the discussion. Perhaps all those agitated citizens could be encouraged to attend those meetings.

But, regardless, the proposed change passed, apparently without critical (and I mean that in the sense, critical: characterized by careful evaluation and judgment) input that would be pertinent to this proposal.

The results, if this is finally forwarded to and passed by our citizens in referendum?

The Council will be in violation of the Charter if they need to skip a meeting due to the Thanksgiving or Christmas or... holidays, or if they cannot get a quorum during summer vacations. Our citizens will not get any more meetings than they get now. If they are agitated about that, this measure does not address their frustrations. And finally, a measure of discretion that the City Council is correctly applying will be taken from them and be embedded into acts of the Charter Commission.

In other words, it seems to me that this Charter Commission, in this instance, is misappropriating legislative authority from our city's duly elected legislative council, without seeking external opinion, with an act that does not solve any problem. It only creates problems of adhering to this new rule and increasing the difficulty of changing it. The only way of undoing this rule would be to seat another Charter Commission.

And who says local politics isn't fun?