SEDONA, AZ (October 24, 2009) - Recently I was provided with a copy of a letter from the City of Sedona to various individuals and groups outlining the background for the Council Special Session held on October 7, 2009 regarding the critical issue of the designation of a National Scenic Area (NSA) for the Sedona area.   The letter from the City indicated "we invite you or your group representative to attend this public meeting and provide public comment".  Later the letter states "The Sedona City Council is interested in feedback from local leaders,  elected officials, and constituents."

 

I appreciate all the positive steps the Mayor, the City Council, and City staff have taken in the past to make Sedona a great place to live.  Having said that, I have questions about the significance and true intent of the City's request for public comment on the NSA issue, or other major issues,  since the City has no formalized, meaningful, effective public participation process.  The Sedona Community Plan does not contain a single sentence that speaks to the topic of a public participation process, nor establishes an effective model to be used at public meetings.  This is unacceptable. 

 

All City Council meetings where the public is invited to comment are generally conducted in the same manner.   Citizens are invited to stand at the podium in council chambers, and verbalize their opinion regarding the issue being discussed.  City Council members and other City representatives simply sit and listen, but do not provide feedback.  The meeting is not interactive---rather citizens at the podium engage in a monologue, then quietly sit down after finishing their statements.  No substantive dialogue occurs during the meeting or is encouraged.  Though most of the meetings regarding major issues, like NSA, are emotionally charged meetings, no moderator or facilitator trained in dealing with highly controversial and contentious issues is present to ensure the meeting is conducted in as effective a manner as possible.  Citizens in the audience are asked to sit quietly.  An organized, systematic, and constructive process for citizens to interact meaningfully with Council members and other City representatives during these meetings is not currently available.  

 

The public notice sent out by the City regarding the NSA City Council meeting, as well as notices sent out regarding other important Council meetings (such as the upcoming meeting regarding street lights in W. Sedona), is usually completely lacking in detail regarding the format of the meeting, or the details of the public participation process.  This simply represents inadequate effort on the part of the City.  The City budget for the City of Sedona is more than sufficient for Sedona citizens to expect a well-planned, carefully executed meeting for topics of immense consequence.  

The City is also aware that a core of talented volunteers exists within the City to provide assistance if graciously asked,  however the City consistently fails to tap into that talent pool.  Careful deliberation should have gone into the conceptualization and planning of the NSA meeting, arguably one of the most consequential City Council meetings ever held. 

The public should have been provided with specific details regarding the public participation process for the NSA meeting, including (but not limited to) the following issues:

1.	What will be the exact format of the meeting?
2.	What is the detailed agenda for the meeting?
3.	What are the rules of participation?
4.	How will the large crowds be handled in such a small room, including overflow crowds?
5.	How will public comments be evaluated, and against what assessment criteria?
6.	How will public comments influence the outcome, if at all?
7.	How will consistent public themes be addressed, if not reflected in Council actions or decisions?
8.	Will a trained facilitator be present?
9.	Will public comments be transcribed or recorded for later evaluation by the City?
10.	Will a responsiveness summary be provided by the City to all comments (by category)?
11.	Will podium speakers be allowed to interact with City representatives?
12.	Will questions be taken from the general audience?
13.	Will the City provide feedback to questions or comments?
14.	Since this is an ongoing topic with a long life span in the late stages of decision-making, will comments from early stakeholders be incorporated into the process?

The fundamental problem that needs to be addressed in Sedona prior to dealing with further major issues is for the City to adopt an effective and formalized public participation process, based on existing governmental models that are widely available and have been proven to be highly effective.  A good public participation process engages the public and stakeholders early in the process, is interactive and empowers the public, is most meaningful when government agencies ask questions that matter to the participants, and establishes rules of engagement that are constructive and clearly understood by all parties.  

 

Many government organizations have effective public participation processes.   Just not Sedona.   I urge the City of Sedona to develop and implement a truly meaningful and effective public participation process.  

Readers' comments

#1 Dear Sedona.biz:

Some of the comments made by the author of "Sedona has no meaningful participation process" are factually incorrect (e.g. the give and take with the city is at the Town Halls; council meetings are heavily controlled by AZ legislation and he should know that).

I'm not a big fan of the council, but the author is complaining the council doesn't respond to comments for goodness sakes, so he should permit them, signed or not.

Denise Barnhart

#2 I appreciate the comments regarding factually incorrect content.  However I want to be clear that the point I am trying to make in my Letter To The Editor is that there is no formalized, systematic public participation process in the City of Sedona.  There is no specific model the City uses to contextualize public comments, or rules of engagement that define the process.  For instance, had there been in place a formal, systematic public participation process that was well defined, the S.R. 89A Pedestrian Safety Committee recommendations would have been properly addressed or rebutted, if not reflected in Council actions, or would have been properly followed.  However the recommendations would not have been summarily dismissed.  This event, which alienated and angered many within the City, would have never occurred if there existed a formalized public participation process.   

On the other hand---if the formalized public participation model contains a rule indicating that "the City can form committees, then summarily dismiss these committees at will.......", then this becomes an appropriate action on the City's part.  I am a strong advocate of taking a defined systems approach to problem-solving, rather than allowing an undefined set of events and circumstances to determine the outcome of critical issues.  --

Ron Vernesoni