Laserfiche WebLink
5 <br /> <br />* In this phase, everyone works creatively to solve the problem in a way that <br />meets as many interests as possible. At times, small sub-teams may work <br />collectively to draft initial proposals for the larger group to review. <br />Who Was in the RoomWho Was in the RoomWho Was in the RoomWho Was in the Room <br />As with all public engagement, the people in the room matter! Getting just the right mix of people is <br />one of the many wicked problems of public engagement. Working Group members for this effort <br />represented three broad stakeholders: housing affordability, development barriers and community values <br />(regular citizens). Beyond this, working group members were selected because they are: <br />• Impacted- having a stake in the problem be it as an industry professional, as an individual <br />experiencing the challenge of housing (un)affordability, or as a person experiencing the latent <br />consequences of housing affordability. <br />• Representative- matching the demographics of the entire population of Eugene. <br />• Available- able to attend all or nearly all of the four scheduled meetings. <br /> <br />Public engagement itself can be viewed as a wicked problem. Inclusivity and proportionality/ <br />representativeness can be in tension with one another. Not everyone could participate if the group was <br />to match, even approximately, Eugene’s demographics. Similarly, representativeness and availability <br />may have been in tension with one another as those who are often the most able and willing to engage <br />tend to be older, whiter, and wealthier than the Eugene population as a whole. Multiple working group <br />representatives felt that some groups were under-represented, but they disagreed on which voices were <br />most excluded. Please see the demographic breakdown in Appendix C: Demographics-Working <br />Group, Voting Members & Online Feedback for more information on this. <br /> <br />How They WorkedHow They WorkedHow They WorkedHow They Worked <br />Working group members met four times beginning in September and ending in late November. Each <br />meeting went from 5:30-8:30 PM at the Baker Center. Dinner was provided. Member and audience <br />norms were posted and followed to maintain civility, balance participation, and deepen the discussion <br />throughout. <br /> <br />First Meeting <br />Working group members received a <br />handbook and training on the process <br />they would use and how decisions <br />would be made. These processes <br />were reviewed as necessary <br />throughout the four meetings. The <br />group used an interest-based <br />problem-solving cycle (left) and a <br />consensus based decision-making <br />rule. See Appendix A: Working <br />Group Handbook for more on this. <br />During all meetings, working group <br />members engaged in large group, <br />small group, and paired discussions. <br />Groups were frequently shuffled to <br />promote a mixing of people and <br />ideas. <br /> <br />December 12, 2018, Work Session - Item 2