carriker

Civic Engagement: the Martin County Multi-Stakeholder Consensus Process: 

Civic Engagement: the Martin County Multi-Stakeholder Consensus Process Roy Carriker and David Mulkey Food and Resource Economics Department University of Florida

Question: What is this presentation about?: 

Question: What is this presentation about? Answer: Lessons we have learned as consultants to and facilitators for the “Martin County Multi-Stakeholder Consensus Committee.”

About Martin County, Florida: 

About Martin County, Florida Located on Florida’s lower east coast. Population: 100,000 Moderate growth rate. Much open, rural, and agricultural land in western portion of county. Sandwiched between two rapidly growing counties. North of Palm Beach County, pop. 900,000; Broward County, pop. 1,300,000; Miami-Dade, pop. 2,000,000.

Background (before we became involved): 

Background (before we became involved) August 2004: a community leader (former county commissioner) formed non-profit “Friends of Martin County (Friends)”. Purpose: to foster public discussion and build consensus on County’s growth management options. Posture: will be non-partisan, non-political, open, and inclusive.

Motivation for “Friends”: 

Motivation for “Friends” Fear of “Browardization.” Belief that desirable future for county will require broad, active participation of public. Perception that long history of political discord keeps county from “getting its act together.” Belief that hope lies in conflict resolution and a collaborative search for consensus.

Precipitating Event: 

Precipitating Event Proposal before county commission to authorize ballot initiative to approve bond-issue for county land acquisition program. “Friends” say commission has options: Schedule referendum without citizen input. Create “another” political task force. OR work with inclusive, grass-roots “Multi-Stakeholder Group” (led by “Friends”) to develop program for land in western Martin County.

“Friends” Proposal to County Commission: 

“Friends” Proposal to County Commission “Friends” will convene a non-political multi-stakeholder consensus process. Steering Committee “Stakeholders” Staff of Nature Conservancy County Commission Voters

Stated Goals of MSG: 

Stated Goals of MSG Develop broad consensus on “Western Lands Program.” Provide grass-roots support for that program (including referendum if commission authorizes it). Help commission implement Western Lands Program, if approved.

Steering Committee: 

Steering Committee Initial composition: “Friends” founder and former commissioner. Officer of local Audubon chapter. Hospital executive. Builder/Developer/Realtor. Tasks: Convene stakeholders. Manage “inclusive, fair, consensus-building process.” Report results to the commission and to the public.

Now What?: 

Now What? Commission endorses “Friends” proposal. “Friends” decide they need “…an experienced, outside, neutral facilitator to run the stakeholder meetings.” We were contacted by County Extension Director, who was, by now, assisting the “Friends” steering committee.

Questions to Ask of Ourselves : 

Questions to Ask of Ourselves Are we sufficiently trained and experienced in complex, multi-party problem solving? Are we neutral and can we remain so? Is this situation “bigger” than our capacity to convene and facilitate a process? Would our role be viable—given that we were approached after the process began?

Initial Challenges: 

Initial Challenges Need to reframe stated purpose of the MSG. Initial statements focused too narrowly on “a lands program” for western Martin County. Did not include consensus on “What do we want to achieve”? Did not offer chance to consider alternatives to a county land acquisition program.

Initial Challenges: 

Initial Challenges Necessary for Steering Committee to become a team. Needed active participation by all steering committee members. Needed expand membership to include agricultural landowner interests. Needed to include facilitators as members of the team.

Initial Challenges: 

Initial Challenges Needed a “situation assessment.” What are the issues? What is the history of disputes? Who are the contending or interested parties? What are the agendas of these parties? What is the legal, institutional, policy context? State law requires local comprehensive plan. State law requires state approval of local plans. State law requires counties to implement plans.

Activities of MSG: 

Activities of MSG November: organizational meeting of about 25 “stakeholders” plus steering committee. We facilitated the meeting. Discussed interests of each participant with respect to land use in the county. Discussed definition and feasibility of an inclusive, non-partisan, non-political consensus process. Decided (by consensus) to schedule open meeting with presentations by county planner, tax assessor, and water manager.

Activities of MSG: 

Activities of MSG November, second meeting: About 160 people attended. All signed in and provided contact information. Speakers provided information about the county comprehensive plan, land prices, and land use patterns in the county. The group agreed, by consensus, to meet again: To further define or revise goals of process. To decide on next steps for process.

Activities of MSG: 

Activities of MSG December: About 60 people attend. Two informational presentations. Eight breakout groups: Volunteer facilitators. Task #1: Get group consensus on “Our worst fears for the future of Martin County.” Task #2: Get group consensus on “Our fondest hopes for the future of Martin County.” Groups report back—schedule follow-up meeting.

Activities of MSG: 

Activities of MSG January: About 60 people attend. Facilitated discussion with group as a whole: Amend and adopt “prospective consensus statements” Regarding “Our worst fears.” Regarding “Our fondest hopes. Breakout groups: “What information do we need in order to pursue our ‘fondest hopes’?”

Activities of MSG: 

Activities of MSG February meeting: 60 people. Facilitated whole group discussion: Consensus on topics for informational meetings. Suggestions for speakers on the topics identified. Commissioned Steering Committee to arrange informational meetings on the following topics: Public land acquisition programs. Description of lands already in government ownership. Current comprehensive plan and its requirements. Factors affecting viability of agriculture in the county.

Activities of MSG: 

Activities of MSG April, May, June: Workshop-type informational meetings to be conducted. Steering committee has not tried to plan beyond the present series of informational meetings.

Our “Lessons Learned”: 

Our “Lessons Learned” This work is labor-intensive: big time commitment. Important to be involved early in the process. Given history of in-fighting: Steering Committee must be representative. Facilitator must enforce ground rules. Process must get all views on the table.

Our “Lessons Learned”: 

Our “Lessons Learned” Regarding ground rules: Important to get stakeholder “buy-in” to ground rules early in the process. Stakeholders must believe the process is fair: buy-in to ground rules is essential to credibility of process. Once buy-in is achieved, most participants will “play by the rules.”

Our “Lessons Learned”: 

Our “Lessons Learned” “Consensus” requires definition. 50% plus one is not consensus. A single holdout among 60 participants must not be allowed to stall the process. Facilitator must work hard to find consensus. Cannot launch a consensus process unless all related issues and options are on the table (ie., don’t begin by naming the outcome for which consensus is sought).

Our “Lessons Learned”: 

Our “Lessons Learned” Facilitators help with framing and re-framing. Decisions on “what we should do” must first address “what do we wish to achieve.” Topics for discussion must be relevant for the task at hand, but must not be arbitrarily limited.

Our “Lessons Learned”: 

Our “Lessons Learned” Facilitators can help instill realistic expectations. Our participants tend to presume that there is a “solution”, and that the “answers” will be forthcoming if we invite the right speakers. Participants need to revise their expectations of the process: land use issues will be with them forever, and the process needs to be on-going, iterative, and interactive. Expectations may become more sophisticated as participants gain knowledge.

Our “Lessens Learned”: 

Our “Lessens Learned” A neutral facilitator is absolutely essential for a process of this type to function. Neutrality is a necessary condition. Facilitator is necessary to “protect the process” by enforcing ground rules for the benefit of everyone. Facilitator plays key role in designing the process. Facilitator makes sure everyone participates: more than opportunity to participate, but actual participation.