a planner's guide to meeting facilitation (pas 595)

Milton J Herd faicp

A PLANNERrsquoS GUIDE TO MEETING FACILITATION

p a s r e p o r t 5 9 5

American Planning Association

Creating Great Communities for All

Since 1949 the American Planning Associationrsquos Planning Advisory Service has provided planners with expert research authoritative information on best practices and innovative solutions and practical tools to help them manage on-the-job challenges PAS Reports are produced in the Research Department of APA Joel Albizo fasae cae Chief Executive Officer David C Rouse faicp Managing Director of Research and Advisory Services Ann F Dillemuth aicp Editor APA membership includes access to all PAS publications including PAS Reports PAS Memo and PAS QuickNotes Learn more at planningorgpas Email pasreportsplanningorg

copy June 2019 American Planning Association which has offices at 205 N Mich-igan Ave Suite 1200 Chicago IL 60601-5927 and 1030 15th St NW Suite 750 West Washington DC 20005-1503 planningorg All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means without permission in writing from APA

ISBN 978-1-61190-203-7

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Milton J Herd faicp is an award-winning urban planner consultant and facilitator who specializes in collaborative planning processes for comprehensive plans strategic plans and zoning ordinances mostly for local governments Since 1978 he has served more than 80 localities throughout Virgin-ia as well as localities in 10 other states He served for more than 13 years as a planner for Loudoun County Virginia in-cluding four years as planning director during which he over-saw the preparation of the Loudoun County 1991 General Plan which received a national award from the American Planning Association in 1994 Since 1991 he has run his own consulting practice in Leesburg Virginia In 2014 Herd was inducted into the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Certified Planners (faicp) He holds bachelorrsquos and masterrsquos degrees in architecture from the University of Florida When time per-mits he sings and plays bluegrass guitar

ON THE COVER

An asset mapping exercise held as part of a public meeting in Evanston Illinois sponsored by the US Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos Office of Community Revitalization (Mike Callahan)

The American Planning Association provides leadership in the development of vital communities for all by advocating excellence in planning promoting education and resident empowerment and providing our members with the tools and support necessary to ethically meet the challenges of growth and change

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

CHAPTER 1 THE VALUE OF MEETING FACILITATION 8The Importance of Public Participation 10The Functions of a Facilitator 11The Importance of Trust 12About This Report 14

CHAPTER 2 ELEMENTS OF MEETINGS 16Parties to the Process 17Meeting Scales 19Meeting Types and Formats 21Matching the Meeting to the Process 27Conclusion 27

CHAPTER 3 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR FACILITATION 30Legal and Ethical Considerations for Facilitation 31The Importance of Neutrality 32Working With Diverse Groups 35Conclusion 36

CHAPTER 4 MEETING ORGANIZATION AND PREPARATION 40Determine the Purpose and Objectives of the Meeting 41Determine Participation Needs and Methods of Input 44Determine Meeting Location Date and Time 47Provide Advance Outreach and Notifications 48Design the Meeting Agenda and Process 49Prepare Meeting Materials 51Prepare the Meeting Space 52Conclusion 53

CHAPTER 5 FACILITATING A GROUP MEETING 54Set Up the Space 55Begin and End the Meeting On Time 55Open the Meeting and Welcome the Group 57Review the Agenda and Ground Rules 57Choose a Recorder and a Reporter 57Explain the Meeting Objectives and Present Information 58Initiate and Manage the Discussion 58Wrap Up and Follow Up 66Conclusion 70

CHAPTER 6 GROUND RULES AND CONSENSUS BUILDING 72About Ground Rules 73Building Consensus 76Conclusion 80

CHAPTER 7 SPECIAL CHALLENGES IN FACILITATION 82Handling Disruptive People 83Resource Limitations 86Trends in the Level and Type of Public Engagement 88Conclusion 88

CHAPTER 8 MAKING IT ALL HAPPEN 92

APPENDIX A SAMPLE LOGISTICS CHECKLIST 96

APPENDIX B SAMPLE AGENDAS 98

APPENDIX C SAMPLE EVALUATION SHEET 104

REFERENCES 106

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 107

3planningorg AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION

A PLANNERrsquoS GUIDE TO MEETING FACILITATIONPA S 595 F O R E W O R D

FOREWORD

Facilitation skills have traditionally not been taught in planning schools I and most facilitators I have known have learned mostly through experience supplemented by some short training courses I did not begin my planning career thinking of myself as a facilitatormdashI didnrsquot even really know what facilitation was However it became one of my favorite and most valued skills

At first a planner may quake when asked to facilitate a meeting of people who may be in conflict with each other about a major high-stakes issue such as a locally unwanted land use This is particularly the case when you face a large room of very agitated people and they look to you to lead the meeting to a successful conclusion At that moment you think How is this even going to be possible

Yet as I became accustomed to facilitating such high-intensity groups I came to enjoy being the ldquocrowd whispererrdquo I realized I was simply giving the group all the power and helping them work together cooperatively and with mutual respectmdashmuch like a sports referee Nothing has been more satisfying in my career than those times when I have facilitated a meeting of people who started in deep conflict but finished in well-defined agreement on newly discovered solutions

The process itself is sometimes as important as the actual substance of the planning policies produced I once facilitated a series of visioning sessions in an Atlantic coast city that began in argumentative disarray but ended with a broadly supported consensus about the cityrsquos desired future At the final meeting one participant announced that I had taught her community ldquoa new way of working togetherrdquo That was deeply satisfying and indeed is one of the benefits of carrying out an effective facilita-tion process The participants learn from each other about the benefits of collaborative problem solving

The three fundamental keys to successful facilitation are maintaining the trust of the participants showing respect for everyone involved and staying neutral to any issues of both substance and procedure If the facilitator can achieve those three things the job should get done

Anyone can learn facilitation skills but it takes practice you cannot get in the classroom Real-world exposure is the best way to develop these skills so dive in and take every opportunity you can to facilitate groups of willing participants Facing the risks produces tremendous rewards

Milton Herd faicp

AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION planningorg4

A PLANNERrsquoS GUIDE TO MEETING FACILITATIONPA S 595 I N F O G R A P H I C

bull enjoy broad group support bull build good will and trustbull create durable decisionsbull promote learningbull aid empathetic listeningbull boost group self-reliance

The POWER of Consensus

Decisions made by consensus

FACILITATION

ConflictCAN MANAGE

A well-facilitated meeting will ensure a civil inclusive and productive discussion and allow stakeholders to

work together collaboratively

3 PILLARS of Meeting

Facilitation

These three pillars provide the foundation for the facilitatorrsquos authority Understanding the factors for

maintaining them is key to success

FacilitatorrsquosAuthority

MaintainTrust

StayNeutral

Show Respect

Many public policy-making efforts depend on productive and collaborative public meeting processes PAS Report 595 A Plannerrsquos Guide to Meeting Facilitation provides detailed ldquohow-tordquo instructions

for designing and conducting group meetings with a focus on working in local government

Master the Art of the Meeting


A PLANNERrsquoS GUIDE TO MEETING FACILITATIONPA S 595 E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Many public policy-making efforts such as comprehensive plans zoning regulations and neighborhood plans depend on productive and collaborative public meeting processes Yet such processes are often fraught with conflict among stakeholders which can lead to delays or even derailment of the process

Planners must design effective group processes for complex planning projects and are often called on to facilitate public meetings of various scales and types Yet these skills are not taught in school

PAS Report 595 A Plannerrsquos Guide to Meeting Facilitation provides detailed ldquohow-tordquo instructions for designing and conducting group meetings with a focus on the settings and challenges common to urban planners working in local government

Authentic and active citizen participation is an essential element of local planning processes and effective meeting facilitation is necessary to ensure that such public involvement is productive and successful Effective facilitation helps participants work together and prevents discussions from breaking down into argument or dissolving in mistrust and disagreement

When many residents are involved in discussing and formulating recommendations on controversial public policy matters civil discourse is imperative but can be difficult to achieve without the knowledge and skill to properly design and conduct the meeting process This report provides the key elements of that knowledge and the foundation for developing those skills

This PAS Report offers valuable guidance to planners It has two main aims

1 Providing a thorough grounding in the fundamental principles and techniques of successful meeting facilitation

2 Offering detailed steps for designing preparing for and facilitating group meetings of various formats at both small and large scales This includes specific information on practical details such as meeting logistics ground rules agenda design legal and ethical issues working with diverse populations and the challenge of disruptive participants

While this report emphasizes public planning contexts the principles and techniques it shares are broadly applicable to a wide range of meeting and project settings whether in the public or private sectors

FUNDAMENTALS OF SUCCESSFUL FACILITATIONTo successfully facilitate a group meeting a facilitator must understand and uphold three basic principles Gain and maintain the trust of the participants remain neutral on substantive and procedural aspects of the discussion and show respect to all participants at all times

These ldquothree pillarsrdquo of successful facilitationmdashmaintaining trust staying neutral and showing respectmdashare critical for the facilitator to hold the authority to manage the meeting and help the group have a productive discussion This report explains the importance of each pillar and offers guidance to help planners put these principles into practice

A critically importantmdashyet perhaps not intuitivemdashtruth of facilitation is that the facilitatorrsquos power comes from the consent of the group The facilitator must share power to gain power the meeting belongs to the group not the facilitator The facilitator is not so much leading it as managing the flow to ensure that it is smooth fair and moving forward

Facilitation is a paradox By giving up power to the group the facilitator gains power to shepherd the group through its process The group has the ultimate say over each part of the process but it must decide with one voice in order to act Thus the facilitator is given the power to serve as a kind of referee or traffic cop to help the discussion move forward peacefully and productively This report helps planners to understand this truth and act accordingly for successful facilitation outcomes

MEETING SCALES TYPES AND CONSIDERATIONSMeetings have a wide range of scales from a handful of people up to several hundred or more The basic core setting for applying facilitation techniques is the small group of up to about a dozen people As groups get larger in size techniques must be applied to manage the larger group in a way that allows all members to engage actively fully and fairly These can include the use of breakout groups written exercises multiple meeting sessions and other strategies

This PAS Report examines the factors and issues involved in designing organizing and preparing for group meetings



Chapter 2 examines all participants in the process from a facilitatorrsquos ldquoclientsrdquo and stakeholders to other members of the facilitation team It describes the key elements of both small and large group meetings and outlines the characteristics and specific facilitation considerations of various meeting types including conference forums open house meetings charrettes advisory committees listening sessions and focus groups

Chapter 3 of the report addresses the legal and ethical considerations that affect all meetings and planning processes and it examines the challenges of working with diverse groups Public planning processes often involve populations that vary by race ethnicity cultural background native language economic class age disability and other factors Successful facilitation requires that a facilitator act not for or on behalf of a community but rather work with that community to maximize the potential for a successful outcome The report highlights the importance of leading inclusive facilitation processes in which all participants feel welcomed respected and heard and offers guidance and strategies for overcoming potential barriers of access and inclusion for underrepresented groups

PREPARING FOR AND FACILITATING GROUP MEETINGSDesigning preparing for and facilitating a group meeting can seem like a daunting task Chapter 4 of the report walks planners through the basic steps common to all meetings and facilitation processes to help make this more manageable

Preparing for a meeting requires the following steps

1 Determine the purpose and objectives of the meeting This can include obtaining public input to generate ideas evaluate or review build consensus on or resolve conflicts for policies plans or actions A meetingrsquos purposemdashand its place in the larger planning processmdashinfluences design and agenda choices

2 Determine participation needs and methods of input Who is invited to attend Who is allowed to attend Who is recruited to attend Outreach to commonly underrepresented groups can be a particular challenge in the meeting design process and should be carefully considered

3 Determine meeting location date and time This can be one of the most difficult issues to decide when planning a meeting It is important that the needs of the expected participants including cultural considerations are fully taken into account to maximize participation and access

4 Provide advance outreach and notifications Researching

the community including reaching out to key local interests and stakeholders is important to most effectively create and disseminate advance notification about the event

5 Design the meeting agenda and process This includes de-termining meeting purpose start time and duration roles of participants ground rules for participation timing and format of presentations and group exercises and prepara-tions for small group work Sample agendas for a variety of meeting contexts are provided as an appendix to the report

6 Prepare meeting materials Meeting materials can include handouts and presentation materials sign-in sheets and evaluation forms Facilitators should create two versions of the agenda one to be provided to meeting participants and an annotated version with detailed choreography of the process for the facilitation team

7 Prepare the meeting space The success of a meeting can also depend on its setup and setting Meeting rooms should have adequate space lighting sound ventilation and access as well as adequate furniture arranged in an appropriate room setup Refreshments are also key to a positive meeting experience for participants

Chapter 5 details the key steps in conducting a facilitated meeting which include the following

1 Set up the meeting space Arrive early enough to ensure that the main room and any breakout rooms are completely and correctly set up Allow plenty of time for surprises A sample room setup checklist is provided as an appendix

2 Begin the meeting on time Being timely is a sign of respect for participants

3 Welcome the group with introductions Depending on group size and context introductions may range from simple showing of hands in response to questions relevant to the group or process to a round robin of attendeesrsquo names affiliations and other helpful information

4 Review the agenda and proposed ground rules for the group to review and approve Share with the group the purpose of the meeting and the overall project the ob-jectives and the priorities The facilitator should review proposed meeting ground rules and obtain consent of the group for their use

5 Choose a recorder and reporter Ideally the facilitator will be able to designate a recorder and reporter for the group The recorder must quickly and accurately capture and write down the information generated by the group while the reporter must accurately and concisely summa-rize and present that information back to the larger group



6 Explain the meeting objectives and present information Meeting objectives as well as transparency about the level of public power allowed by the process must be made clear to participants to avoid confusion later Presentations should be timed and tracked to avoid taking up valuable discussion time

7 Initiate and manage the discussion Facilitators can use a number of group exercises to engage the group and obtain the desired feedback from participants taking care to maintain the three pillars of facilitation throughout

8 Wrap up by summarizing results and adjourn the meeting on time Summarize the results of the discussions and thank participants for their time

9 Follow up by compiling and disseminating results to participants Following up with participants helps them know that their input was heard and encourages future participation in the planning process

Ground rules are a critical meeting facilitation tool that provide firm guidance for the behavior of the participants to ensure that they are respectful and civil stay on track to complete their tasks and accomplish the defined objectives The facilitator proposes a set of ground rules but the group must approve those rules and agree to abide by them The group through the facilitator enforces its ground rules during the discussion Chapter 6 of this report offers a comprehensive set of sample ground rules for plannersrsquo use

Many meetings seek to deliver defined outcomes agreed upon by group consensus Making group decisions by consensus helps build good will and trust among the participants and creates durable decisions with minimal reneging The consensus process also promotes the value of learning and empathetic listening and encourages self-reliance of the group Chapter 6 defines various levels of consensus and describes two methodologies for reaching group consensus the discussion and testing method and the nominal group technique

SPECIAL CHALLENGES OF FACILITATIONFacilitation of public planning processes for local governments often produce special challenges that facilitators must navigate to perform successfully One common challenge is handling difficult people

Though most public meetings are attended by people who sincerely want to reach a successful outcome of the meeting and of the overall process sometimes a participant may be disruptive whether inadvertently or purposefully Inadvertent disrupters do so unintentionally because of personal tenden-cies or habits they may ramble at length or interrupt argue

with or lecture other participants Most inadvertent disrupt-ers just want attention or want to be sure their voices are heard Chapter 7 of this report provides suggestions for facilitators on how to productively incorporate them into the process

In contrast purposeful or strategic disrupters are consciously trying to undermine or discredit the process and so can present a greater challenge Chapter 7 also offers guidance for facilitators on proactively preparing for and managing strategic disrupters

Other challenges facilitators may face include dealing with limited resourcesmdashmeeting preparation and execution is labor intensive and often stresses the budget of any planning projectmdashand the trend in many places is toward declining rates of public involvement and attendance at public meetings The growing use of online survey and engagement tools is one promising countertrend The report discusses these challenges and their possible solutions

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER Facilitating meetings is challenging enjoyable and rewarding work and urban planners usually get to do a lot of it Planners should keep in mind five fundamental guidelines for successful facilitation

1 A facilitatorrsquos authority is given by the group 2 Show respect to all at all times 3 Maintain neutrality to maintain trust 4 Actively engage people 5 Practice practice practice

Facilitation is an important and valuable skill Meet-ing facilitation skills lead to a general understanding ap-preciation and use of collaborative work processes which are increasingly needed in todayrsquos complex and diverse world The planning profession can never have enough good facilitators

This PAS Report provides much of the basic informa-tion on which to build a set of strong facilitation skills Read-ers can use this information to further develop these skills in their professional practicesmdashand then apply those skills in taking on the exciting and rewarding work of meeting fa-cilitation in many different settings within the world of com-munity and strategic planning

CHAPTER 1THE VALUE OF MEETING FACILITATION


Why is meeting facilitation valuable When people meet together in a group to solve a problem generate ideas or formulate a plan of action they often have differences in views knowledge priorities experiences or desires Thus discussion can become bogged down in argument and conflict or some members may dominate the discussion A neutral facilitator moderates the meeting to make it as productive as possible

A facilitator can help channel the grouprsquos energy into productive dialogue Facilitation contributes value to most meeting types and settings But facilitation has particular value to public policy-making groups that come together in local community planning projects

Usually local elected governing bodies and appointed bodies such as planning commissions will choose to ldquoself-facilitaterdquo their own business meetingsmdashalthough in special cases they may engage an outside neutral facilitator Most often however facilitators support public meetings involv-ing residents business owners and others involved in help-ing local governments make policy Classic examples include projects such as comprehensive plans neighborhood plans infrastructure plans zoning ordinances and the like

This PAS Report is a primer and ldquofield manualrdquo for ur-ban and community planners and others who facilitate group meetings It provides an overview of basic principles and spe-cific techniques for facilitating productive meetings as part of public input consensus building and conflict resolution processes for community planning and other public policy-making projects This report will be particularly useful for people new to facilitation especially planners working for lo-cal governments nonprofits or consulting firms that do a lot of public planning work

The report focuses on the practical fundamentals of meeting facilitation in a primary context of local urban plan-ning processes In these types of projects a group may be setting goals generating optional policy solutions evaluat-ing proposed solutions choosing a solution or performing related tasks

Most of these basic principles and techniques also per-tain to facilitation in other settings and for other purposes

such as organizational and strategic planning for govern-ment business and nonprofit organizations site-specific land-use conflicts and community development efforts

Facilitation happens on a continuum of scales from small to large Facilitation of small groupsmdasha dozen or so peoplemdashis the usual context for discussing fundamental facilitation skills and techniques These settings are where the basic techniques are most intensely applied However often in urban planning a facilitator leads a larger process with dozens or even hundreds of people meeting together in which this large group divides into multiple small groups for breakout sessions

Facilitating these larger processes demands additional considerations Often the different scales share features This report distinguishes the different scales when the differences are relevant but the primary focus is on the techniques used

Figure 11 Facilitating a breakout group in a small conference forum meeting as

part of a comprehensive planning process (Milton Herd)


A PLANNERrsquoS GUIDE TO MEETING FACILITATIONPA S 595 C H A P T E R 1

in working with small groups as the fundamental facilitation principles apply so clearly there

Today more and more planning processes are conducted online using web tools and social media While this report aims primarily at facilitating ldquoliverdquo person-to-person meet-ings most of the basic concepts and fundamental principles can also be applied to online group processes although some of the details will be different Online tools as well as the use of digital tools within live meeting facilitation events are also discussed (Recent experience has shown some combination of live and remote online opportunities is often most effective and inclusive in reaching diverse sectors of the community)

THE IMPORTANCE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

While professional facilitation methods have evolved over the last 50-plus years too often participation by residents in lo-cal community planning processes has been mostly an after-thought or an add-on to the process In earlier decades com-munity leaders such as the planning commission and elected governing body usually ran planning projects

Authentic and active participation by residents and the business community has now been integrated as a key ele-ment however in many local planning processes Facilitation has emerged as a valuable skill to support public involvement because when diverse constituencies are involved in discuss-ing and formulating recommendations on controversial public policy matters a civil and productive discussion is important

but sometimes challenging to achieve Thus a good facilitator is an invaluable asset to any professional planning team

The level of citizen engagement in public policy making falls within a range notably depicted in Sherry Arnsteinrsquos groundbreaking 1969 article ldquoA Ladder of Citizen Participa-tionrdquo as shown in Figure 12 The various levels of engage-ment reflect the amount of direct influence that the affected public has over policy makersrsquo final decisions In most cases policy makers (particularly when they are elected officials) have full authority to determine how much power to give the public in decision making Legal requirements often come into play (particularly regarding the processmdashfor example public hearing requirements) but usually the ultimate deci-sions are based on political power

Three important points should be raised about translat-ing this model into the realities of public policy making First public involvement in most public planning projects such as development of comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances incorporates ldquoconsultationrdquo with the affected public How-ever such engagement is not always mere ldquotokenismrdquo as de-picted in the ladder In the cases of comprehensive plans and zoning regulations elected bodies hold statutory responsibil-ity for their adoption and thus the affected public is simply not permitted to make the final decisions Yet as a practical matter the consultation role in these processes is often very meaningful due to the political pressures it can put on elected leaders Often the greatest amount of public engagement in local planning processes occurs in conjunction with staff and planning commission work before the final draft plan reaches the elected body for a final decision

In addition the results of a robust public engagement process even at the ldquoconsultationrdquo level can have significant power to affect final legislative decisions At a minimum a facilitated collaborative public engagement process for ex-ample regarding a comprehensive plan can inform elected leaders as to what might be feasible public policy from both technical and political perspectives

Finally facilitators and sponsors should always be very open and transparent at the very beginning of any planning process about what the role and influence of the participants will be at the particular meeting and on the outcome of the process as a whole Participants should know what level of the ladder they are on

Another dimension relating to power and authority in public policy decision making that facilitators must be very cognizant of is cultural differencesmdashethnic racial or socio-economicmdashamong participants and between participants and the facilitator More often today than in past decades Figure 12 Arnsteinrsquos ladder of public participation (From Arnstein 1969)



a wide range of diverse groups that have traditionally been excluded from public policy making are now being included inmdashand in many cases are leading or controllingmdashpolicy-making processes Facilitation is an important piece of en-suring that such groups (and individuals) feel included and welcomed at the table

When the facilitator is a member of the same cultural group as the majority of the participants the basic elements of meeting setup and facilitationmdashsuch as the time and locations of meetings outreach and notification efforts and styles and forms of language and visual communicationmdashare often eas-ily addressed without much special attention But when work-ing with a group with different cultural or socioeconomic backgrounds a facilitator must make a concerted effort to un-derstand and meet the needs and expectations of that group This may include gaining advance knowledge of key cultural issues or broadening the membership of the facilitation team to ensure the team is fully capable of working productively with the participants This report provides further guidance in facilitating culturally diverse group meetings

THE FUNCTIONS OF A FACILITATOR

In any group facilitation process the facilitatorrsquos main job is to help the group work together in a productive manner If a group is dealing with difficult or complex issues the group often finds it virtually impossible to move forward on its own

Each member has a stake in the outcome and individuals are often unable to mediate different opinions about substance or process Discussions can break down into arguments and im-passes Often the participants are not experts at group pro-cesses thus making it even more difficult for them to work without a facilitator

A facilitator acts as a referee or traffic cop to help keep the discussion on track and prevent internal group conflicts from derailing the work These conflicts are not ignored but managed in a respectful manner The facilitatorrsquos main task is to ensure an effective process regardless of the substantive outcome He or she is the ldquokeeper of the processrdquo This is true even when the facilitator is also an expert in the substance of the discussion When this is the case it requires great disci-pline for the facilitator to subordinate his or her own opinions to those of the group It is important to remember that the process itself is an essential part of the product

Thus the facilitatorrsquos main goal is to conduct a group process that is productive one that achieves the purposes of the meeting is civil and respectful is balanced and inclusive of all participants and ends with participants feeling that the process was valid and their involvement meaningful

These are the facilitatorrsquos key objectives

bull Civility ensure active productive and civil discussion among participants

bull Fairness ensure all participants have opportunities to ac-tively participate

bull Cooperation promote a positive cooperative spirit and tone and a sense of unity

bull Involvement foster continued involvement of all the par-ticipants

bull Credibility ensure a credible overall process and outcomebull Production accomplish the goals of the meeting in terms

of product creation

The facilitator can use several tactical methods or strate-gies to achieve these objectives These methods can serve as checkpoints for judging progress in achieving objectives

bull Flow ensure a smooth flow and timely pacing of discussionbull Timeliness complete tasks within the allotted time bull Engagement ensure constructive engagement among par-

ticipantsbull Focus help the group focus on important and high-pri-

ority itemsbull Deliberation ensure the group engages in thoughtful dis-

cussion and analysis

Figure 13 A small breakout group of residents working together to identify major

issues at a public forum on a comprehensive plan for the city of Winchester

Virginia (Milton Herd)



bull Clarity help the group clarify its input and reach clear decisions

bull Recording ensure that results are properly recorded and distributed

Usually one person will facilitate a group but often he or she will work with a cofacilitator or as part of a team of facili-tators for a large project In the case of a team a lead facilita-tor is the liaison with the organizationrsquos project manager and is responsible for the overall process agendas schedule and other elements Other team members carry out specific assign-ments with individual groups or subgroups The facilitator and the facilitation team may be employees of the client organiza-tion outside consultants volunteers or a combination of these (Facilitation also requires someone to record results as they emerge this role is discussed later in this report)

The facilitator for urban planning work is most effective when not also serving as the expert in planning This separa-tion of roles avoids tension that may arise between the two rolesmdashthe policy expert who gives substantive recommenda-tions on the subject matter and the neutral facilitator who moderates the discussion between conflicting viewpoints As a best practice the facilitator should be solely focused on process and not substance However in the real world of ur-ban planningmdashespecially for smaller projects where budgets are leanmdasha single person often must fill both roles One of the biggest challenges facing planner-facilitators is to learn the discipline of sublimating personal opinions about sub-stantive policy issues while facilitating a meeting in order to maintain the trust of the participants This issue of neutrality is discussed in more detail in Chapter 3

THE IMPORTANCE OF TRUST

A facilitator must maintain the trust of the group to be effec-tive This is critical and fundamental The facilitatorrsquos views and personality should be subordinate to the group discus-sion so that the facilitator does not become part of the subject matter or a distraction to the discussion Regardless of the formal hierarchy of managers and participants in a process as a practical matter it is the group that collectively autho-rizes the facilitator to moderate and guide its discussion To keep that authority the facilitatorrsquos neutrality fairness and respect for all members must be recognized and maintained

A facilitatorrsquos power and legitimacy come from the group so he or she must work on the basis of consent from the group The facilitator helps the group accept responsibil-

ity for a successful outcome The process is their process not the facilitatorrsquos the facilitator can rely on the group to be the enforcer of its ground rules (See Chapter 6 for a detailed dis-cussion of ground rules)

The process of facilitation itself builds trust and trust is the basis for collaboration The process is self-reinforcing Well-facilitated meetings underpin civility and collabora-tion elements which in turn help to build trust especially if group members bring any political or emotional ldquobaggagerdquo to the process The sidebar on p 13 describes one technique for gaining the trust of a skeptical group

In public planning processes often one of the underlying sources of conflict is the fear of change that people feel when their community is under pressure from growth or decline Fear can lead to distrust among parties in conflict Some-times that fear is well founded sometimes it is not

Regardless of how justified such fears may be stakehold-ers working together can overcome fear and distrust to find common ground (A ldquostakeholderrdquo is simply anyone who has a legitimate interest in the outcome of a policy-making pro-cess) Finding common ground allows people to communi-cate and create productive policy outcomes

Another source of conflict is simple disagreement about the effectiveness of a strategy policy or action A key to avoid conflict is to begin the public process with a blank slate before any outcomes are formed Beginning at the beginning is often difficult for public officials as well as professionals A collaborative discussion that allows participants to un-derstand the basis of such disagreement can often lead to resolution either through parties merging their views or by discovering new solutions that no one had thought of before

Collaboration is about building the trust needed to act together to overcome the roadblocks that arise from having different interests and perspectives Acting together allows groups to implement desired change or devise ways of deal-ing with undesired change

Susan Carpenter coauthor of Managing Public Disputes A Practical Guide to Reaching Agreements (Carpenter and Kennedy 2001) has said that when dealing with issues of change talk is action and can be transformative when it hap-pens in a productive constructive waymdashthat is when people are actively and respectfully listening to each other The logi-cal sequence for how this happens is as follows

bull Conversation and sharing information and viewpoints create understanding among participants

bull Understanding overcomes fear and helps participants find common ground



GAINING TRUST BY GIVING POWER TO THE GROUP

I once was facilitating a contentious public process about the future of a small community and the hundred or so participants (who were the leading stakeholders of the community) were skeptical of me as facilitator because the funding for my work had been provided by a third-party nonprofit organization not by the community itself

When I became aware of this mis-trust at the first meeting I assured the group that if it ever felt that I was not be-ing a neutral and objective facilitator the group could fire me (Irsquom not sure how my paying client felt when I said that but they trusted my judgment)

As soon as I had given this power and trust to the group they relaxed Not only did I have no future trust issues for the remainder of the project I had ob-tained the strong loyalty of these people By subjecting myself to their complete authority I convinced them that regard-less of who was writing the checks I was working for them I had immediately made myself a credible ldquorefereerdquo whom they could trust

Technically this idea of empower-ing the group to ldquofirerdquo you as facilitator is not possible if you are working for a local government and carrying out a public process as an employee on its behalf In that case you canrsquot realistically offer to quit However you can offer other assur-ances such as being willing to switch or share roles with another person on staff or inviting the participants to submit written critiques as the process moves forward Anything that assures the par-ticipants that it is their meeting and not yours is helpful in maintaining trust

A facilitator has immense power yet no power Itrsquos a paradox that you will learn to enjoy

bull Overcoming fear and finding common ground leads to the courage to deal with change

Thus talk is transformative

Sharing and Gaining Power Within a GroupA person gains power by sharing power This is a key prin-ciple for all participants in a group process to understandmdashespecially the facilitator

Effective group work depends largely on dealing with power dynamics within the group between the facilitator and the group members and between the group and outside stakeholders A facilitator must control the group enough to ensure that the group is working productively but not de-termine the substantive outcome Paradoxically this is best achieved by sharing or giving power to the group Thus pow-er is not a ldquozero-sum gamerdquo contrary to what many people intuitively feel The best politicians know this as evidenced by the saying attributed to Mohandas Gandhi ldquoThere go my people I must follow them for I am their leaderrdquo

Dacher Keltner in his book The Power Paradox (2017) demonstrated the counterintuitive notion that power is gained by sharing it with others He defines power as ldquothe ability to alter the states of other peoplerdquo His studies show that ldquopower is gained by advancing the greater goodrdquo and that ldquopower is given to us by other peoplerdquo This is due in part to the fact that kindness cooperation and empathy toward others provides psychic rewards to oneself but also spreads to others who are the beneficiaries This principle of power sharing pertains particularly when none of the participants has the authority to actually control the other participants which is typically the case in processes that community plan-ners are involved in

Thus the facilitator must balance his or her authority in the group with the need to allow the group to control itself It is a delicate balance that requires artful skill and judgment on the part of the facilitator and it relies largely on building mutual trust among the parties

Achieving this balance of control turns out to be a rela-tively simple process through maintaining neutrality and us-ing the basic facilitation techniques described here Yet it runs counter to some of our natural instincts Facilitators must sup-press any tendencies to force their will on the group or become defensive of their statements or actions instead they must trust the principles of power sharing which allows effective facilitation and empowers the group to enforce its own rules

The facilitator must begin by affirming the trust of the group in the facilitator and his or her role and then assure



the group that it will maintain enough control to feel em-powered in its work The facilitator must clearly maintain neutrality throughout the process Facilitators can main-tain trust by being open about purposes and techniques and remaining completely nondefensive regarding questions skepticism or challenges about process or substance The fa-cilitator can always check in with the group to make sure ev-eryone is ldquoon boardrdquo with the process at each juncture Hav-ing the group collectively comment on the process prevents a single participant from dominating or taking the group off track A fair and even-handed process is essential to guaran-tee credibility and trust

Much of the success of this approach relies on the as-sumption that the participants want their process to succeed however they may define success But if any of the participants want the process to fail the ideas of giving respect and shar-ing power may not be enough Usually participants giving their time and energy do indeed want some form of success for the process they may simply disagree on what this might look like If this is the situation a simple straightforward and well-executed facilitation process is likely to succeed

ABOUT THIS REPORT

The purpose of this PAS Report is to provide planners with ba-sic information and guidelines about why and how to facilitate a group meeting whether the meeting is small or large The primary context is meetings dealing with local public policy such as urban plans and land-use ordinances although most of the principles are more broadly applicable The fundamental principles and techniques of meeting facilitation are present-ed including specific information on practical details such as meeting logistics ground rules and agendas

This chapter has provided a brief review of the value and functions of facilitation as well as some fundamental consid-erations such as trust respect power and collaboration

Chapter 2 Elements of Meetings presents detailed in-formation on major elements of facilitation including the key participants in the process and different types and scales of meetings Chapter 3 Additional Considerations for Facilita-tion offers further information on important issues includ-ing overcoming barriers to cultural and ethnic diversity of participants in a meeting as well as common legal and ethi-cal issues that sometimes arise during facilitated processes It discusses the importance of remaining neutral as a facilitator and how to deal with the dual role of planner-facilitator that urban planners sometimes must take on

Chapter 4 Meeting Organization and Preparation and Chapter 5 Facilitating a Group Meeting offer details on or-ganizing and running meetings including preparing mate-rials and agendas specific steps in conducting a meeting as a facilitator and follow-up tasks subsequent to the meeting The discussions address the differences in the size continuum of meetings from small to large

Chapter 6 Ground Rules and Consensus Building fo-cuses on two particularly important aspects of facilitation (1) setting and using ground rules for a meeting and (2) tech-niques for building consensus among a group of participants

Chapter 7 Special Challenges in Facilitation discusses three kinds of challenges that facilitators often face difficult or disruptive participants limited resources for carrying out a facilitated process and trends in public participation in lo-cal policy-making processes

Chapter 8 Making It All Happen summarizes key as-pects of facilitation including sharing power showing re-spect and maintaining neutrality as well as developing fa-cilitation skills through real-world practice

Appendices include a sample template of a meeting lo-gistics checklist sample agendas for various types of meet-ings and a sample template for an evaluation sheet for meet-ing participants



CHAPTER 2ELEMENTS OF MEETINGS


A successful meeting facilitation process starts with a well-designed meeting Several major elements of the facilitation process must be considered when designing and organizing a meeting to ensure that the process involves the appropriate participants the most suitable environment and the best format to achieve the desired outcomes of the meeting itself as well as the overall planning process

These elements include the number and type of partici-pants including the facilitator or facilitation team the type and purpose of the meeting (eg generating ideas evaluat-ing ideas reaching consensus) and the physical logistics of meetings (eg space materials) Facilitators must consider the various parties involved in the process including the ldquoclientsrdquo and the members of the facilitation team the scale of meeting from small groups to large public gatherings and the various types of meeting formats It is important to match meeting format to the specific context for optimal process outcomes

PARTIES TO THE PROCESS

Facilitators usually must consider several major groups in-volved in the process The specific attributes of each of these groups will vary from one project to the next but usually those discussed below will be involved

The Clients Several entities can be considered ldquoclientsrdquo in a facilitated process regardless of whether the facilitator is a contract consultant or an in-house staff employee Each type of client plays a different role and has a different level of authority

Primary Client The primary client hires the facilitator This may be a city council or other governing body a board of directors of a company or private organization a line agency or some other leadership body sponsoring or leading a project that needs facilitation

The primary client may not be actively involved with the details of designing and organizing the meetings instead del-egating this authority to a client representative (usually a staff person such as the city manager or the planning director or sometimes a representative member of the board or council) Thus the interaction between the facilitator and the primary client is often at armrsquos length sometimes only occurring at the beginning and end of the process and at key meetings along the way This means that the client representative must be trusted by the primary client to act on its behalf

Client RepresentativeFor larger projects the facilitator may work directly for a cli-ent representative This is the person managing the project for the primary client and overseeing the day-to-day work of the facilitator or facilitation team

In urban planning often the planning director or anoth-er staff person serves as the client representative In smaller jurisdictions it is sometimes the city or town manager If the facilitator is an employee of the primary client the facilitator will usually answer to his or her immediate supervisor in the organization or to the project manager if that person is differ-ent from his or her supervisor

Whatever the employment role of the facilitatormdashstaff employee or consultantmdashhe or she will be working in close collaboration with the client representative as a de facto team member If the facilitator is a consultant he or she will often bring a higher level of expertise capacity and authority to the work than a staff employee would bring and thus will be looked to for greater guidance on decisions about agendas and other meeting elements But this varies depending on the needs of the client organization and its staff Regardless it is



always a team effort with mutually respectful collaboration among all the parties All team members constantly learn from each other

The GroupThis is the group being facilitated It can include all kinds of people but they are the ones the facilitator is working with face to facemdasheither in one or more small groups a large group or some combination

Sometimes the group is formed ad hoc such as at open public forums where the general public is invited At such meetings the group begins as a very large ldquoplenaryrdquo group but often divides into smaller breakout groups facilitated by individual facilitators In other cases the group may be a spe-cific set of individuals appointed to represent stakeholders as a standing committee and to engage in a series of meetings over the course of many weeks or months

StakeholdersFinally there is usually a larger stakeholder community In public work these are usually residents business people and property owners of the jurisdiction or neighborhoodmdashthe public at large In private work they may be organization members or company employees or shareholders Group participants are usually drawn from this larger population with some stakeholders observing the process either live or through media disseminated reports or word of mouth

All of these different clients are important Often they have somewhat similar goalsmdashbut not always In fact some-times the process itself is aimed at identifying what the goals should be The facilitator must maintain the trust of all four client types especially the first three because he or she canrsquot do the job properly without that trust Critically the facilita-tor must discuss the needs expectations and perceptions of each group with the primary client or its representatives at the beginning of the project

The Facilitation Team For a smaller project the facilitation team might consist of a single facilitator For a larger project especially public plan-ning projects a team of multiple facilitators may be needed which may additionally be part of a larger consulting team (or a subcontractor to a consulting team)

In the case of an in-house staff facilitation team one member may serve as the lead facilitator while the rest of the team comprises other staff members or contractors retained solely for the project Because facilitation can be time inten-sive and includes very focused work for large projects a group

of volunteer facilitators may be recruited and trained to sup-port the primary facilitation team for very defined tasks or time periods In such cases the facilitation team should conduct some basic training prior to the beginning of the process This can be a one-day or half-day session or even a 30- or 60-minute session just prior to the meeting if the vol-unteers have some facilitation experience

Any volunteer selected for a facilitation role should have the basic temperament necessary to serve in a facilitation role Some people are simply not suited to such roles Volun-teer facilitators should be generally patient they should be able to listen actively and politely to participants and able to avoid interjecting their own ideas or opinions into the discus-sion Some people tend to be so energetically opinionated that they have trouble restraining themselves when trying to serve as facilitators While everyone can learn the necessary skills sometimes a willing volunteer may not be quite ready to fill the role without further training and practice

In larger meetings where the group has been split into more workable small groups of 12 or less the lead facilita-tor may handle one group but often roams among the oth-er groups to monitor the process keep time and generally nudge the process along as needed The leader also gener-ally is responsible for the design and organization of the meeting and serves as the primary client contact as well as the ldquocoachrdquo of the other facilitation team members The role of the lead facilitator on a team is described in more detail in Chapter 5

For large public planning projects the planning team will usually also include subject matter experts (engineers designers economists attorneys and others) Any of these may be consultants or in-house staff members The facilita-tors work closely with the subject matter experts in design-ing the overall process as well as specific meeting agendas because so much of the process depends on what how and when technical information is brought to the group

Sometimes particularly on smaller planning projects the facilitators are also subject matter experts who must do ldquodouble dutyrdquo as facilitators This can cause complications and professionals who undertake both roles simultaneously need to be very cognizant of potential conflicts between those two roles Although this situation is common in projects such as comprehensive plans the conflict between the two roles risks tainting the facilitatorrsquos credibility Unless carefully handled it can damage trust and derail the process The issue of neutrality is discussed in Chapter 3

Ideally the team that facilitates any given small group includes two people the facilitator and a recorder The facili-



tator manages the discussion while the recorder writes the results on flip charts or an equivalent visible medium such as a digital file projected onto a wall or screen It is essential to keep this recording visible to the group

Sometimes resource limitations require that the facili-tator also serve as recorder (Figure 21) This is challenging but not impossible Facilitators should learn to write fast but legibly to handle such situations The key to recording is to accurately capture the essence of what people are say-ing using their own key words and phrases not to create a verbatim transcript This makes it easy for people to assess the progress of the meeting and instantly creates a concise record Accuracy legibility and completeness are more im-portant than spelling or grammar

MEETING SCALES

Public meetings that are designed as interactive discussions for generating ideas creating or evaluating policy options or building consensus (as opposed to formal public hearings held to meet legal requirements) range in scale from small to large

The overall process also falls on a continuum of scale in the sense that some processes may consist of a single meeting while at the other end of the spectrum a process may consist of a series of regular meetings that take place over the course of many months or even years

The choice of the scale of meeting or series of meetings depends on several variables such as

bull the number of stakeholders who will be involved in or fol-lowing the process

bull the size scope and complexity of the project itself bull the type of project (eg comprehensive plan neighbor-

hood plan zoning amendment) bull the potential level of controversy that exists or is likely to

emerge as the process unfolds

In a very general sense the more people affected and the greater the size complexity or controversy of the project the larger the meetings will need to be and a greater num-ber of meetings will be needed This also depends on the structure of the process and the type of meetings used For example a very complex project such as a comprehensive planning process in a jurisdiction with a large population may use a series of small advisory committee meetings to do the bulk of the work and rely less on large conference forum meetings Greater reliance on broad public opinion surveys if properly conducted and integrated into the process can also reduce the number or size of meetings Further orga-nizations are increasingly using online involvement tools to further enhance the involvement of stakeholders while lim-iting the number of live meetings

Thus there are many variables and possible combina-tions of approaches and they all affect how meetings are de-signed and conducted Fewmdashif anymdashhard-and-fast rules or formulas apply to determine how to design a meeting or a meeting process To make the decisions the facilitators and client representatives who design the process use a combina-tion of technical research and knowledge experience in plan-ning and facilitation and knowledge of the community

Usually more than one meeting will be required to gen-erate potential solutions to complex public policy issues or to reach any meaningful level of consensus about policies or ac-tions In most major public policy projects like comprehensive plans facilitators will be dealing with a series of meetings that occur over the course of several weeks months or years re-gardless of what format or formats are used

For the purposes of this discussion the continuum of meeting scales from small to large is divided into two broad categories (1) the small meeting of a single group of not more than a dozen or so people with its own facilitator and (2) the large meeting of a plenary group or multiple small groups meeting separately but concurrently Each small group within this larger group process will normally have its own facilitator

Chapters 4 and 5 provide detailed step-by-step guid-ance in preparing for and managing both small and large

Figure 21 Facilitator-recorder keeping a visible record of a small breakout group

at a large conference forum while a roaming facilitator observes (Milton Herd)



meetings below is an overview of the basic structure and considerations for each

Small MeetingsSmall meetings have only a single group that works together as a whole with ideally only a dozen or so people This may be a stand-alone group or may be a part of a larger meeting

The small group represents the quintessential ldquomeetingrdquo for the purposes of describing the basic function and process of facilitation One can think of the small meeting as one of the building blocks that make up the typical larger meeting process In fact large meetings often benefit by breaking the process down into small meetings of only a handful of people Usually much more can be accomplished in the intimate set-tings of only a few people and the work done by each small group can then be merged so that ideas and agreements are ultimately forged by the entire large group

The basic outline for an agenda of a typical small meet-ing begins with introductions and affirmation or reminder of the agenda and ground rules followed by an explanation of meeting tasks and any presentations of information After that comes the general discussion among the group mem-bers and the agenda concludes with a wrap-up to review results and next steps Sample agendas are provided in the appendix to this report

The small meeting format can accommodate up to a few dozen people by using methods such as greater use of written materials work breaks to compile input longer meetings ad-ditional recorders and facilitators and offloading of certain tasks to ad hoc subgroups In such cases a single group of 30 or so will spend more time as a plenary group than would a much larger group of say 100 people but small breakout groups may still be needed to do more intensive work

The feasibility of facilitating more than about a dozen people in a single small group depends somewhat on the na-ture of the participants the objectives of the meeting and the levels of anticipated conflict if any For example if the group is simply brainstorming ideas a larger group of a few dozen people is not as difficult If the purpose is to reach consensus about highly contentious issues then breaking into smaller groups is very beneficial ldquoGrandstandingrdquo with comments from a plenary floor is a common practice for ldquocontrariansrdquo seeking to sabotage the public process Handling disruptive participants is discussed in more detail in Chapter 7

Large MeetingsLarge meetings are those with more than a dozen or so people (sometimes several hundred or more) that often use a combi-

nation of plenary sessions and small breakout group sessions during the meeting The traditional form of a large interac-tive public meeting is called a conference forum or public forum (Note that in recent years the term ldquotown hallrdquo has been often used to describe this kind of large public meeting although sometimes it is applied to a listening or ldquoQ and Ardquo session rather than an interactive meeting in the style of a traditional conference forum)

The major differences between the various sizes of larger meetings is the number of facilitators needed the size of the space required the duration of the meeting and the logistical require-ments for materials and other meeting resources The agenda for larger meetings is usually more complex than for small meetings due to the involvement of a greater number of participants The level of formality is higher simply due to the number of people and its required organization and management

The outline agenda for a large meeting in a conference forum style will usually mimic that for a small meeting It will begin with a plenary session for introductions presen-tations and general discussion continue with a period for small breakout groups to work separately on specific topics proposals or issues and conclude with a final plenary ses-sion to review results and next steps Depending on the de-sign of the overall process these small breakout groups may be working in parallel on the same exercise or topic or they may each be tackling a different issue The lead facilitator will normally facilitate the plenary sessions with other members of the facilitation team handling the small groups The work of the small breakout groups will vary depending on the type of meeting discussed further in the next section

One of the key challenges of running a large meeting is completing the designated tasks within the allotted time frame set in the agenda Deciding how much work to tackle in any single meeting is critical and that often depends on how complex the issues and tasks are how many meetings can be supported by the budget the capabilities of the par-ticipants and how long of a time period is allocated to each individual meeting Thus the lead facilitator in conjunction with the client must design a well-crafted agenda process with realistic tasks and time frames Indicating the allocated time frames on the agenda can help establish expectations for participants Some practitioners suggest a discussion-to-presentation ratio of 31 so a 15-minute presentation would be followed by a 45-minute discussion period

The skill of each small group facilitator to keep his or her group on track is also very important In addition the logistics of handling equipment and materials in an efficient manner is critical For example if flip charts are used for



breakout groups enough time to consolidate those notes for a concluding plenary session should be built into the agenda Assigning specific duties and responsibilities for the meeting to each member of the facilitation team is the responsibility of the team leader

Building some margin for error into the agenda is useful For example initial presentations particularly if technical information is involved often tend to go longer than planned (again see the 31 guideline above) With large meetings it is often best not to allow open questions from the floor but rather to limit those to the breakout group sessions or to ask participants to write down their questions on index cards The larger plenary group can engage in interactive tasks such as discussion or brainstorming but open questions can invite disruption or pressures on the time allotment If questions are allowed in an open plenary session the facilitator should remind the group of the ground rules prior to opening the floor to questions the time allotment for questions at that point in the meeting and the opportunities for asking ques-tions later in the agenda All of these details need to be ac-counted for in the meeting agenda design

A general consideration for facilitators in designing and conducting meetings particularly large ones is to ex-pect some surprises and be prepared to adapt and improvise as necessary For example if a task or an issue turns out to be more difficult or time-consuming than expected it may disrupt the agenda and the ability to achieve the objectives of the meeting

In such cases the facilitator should remain calm and try to make the best use of the time available A good facilitator must be able to improvise For example it may be necessary to modify the objectives of the meeting or eliminate or post-pone one or more tasks The key is to make the best use of the participantsrsquo time and effort respect their needs and show appreciation for their work Even if ldquosuccessrdquo needs to be re-defined a bit participants can still feel that the meeting was productive and moved them forward in their overall mission

MEETING TYPES AND FORMATS

The processes discussed above are what might be called the standard basic approach for conducting a brainstorming meeting or a consensus-building meeting These meetings consist of a single small group or a collection of small groups that together constitute a larger group

Other alternative meeting types are often used in public policy processes to help support or enhance consensus-build-ing efforts (although they donrsquot necessarily result directly in consensus decisions) These still require facilitation skills and techniques for designing the meeting agendas and conduct-ing the meetings and overall process but they differ in the kind of specific tasks that the facilitator uses

Below is a brief discussion of the basic facilitated discus-sion followed by a few examples of different types of large meetings (summarized in Table 21 p 22) The best choice

Figure 23 Small groups work on goalsetting in an US Environmental Protection

Agency technical assistance workshop held at a local restaurant in Crisfeld

Maryland (Kate Ange)

Figure 22 The basic facilitated discussion in a small breakout group during a

conference forum for a highway corridor plan (Milton Herd)



for meeting type and format depends on the goals of the meeting the purpose of the larger process that it falls within the customs of the stakeholders involved and the time and budget constraints of the client Chapters 4 and 5 provide further details on preparing for and managing these various types of meetings

Basic Facilitated Discussion A basic facilitated discussion is the building block of most group meetings and processes (Figures 22 and 23 p 21) It is essentially an interactive group discussion moderated by the facilitator It may or may not include technical presentations of information but always includes introductions affirmation of ground rules and agenda substantive discussion or exercise tasks by the group and a wrap-up summary The basic small meeting may be a single stand-alone meeting but is often part of a series of meetings that constitute a larger process

A small group is preferably at least three people and not more than about a dozen Seven or eight is often an ideal number As the size gets above 12 or so participants it be-

comes more difficult to ensure that each member gets a full opportunity to participate Larger groups begin to take on the characteristics of a conference forum meeting and the design of the agenda can address this

Meeting Type Description Facilitation Needs

Basic facilitated discussionIntimate sessions to gather feedback generate solutions andor come to consensus on planning issues

Organizing meeting shepherding meeting from beginning to conclusion leading and managing discussion recording input

Conference forum Larger group meetings to share information and ideas identify possible solutions and often to work toward agreement

Organizing meeting shepherding meeting from beginning to conclusion managing public discussion recording input facilitating small breakout groups if required

Open houseLarge open events in informal settings to share project information and gather feedback in a one-on-one format

Organizing event preparing visual displays of content holding one-on-one conversations with attendees recording input

Design charretteFocused attention to specific physical design problems and generation of agreed-upon solutions

Organizing event managing event logistics including materials and sequence of discussions and presentations

Advisory committeeSmall-group stakeholder meetings to guide the planning process and prepare recommendations for policy makers

Organizing meetings shepherding meeting from beginning to conclusion managing discussion recording input guiding engagement with process

Listening sessionOpen opportunities for public to share questions and concerns about a project

Organizing event shepherding meeting from beginning to conclusion recording input

Focus groupIntimate sessions to gather targeted feedback from a sample of specifically chosen participants

Organizing meeting shepherding meeting from beginning to conclusion leading discussion recording input

TABLE 21 FACILITATED MEETING TYPES

Figure 24 Conference forum with small breakout groups working in parallel on a

strategic plan for the future of Fauquier County Virginia (Milton Herd)



Conference ForumConference forums are large open interactive gatherings of numerous stakeholder representatives to share informa-tion and ideas identify possible solutions and often to work toward agreement (Figure 24 p 22) They are usually open to the public (typically a requirement for local government meetings) and used for large projects with broad interest such as comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances

Conference forums can be one-off meetings but nor-mally involve a series of multiple meetings held a few weeks or months apart including plenary sessions of the entire large group interspersed with breakout group meetings of just a dozen or so people Thus the process of decision mak-ing is iterative meaning the analysis and discussion are re-peated as ideas are refined

These meetings are good at producing broad under-standing and consensus among many stakeholders (remem-bering that stakeholders usually come with knowledgemdashand points of viewmdashabout the topic) This type of meeting is often used in conjunction with a series of smaller meetings such as an advisory committee of appointed stakeholder representa-tives that meets in between the conference forum meetings to refine proposals and produce detailed recommendations

For projects such as comprehensive plans conference forums are particularly suited to early identification of is-sues and ideas as well as evaluation of proposed draft plans One feature common to most conference forums conducted as a series of multiple events is that the attendance at each will usually vary Some people will attend only one or two meetings while others will attend all of them This means

that each meeting must involve some amount of recap and revisiting of information to ensure that all participants are up to speed for the agenda of the meeting they are attending

Open HouseIn an open house meeting various presentation materials are set up in a large room or series of rooms where stake-holders and the general public can review them at their own pace (Figures 25 and 26) Often there are a series of stations (tables or kiosks) staffed with experts to answer questions Stakeholders can visit them to review material (eg maps text slide presentations videos) ask questions and provide verbal and written comments

Generally open house-style meetings require minimal formal group facilitation but do require focused interaction with participants in one-on-one and very small group con-versations The sidebar on p 25 describes a Chicago plannerrsquos experience with the open house meeting format

Open houses are often casual enjoyable meetings be-cause the conversations are informal one-on-one interac-tions between citizens and facilitators or technical staff Thus participants have excellent opportunities to gather informa-tion and give feedback without open conflicts being given a chance to emerge The trade-off is that participants do not have much interaction with each other but instead mostly en-gage directly with technical experts

An open house meeting is a good way to simply pro-vide information to stakeholders and receive feedback from them individually It is often used in presenting draft com-prehensive plans transportation improvement plans zoning

Figure 25 Open house meeting with multiple displays explaining a detailed

proposal for a new downtown zoning district (Milton Herd)

Figure 26 Open house meeting for a large regional planning process in

Charleston South Carolina (Vlad Gavrilovic EPR)



ordinances and other planning projects Though not a con-sensus-building exercise by providing common information to all stakeholders it can build a foundation for subsequent consensus-building efforts It can also demonstrate openness and good will on the part of the sponsor

It helps to begin an open house meeting with a formal presentation at one or more set times followed by a period of informal open house activity Sometimes the formal pre-sentation materials are also projected on a screen and con-tinuously repeated in a presentation loop so that participants who arrive at various times during the open house can see the presentation The structure of the open house meeting lends itself to a much longer duration often beginning in the mid-dle of the day and continuing into the evening so people can drop by for as much time as they can spare As noted above while the facilitator is not working with a full group open house sessions do require the facilitator to engage in conver-sations with individual participants or small ad hoc groups of just a few people to explain proposals answer questions provide context and receive comment and feedback and the same general considerations of trust respect and civil dis-course still apply

Design CharretteThe word ldquocharretterdquo means ldquocartrdquo in French It originated during the 19th century at the Eacutecoles des Beaux-Arts in Paris where it was common for students to work right up to a deadline and a cart was wheeled around to collect their

projects The term has now come to mean a collaborative process where designers work together with stakeholders and public representatives in a short-term intensive session to create a solution to a design or planning problem (Figures 27 and 28)

Charrettes are usually focused on a relatively small ar-eamdasha neighborhood a site or a single building Thus they focus on physical design issues instead of or in addition to policy matters Charrettes may last from as little as a day or two up to a week (Some charrette specialists say that a week is really the proper length to do a full charrette process but as a practical matter many charrettes are truncated for a variety of reasons and can still be very productive)

A charrette involves a range of technical experts from the planning and design fields (eg architects engineers planners landscape architects) working hand-in-hand with stakehold-ers to create potential solutions to a physical design problem and refine them through an intense series of drafts and re-drafts (Madill Lennertz and Beyea 2018) They are efficient compact and invigorating meetings aimed at arriving at pre-liminary consensus agreements on a preferred conceptual de-sign Visual images and graphics play a central role

For charrettes the facilitatorrsquos role is focused mostly on designing the overall agenda and process organizing the par-ticipants materials and space providing introductions and reviews at each phase and generally providing oversight as the process unfolds to make sure all participants are fulfilling their roles and making progress

Figure 27 Design team members working with residents at a charrette

in Loudoun County Virginia (Loudoun County Department of Economic

Development

Figure 28 Pinning up designs for review by stakeholders at a design charrette

(Loudoun County Department of Economic Development)



CONNECTING CREATIVELY THROUGH AN OPEN HOUSEAbby Monroe Public Participation Officer City of Chicago Department of Planning and Development

Starting in 2016 Chicago undertook an ambitious initiative to modernize all 26 of its existing industrial corridors The North Branch an industrial area surrounded by high-value residential neighborhoods and located along the Chicago River was the first corridor to embark on this unprecedented plan-ning process Regardless of the specific recommendations included in the final North Branch Framework Plan it was understood by the city and the public early in the planning process that the area would be changing dramatically And with any major change comes many diverse interests to balance

Initially the city took a traditional approach to community engagement by hosting town hall-style meetings that included a facilitated question and answer period While nothing too con-tentious occurred it was clear that only certain voices were being heard and many participants left with unanswered technical questions

Rather than repeat this cycle over and over throughout the planning time-line the city decided to get creative and design an open house format for the next round of community engagement Critical details about the North Branch Framework Plan were divided up into poster exhibits and spread around a large meeting room City staff and con-sultants were positioned at each station to be available to answer participant questions in detail A map of the North Branch area placed on a large table in the center of the room allowed staff and participants to gather around it in-formally and discuss geography while utilizing the same visual frame of refer-ence Facilitated feedback activities al-lowed staff to collect public input in a

way that would be useful toward refin-ing the planrsquos goals and strategies

Each open house station was fo-cused around a specific topic related to the plan or a set of draft recommenda-tions proposed for the plan Some sta-tions were purely educational and oth-ers interactive At the interactive stations participants could provide comments in three ways answer the question di-rectly on the exhibit ldquoDoes this pro-posed strategy resonate with you If not how would you revise itrdquo write general thoughts on a sticky note or comment card or talk with the assigned staff per-son who would write the comment down for them With an open house it is critical that staff are trained to transcribe verbal comments quickly so that noth-ing gets lost

While some participants were wary of the new format at first once they real-ized that an open house respected those who gave their valuable time to partici-pate in the North Branch planning pro-cess by offering critical information and opportunities to provide input they en-thusiastically adapted The open house format prevented any grandstanding or topic derailing and participants left with questions answered and a direct relation-ship to the staff working on this effort

The open house format may not be appropriate for all types of planning meet-ings However when you have more than 500 people attending in a short two- to three-hour time period it can maximize your agencyrsquos capacity to engage in a meaningful and impactful way



Other Kinds of MeetingsPublic planning processes can be conducted in many other meeting forms and all benefit from having someone in the role of meeting facilitator to ensure successful substantive and procedural outcomes A very brief review of some of these simply to show the range of possibilities follows

Advisory CommitteeThe advisory committee (sometimes called a steering com-mittee) is a good way to obtain focused representation of key stakeholder groups without having to invite everyone from the community to participate (Figure 29) This format is of-ten used to supplement a planning process that also involves one or more conference forums involving the general pub-lic In comprehensive plan projects in particular an advisory committee serves as a kind of ldquoplanning commission to the planning commissionrdquo and does a lot of the initial work in setting goals and objectives creating and evaluating options and preparing draft recommendations for plan policy

It is critical when using the advisory committee approach to be very clear upfront about the role of the committee and its relationship to the general public and to the policy makers The committee is established to use its understanding of the community and its own analysis to offer recommendations on behalf of the community at large However it rarely if ever has any decision-making authority itself and almost always has a defined and limited duration The committee needs to understand its role and the limits on its authority

Committees are usually small groups of up to about two dozen people that can be facilitated as a single small group If they include a larger number of members they may then op-erate more like conference forum sessions even though they

have defined membership Like the planning commission itself a committee may form subcommittees to allow extra time to focus on specific issues or topic areas and provide rec-ommendations back to the full committee

A key feature and benefit of advisory committees is that they allow strong representation from all segments of the community Critically therefore committee membership must in fact represent major stakeholder groups in the com-munity and it must be broadly perceived by the public as do-ing so This requires very careful and wise judgment on the part of the body that appoints the committee when it recruits representatives to serve Participation in advisory commit-tees is discussed further in Chapter 4 When recruiting stake-holder participants it is helpful to receive a time commitment from each member to ensure their full participation

Listening SessionListening sessions can occur in many forms but they are often similar to public hearings in that they provide an opportuni-ty for stakeholders to voice comments and questions about a draft plan or about issues and goals prior to plan preparation

These meetings can include small breakout groups but sometimes are simply open forums where people can speak out about their key questions concerns and recommenda-tions In these cases the facilitator is often moderating a large single group and thus ground rules are especially important as are skilled recorders to capture all input As noted above meetings with this general type of format are sometimes re-ferred to as ldquotown hallsrdquo

Focus Group Focus groups can take a variety of forms They are particu-larly useful for early information gathering as well as getting feedback on a draft policy or plan A focus group usually con-sists of not more than a dozen people who share some impor-tant trait such as geographic location business or industry membership or interest group association Sometimes the meeting design can be aimed at drawing participants from a variety of affiliations to identify contrasting or shared view-points about a topic across demographic groups

Focus groups are typically one-time meetings but some-times include a follow-up meeting of the same group to iden-tify any changes in understanding or viewpoint

Walking TourFor comprehensive plans and especially neighborhood or small area plans walking tours are very useful both for in-formation gathering and issue identification as well as build-

Figure 29 A 30-member advisory committee meeting for a countywide

comprehensive plan (Vlad Gavrilovic EPR)



ing cooperation and solidarity among participants (Figure 210) These are often used as a tool for helping advisory com-mittees to work together

The key is that the size of the group be kept manageable so having a sign-up period with defined limits on capacity is important If necessary multiple tours can be scheduled Minimal active facilitation is required during the tour but design and organization are crucial as well as ensuring that all participants are actively engaged and the content of the tour is relevant to the overall planning project

MATCHING THE MEETING TO THE PROCESS

Different types and formats of meetings are suited to differ-ent types of processes and purposes In local urban planning most major public planning efforts fall into several broad categories policies programs projects or regulations Poli-cies include comprehensive plans area plans neighborhood plans and transportation plans Programs are ongoing ac-tivities such as a Main Street program for downtown revital-ization Projects are one-time events such as the acquisition of land for a park or other public facility Regulations include zoning ordinances infrastructure standards and site-specif-ic zoning map amendments

Site-specific projects and small area plans can both in-volve urban design which includes both policy and regula-tory components Projects can be public policy initiatives but can also include private development proposals that may be

subject to legislative approval by the local governing body Thus a lot of overlap can occur among categories within the scope of a single process and even within a single meeting Therefore matching the format of the meeting with the scope of work often requires judgment and customization

In general most meeting types can fit into every planning process at some point depending on the specific tasks needed for a particular stage of the process Broad policy-oriented ef-forts such as comprehensive plans often make great use of con-ference forum-style meetings especially at the beginning of the project where issues and goals are being identified As the planning process approaches conclusion open house meetings can be useful for presenting draft proposals of complex prod-ucts and getting thorough feedback from stakeholders

Regulatory efforts will tend to focus on smaller meet-ings as for most of the process participants are involved in analyzing detailed ordinance language which requires a great deal of focused time and energy Open house meetings are also valuable at key junctures of a zoning ordinance pro-cess to share complex documents at draft and final stages

Program- and project-based efforts of local governments often include elements of both policy and direct action in-cluding funding issues Public review of private development proposals focuses on public outreach evaluating compatibili-ty and sometimes generating alternatives or options for miti-gating impacts Again various meeting types are appropriate depending on the specific task at hand

Advisory committees of stakeholder representatives are very valuable for any type of complex planning process either policy or regulatory and often run throughout the course of the project supplemented by large public meetings such as conference forums and open houses

Charrettes are particularly useful for portions of a com-prehensive plan process a zoning regulation process a neigh-borhood plan or site-specific development plan (Note that when a development involves a zoning map amendment there are specific legal requirements for procedure Thus any design-oriented exercises involving the public are often con-ducted by the applicant prior to the official submission of the rezoning application)

CONCLUSION

Successful meeting facilitation starts with a well-designed process appropriate to the situation Different contexts plan-ning processes legal requirements and desired outcomes call for different meeting formats and structures Facilitators

Figure 210 Residents on a walking tour of the neighborhood to assess the quality

of the built environment for pedestrians and bicyclists in Charlottesville Virginia

(Mike Callahan EPR)



should be aware of the various meeting options they can use to design their process or if the meeting type is fixed for that particular context understand how to best tailor that meet-ing type to the situation at hand Chapters 4 and 5 provide step-by-step details on the logistics of organizing and con-ducting the meeting event itself

Beyond the elements of participants in the process meet-ing scale and meeting type however lie additional matters that facilitators must consider in designing and conducting their meetings These include legal and ethical issues includ-ing the importance of maintaining neutrality and garnering trust as well as ensuring that facilitation processes are wel-coming and inclusive of all regardless of racial ethnic cul-tural or socioeconomic differences These considerations are discussed in the following chapter



CHAPTER 3ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR FACILITATION


As discussed in Chapter 2 successful meeting facilitation begins with a well-designed and organized process well-suited to the project context However there are additional considerations for successful meeting facilitation that facilitators must be aware of and strive to meet

These considerations apply to all meetings and facilita-tion processes They include legal and procedural require-ments for meetings as well as ethical considerations for fa-cilitators The importance of neutralitymdashboth as practiced by the facilitator and perceived by participantsmdashis key and is vital to gaining and maintaining the grouprsquos trust through-out the process

Another important consideration is inclusion As the United States grows ever more diverse ensuring that planning processes engage all residents especially underrepresented or underserved groups becomes even more important Howev-er racial ethnic cultural and socioeconomic differences can create challenges for participation Facilitators must be aware of potential barriers and address them to make certain that all participants feel welcomed and included in meetings and larger planning processes This chapter addresses all these is-sues to ensure that facilitators are well prepared to establish conditions for successful meetings

LEGAL AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR FACILITATION

As in most local governmental processes legal and ethical considerations come into play with public meetings The most common legal issues associated with meeting facilita-tion for planners are not about facilitation per se but about the nature of the meeting itself

In many states local government meetings that involve multiple elected officials must be open to the public This is often not so much a legal challenge (it is easy to keep the meeting open to all) but rather a logistical issue if more peo-ple show up than expected Contingency plans should always

be made If the meeting is a conference forum methods for accommodating overflow should be prepared in advance such as identifying additional space in the building and hav-ing additional materials or methods for participation

If the meeting involves an appointed small group there is usually no obligation to accommodate all observers al-though an open-door transparent standard is encouraged and accommodations for observers should be provided to the greatest extent feasible It should always be made clear to all constituents that a record of the meeting will be kept and made available to the public

Other potential legal issues include making sure that the meeting complies with any advance public notice require-ments which often include specifics about timing frequency and publication of notices Further the legal process for the particular product being producedmdashfor example final ac-tion on an amendment to a zoning map or time limits for the planning commission to submit recommendations to the governing body on a plan amendmentmdashmust be met This should not be a problem if the meeting is truly a meeting for community members and not a formal meeting of the plan-ning commission or elected body since in most cases infor-mal public meetings are not a legislative requirement

Regardless of legal requirements it is good practice to make sure any meeting sponsored by local government that involves matters of public policy be open to the public at least for observation and if appropriate for participation Partici-pation may be controlled or limited depending on the struc-ture of the meeting but the public should be accommodated to the greatest extent feasible and a record of the meeting re-sults should be made readily available

A common related problem occurs when the client is worried that some unwanted or disruptive people may at-



tend the meeting Sometimes the client may wish to limit at-tendance or exclude certain people or groups from an open public meeting However this is unwise In a public meeting it is best to welcome everyone who wishes to attend but en-sure that they accept and follow the affirmed meeting ground rules In the long run it is usually better to have potential disrupters and naysayers on the inside of the meeting par-ticipating actively and sharing responsibility for the outcome than on the outside lobbing criticism and fomenting distrust

Situations like these present challenges that are not le-gal in nature but need to be properly handled Disgruntled people may wish to speak at the meeting at a time or to an extent that does not fit into the agenda design or is disrup-tive to other participants To address this the agenda should always be clearly presented at the beginning of the meeting by the facilitator and posted or projected on a wall and copies should be made available to all attendees The agenda should be affirmed by participants and refined if needed and feasible Ground rules for meeting behavior should always be pre-sented early in the meeting Methods should be provided for everyone to share their opinions ideas and concerns even if not verbally in front of the microphone Providing ques-tion sheets or index cards to fill out is helpful as is providing contact information for a team member or staff member to contact subsequent to the meeting In these cases the key is to be patient respect everyonersquos desire to be heard and pro-vide an opportunity for sharing comments and concerns as long as it is done in a way that does not disrupt or derail the meeting More guidance on dealing with disruptive meeting participants is shared in Chapter 7

Ethical issues can also emerge in facilitation processes The goal is always to avoid any ethical conflicts including the appearance of a conflict An example is when a facilitator has a personal professional or financial relationship of some kind with someone in the group he or she is facilitating This can raise a question of bias either positive or negative

In such cases the simplest way to solve the issue is to change assignments with another member of the facilitation team to clearly remove the conflict If that is not possible it may be feasible to move the participant to another group if multiple groups have been convened If the conflict is un-tenable the facilitator should insist on such reassignment If none of these options is possible then the facilitator should announce the existence and nature of the relationship ac-knowledge the potential appearance of a conflict or bias and assure participants that any bias will be avoided

Facilitators may also make a point of asking participants to note and call out any perception of bias as the meeting goes

forward During and at the end of the session it can be helpful if the facilitator checks in with participants to make sure they did not perceive any undue bias on the facilitatorrsquos part and to receive their affirmations that they are satisfied Sometimes such an extra commitment to transparency and objectivity can win over people who began with suspicion or mistrust

If any conflict is serious or is perceived as such the prob-lem may not end at the completion of the meeting but may carry over into the compilation of reports and work at future meetings The facilitator should check in with participants as the process moves forward to be certain that no perception of bias remains and if it does he or she should work with the group to try to correct or mitigate it It is important to establish and maintain mutual trust between the group and the facilitator

Another ethical issue can occur when a client pressures a facilitator to steer a meeting towards a particular preferred out-come This situation should be clearly resolved before any pub-lic engagement begins as discussed in the following section

THE IMPORTANCE OF NEUTRALITY

Along with respect and trust neutrality is the third pillar sup-porting effective facilitation (Figure 31) The importance of remaining neutral and objective at all times in both substance and process cannot be overemphasized The facilitatorrsquos neu-

Figure 31 The three pillars of facilitation (Milton Herd and Vlad Gavrilovic)



trality must be both real and recognized by the group This is critical because it helps maintain the grouprsquos trust and respect and these allow the facilitator to do his or her job

Two of the most common challenges to a facilitatorrsquos neutrality as mentioned previously are when the planner-facilitator must fulfill both a substantive and process role on a project and when the client pressures the facilitator to favor a particular substantive outcome from the process

Focusing on Process and Not ContentThe facilitator should focus on process not content He or she is an outside party whose job is to keep the discussion mov-ing fair and constructive Facilitators should not lecture the group or expound on personal judgments or opinions

Ideally the substantive and process roles on a project should be divided between different peoplemdashthe facilita-tor and the content expertmdashthus simplifying this objective Sometimes the facilitator is an independent consultant Oth-er times a consulting team might have some team members assigned only to facilitation roles while others provide expert technical advice on substantive matters Sometimes the fa-cilitator is an employee of the jurisdiction or agency sponsor-ing the planning effort This is common for urban planners working in local government

Regardless of the relationship the facilitator has to the cli-ent (employee prime contracting consultant subcontracting consultant) the facilitator should remain neutral in all discus-sions and never be drawn into offering judgments or opinions about substance This requires practice and discipline but at bottom it is simply a matter of carefully choosing words and constantly evaluating the perceptions of participants

The facilitator should always treat all participants equally and fairly not dismissing or undermining com-ments or actions of group members (as long as they conform to the ground rules) and ensuring that all participants have a fair opportunity to participate The facilitator should reserve judgment or opinions on substantive matters except in cir-cumstances where he or she must serve a dual role of expert and facilitator In such cases when the facilitators may have experience or information deemed useful to the group it can be appropriate for the facilitator to ask the grouprsquos permis-sion to step out of the facilitation role to provide them that information as discussed below

Balancing a Dual RoleWhen division of the substantive and meeting process roles is not possible such as when the facilitator must serve as a technical or policy advisor on substantive matters the facili-

tator must be very clear to step out of the facilitator role prior to offering any substantive comments or recommendations Avoiding performing a dual role in any given meeting can help minimize the impact Regardless the facilitator must be open about any dual role make sure the participants are comfortable with it and invite participants to challenge his or her opinions at any time

When balancing the two roles the planner-facilitator must rely on objective data to the greatest degree possible and provide sound reasoning for any judgments A dose of humil-ity about technical expertise can help mitigate any perception by the group that the facilitator is bullying it into accepting his or her substantive or subjective judgment This is a deli-cate balance however because the planner-facilitator also wants to maintain authority as an expert for the purposes of the larger project

To the greatest extent possible substantive comments should be limited to objective facts such as whether a pro-posed action conforms to local or state laws Factual obser-vations should be clearly distinguished from opinions Any opinions or judgments should be avoided but if they cannot be facilitators should make this clear to the group and give group members clear latitude to challenge or disagree with such opinions The planner-facilitator should avoid being drawn into any argument or debate about substantive matters

The planner-facilitator can also couch any substantive opinions as caveats and insights (which tend to be helpful in any case) not judgmental conclusions or recommendations For example if a participant proposes that the group recom-mend to the local governing body that it enact a building moratorium on new development but such moratoria may not be legal in that state a facilitator might respectfullymdashand not judgmentallymdashnote that concern and then ask the participant for some other alternatives that might address concerns about growth The original point should still be recorded as part of the record while noting any concerns or doubts about legality and the intent to do follow-up legal re-search to confirm

When a substantive issue arises and the facilitator wants to completely avoid comment he or she can ask the group to put the issue in a ldquoparking lotrdquo and revisit it after having a chance to obtain input from another source with knowledge or expertise on the matter The parking lot tool is described in Chapter 5

The key to handling the dual role of planner-facilitator is to clearly separate the substantive and process tasks at every step When a substantive opinion must be offered the facilitator should make it very clear that it is a distinct item that stands on its own and does not affect his other duties as facilitator



in a public planning process As previously noted in most such projects the elected body has full authority at the end of the process to accept modify or reject any recommendations that come out of a public engagement process However such processes have value in producing common understanding of various policy options and often result in broad consensus among stakeholders about policy preferences This can ben-efit politicians who want sustainable solutions Yet the elected body still has the authority to reject such outcomes

WORKING WITH DIVERSE GROUPS

Public planning processes often involve populations that vary by race ethnicity cultural background native language eco-nomic class age disability and other elements A widely in-clusive process is a key goal to strive for but facilitators should be aware that this has the potential to create logistical difficul-ties as well as communication barriers between the facilitator and the group or among individuals within the group

The fundamental principle that applies in these cases is the same one that applies to every facilitation situation to show respect to the participants The facilitator should re-spect each participantrsquos role as a stakeholder work to mitigate any language or cultural barriers make concerted efforts to ensure the ability of all participants to engage fully in the pro-cess and show appreciation of all participantsrsquo involvement

In addition to engaging in these fundamental behaviors during a meeting it is important to prepare properly for the meeting as discussed in the sidebar on p 35 If it is known that any such challenges or barriers may be factors in the planning process the facilitator should be prepared with a basic understanding of any potential roadblocks ldquohot but-tonsrdquo or other points of contention that could emerge at the meeting Further if the meeting or the overall process will involve participants who are culturally different from the fa-cilitator or speak a different language it is prudent to include one or more people on the facilitation team that speak the language or are members of the other cultural group In some cases it may be necessary to retain a team of translators to as-sist with the meeting To be most effective translators should be familiar with the project at hand and prepare in advance with a list of project-specific terms

It can also be useful to meet in advance with a few lead-ing members of the major cultural groups involved to gain an understanding of their general expectations and desires for how the facilitators will handle the meeting The agen-da design as well as the location and forum for the meeting

Sometimes in heated public policy discussions the plan-ner-facilitator can be perceived as being ldquoon the same teamrdquo as the group so that when an opinion is offered it is not seen as intrusive or judgmental but rather as helpful to the group in moving the discussion forward Regardless the facilitator must be constantly vigilant to protect his or her credibility with the group Planner-facilitators who must take on a dual role should always be clear that they are working with the group to help it formulate its own ideas and recommenda-tions and to arrive at what it feels is the best final outcome

The above discussion reinforces the optimum to include both a neutral facilitator and project manager or planner at group meetings Most communities larger institutions and even some businesses will have professional facilitator staff who may be recruited as volunteer facilitators

Pressure from the Client for a Particular OutcomeSometimes a client may have a desired outcome that it wishes or expects the facilitator to nudge the participants toward This is probably most common when the facilitator is an em-ployee of the client and not a consultant consultant-facili-tators tend to have more authority with and independence from the client

A facilitator should resist this pressure not least because if the group detects such bias the facilitator will lose credibility and the group process may dissolve into conflict or rebellion

If a client pressures the facilitator in this way the facilita-tor should counsel the client on the risk that such efforts could derail the entire project He or she should urge the client to have patience and trust that the process will produce a credible and worthwhile resultmdashwhich is usually the primary purpose of the process in the first place If the pressure is serious and unrelenting and the employee-facilitator lacks the authority to fully resist superiors he or she should appeal to another senior official or employee in the chain of command for support

Facilitators facing this conflict can also offer subtle ways to assuage the client without undermining their roles as neu-tral facilitators For example they can offer to provide addi-tional or broader information about a certain issue or option under review or they can adjust the agenda to allow more time or methods for input from participants Subtle changes like these preserve a neutral process but may give the client greater confidence that a valid outcome will be achieved

If the client resists all legitimate alternatives and insists on manipulating the process to distort the outcome the facilitator should ask to be reassigned to another role within the project

This issue relates to the earlier discussion of Arnsteinrsquos ladder and the level of control that the public has (or lacks)



FACILITATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE SETTINGSSteven A Preston faicp

Outstanding facilitation requires that a facilitator act not for or on behalf of a community but rather work with that community to maximize the potential for a successful outcome Even the best facilitators can succumb to the tried true and comfortable carrying with those habits implicit biases or beliefs that reflect the dominant culturersquos val-ues and bypassing other voices that should be heard

In many places across America communities are being transformed as multiple cultures converge Facilita-tion practices must adapt to reflect the changing demographics of communi-ties In California where a majority of the population is now nonwhite and many communities have evolved into ethno-burbsmdashcommunities with majority-minority populations often comprising several different ethnicities or culturesmdashproperly facilitating a meeting requires several important considerations

bull Cultural Understanding Different cultural groups have differing ap-proaches to the use and apprecia-tion of space and space may have different symbolic meanings to them The widespread significance of feng shui in the Chinese commu-nity for instance in which space is designed to maximize good energy flowsmdashor the importance of nu-merology in some communities in which the simple choice of date or building address number may affect peoplersquos perceptionsmdashare issues that a wise facilitator should take into careful consideration

bull Language In one large suburban Southern California school district more than 70 languages are spoken

in another smaller community the number of languages has been es-timated at 50 Having the ability to facilitate in at least two or three lan-guages (or in the case of hearing-im-paired audiences in sign language) is an important means to establish credibility and transparency in in-creasingly diverse environments That ability to discuss ideas in multiple lan-guages applies not only to facilitation itself but to the noticing recording and reporting of results as well

bull Connotation and Denotation One challenge of facilitating in an envi-ronment of diversity is the power of word choices For example the deno-tative (dictionary) meaning of a word like ldquopolicerdquo carries one set of values and beliefs for the dominant com-munity but may impart very different connotative (culturally derived) mean-ings to minority communities that have experienced police harassment or profiling Many words phrases and colloquialisms that have a simple and straightforward meaning in one cul-ture may have underlying meanings in other communities that make them unwise to use And some language choices subtly demean the audience Inexperienced facilitators make this mistake when they tell people they are there to ldquoeducaterdquo them which is often seen by the public as a coded word that implies both false superior-ity and a belief they will be railroaded The result may be that the facilitators get an education of their own at the hands of an angry audience

Skillful facilitators learn quickly that true facilitation is a partnership activ-ity that requires the discussion leader to learn understand and appreciate the

cultural interests and norms at playmdashand then to invest those norms into planning in way that creates a safe and neutral space for discussion of complex topics and maximizes the opportunity for success That process begins with open and thoughtful dialogue sup-ported by research beforehand to better understand relevant cultural forces stud-ied diplomacy and neutrality in personal presence and the willingness and ability to be flexible



should take into account these needs and expectations It is often helpful to include a host from the local community to set the stage and tone for the event or to team up with a local group (such as a community-based organization) that is cul-turally connected with the community attending the meet-ing The facilitator can then benefit from the existing trust already built and in the process the facilitator may empower a local planning champion Depending on the type and level of involvement the client may compensate such community partners for their time and involvement as they would other members of the project team This and other strategies fo-cusing on the importance of understanding local context are further explored in the sidebar on pp 37ndash39

CONCLUSION

A facilitator must resolve many difficult elements and con-siderations when designing and preparing for a process as well as in conducting the process itself These considerations will often require careful balancing of competing priorities and pressures Facilitators may need to address the inher-ent challenges of finite resources cultural diversity politi-cal conflicts and the uncertainty of what approach will best meet a specified objective for a particular population at a particular time

Fortunately the many available facilitation tools and techniques usually provide adequate capability and flexibility for the facilitator to match the methods with the project needs The next two chapters walk readers through preparations for and the process of facilitating a group discussion and offer a number of approaches and strategies to support successful meeting outcomes



CONTEXT MATTERS Katharine Ange aicp President Renaissance Planning

Facilitating conversations about growth affordable housing economic develop-ment or transportation is very place spe-cific Cultural values natural and man-made patterns of development and economic conditions are just some of the variables that facilitators need to factor into planning and policy-making discussions

Since 2011 my planning firm has worked with the US Environmental Pro-tection Agencyrsquos Office of Community Revitalization in providing facilitation on these very topics in localities large and small with people from diverse so-cioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds Being an outsider to these communities presents both opportunities and chal-lenges to successful facilitation The fol-lowing highlights some lessons learned from these experiences

Frame Issues Around the Place-Based Context Every community has a story that in-cludes its history its present-day condi-tions and its aspirations for the future That story is inextricably linked to the unique geography and culture of a given place The way in which people experience placemdashhow they travel how they interact with nature and with other people who they interact with what they see smell hear and touch on a daily basis what amenities or opportu-nities they have access tomdashall of these experiences are dictated by natural fea-tures and community design elements influenced by market forces and govern-ment policies over time Therefore any conversation you are trying to facilitate about planning must be grounded in place-based context

One key technique for addressing local context is to incorporate map-

based activities into the identification of key issue and opportunity discussions In our work helping communities to plan for local food systems for example we always start by laying out a regional aer-ial map on the table and having meet-ing participants use sticky dots to label and identify the location of where food is locally grown and produced This im-mediately brings the issue of place to the forefront and helps develop a basic understanding of local assets and gaps that may exist in the local food system

In exploring issues related to down-town revitalization and walkability we al-ways roll out an aerial base map to show the walksheds related to the center of town (using quarter-mile radii) and then ask meeting participants to identify the key destinations or amenities that peo-ple want to get to This gets participants interacting with one another to identify opportunities for infill development or

improved bicycle and pedestrian infra-structure and it helps illustrate the key concepts of walkability relevant to the local context

One of the other factors to consider when tailoring facilitation approaches to the place-based context is to under-stand how the development patterns of that place emerged over time and the regulatory framework (or lack there-of) that contributed to it For example in many dense urban settings in the East where land is scarce but growth is still desired discussions often focus on how to accommodate more devel-opment without exacerbating conges-tion or housing affordability This easily transitions to policy discussions about how to encourage infill and mixed use patterns reduce vehicle miles traveled and support a shift to non-automobile modes of transportation It might also lead to discussions about the need for

Figure 32 Pre-workshop discussions over dinner with elected officials in the town of Apache Junction Arizona

to assess the interest in local government taking a more active role in regulating development (Kate Ange)



the public to subsidize housing Yet in a western community where land is more plentiful and land-use regulations are lacking the conversation about plan-ning for growth might focus on issues such adequacy of water supply or how best to encourage quality growth with-out any additional regulation

As an outside facilitator it is impor-tant to research these background issues and understand the role of the natural environment in shaping the location and intensity of development as well as the prevailing mindset concerning the role of government in regulating growth (Figure 32 p 37) This understanding empowers the facilitator to effectively guide discus-sions in a manner that helps to identify relevant place-based solutions and avoid overly explorative discussions of ap-proaches that simply arenrsquot applicable to the local context

Become More Culturally Competent The concept of cultural competence emerged from the public health field The basic premise is that better health outcomes can be achieved when health care providers and organizations adapt their practices to be more relevant and responsive to different cultures In plan-ning cultural competency is now rising to a key aspiration and skill set within the profession (see PAS Report 593 Plan-ning With Diverse Communities (Garciacutea Garfinkel-Castro and Pfeiffer 2019)) Bet-ter plans and policies result when all members of the community participate and effective participation comes from culturally sensitive design

Becoming a more culturally com-petent facilitator starts with first check-ing your own worldview biases and cultural norms at the door and opening yourself up to listen and learn about a culture different than your own The fast-est way to do so is often to partner with

members of the community to gain key insights about creating the right envi-ronment and agenda to ensure commu-nity members feel empowered to par-ticipate and engage in discussion This could include (1) identifying key loca-tions to hold events that are convenient and perceived as comfortable neutral spaces for convening (2) outreach and communication strategies to ensure people hear about and feel compelled to participate in the event and (3) en-gagement techniques that give agency to everyone in the room

Becoming culturally competent also means understanding the histori-cal experiences of different members of the community and how those stories might influence openness to govern-ment intervention or reliance on other existing power structures to address key community issues The more you as a facilitator are open to learning and lis-tening to better understand the culture of a place the better the likelihood of participants developing a greater sense of trust and comfort with your role in the process Cultural competency also empowers facilitators to call out other biases that may emerge during discus-sion and help reframe perspectives to keep the conversations flowing toward the desired end

While recently working with an in-digenous tribe in Louisiana our team partnered with a tribal council mem-ber as the key point of contact to plan the engagement events She quickly revealed that their community was not typically forthcoming about con-cerns or conflicts in traditional work-shop settings where ldquooutsidersrdquo would be present This early insight allowed us to adapt our facilitation approach to incorporate more one-on-one time with community members during walk-ing and driving tours We also replaced plenary-style facilitated dialogue with

smaller table-sized facilitated discus-sions in which facilitators could directly bring up issues known to be hidden just below the surface

Similarly in a low-income Latino community in downtown Los Angeles we partnered with the director of a local nonprofit embedded in the community to plan a series of outreach activities In early discussions with the local contact two key issues emerged (1) given the heightened anti-immigrant rhetoric in the local newspapers at the time many community members were not comfort-able participating in government-spon-sored activities or convening in govern-ment facilities and (2) the predominant demographic in the community was Spanish-speaking single female heads of households with significant caretak-ing responsibilities

As a result we designed a com-munity festival event with childrenrsquos activities health and wellness educa-tion healthy food vendors and various booths where attendees could interact with a facilitator and provide responses to a set of key questions about health access and neighborhood safety (Figure 33 p 39) The local nonprofit became the sponsor of the event and pulled in its own staff to work the event

This experience resulted in sig-nificant new insights into community needs concerning the safety of women and girls in the neighborhood At the next dayrsquos action planning workshop we were able to hand off the mic to non-profit staff to share the new insights they gained from the event which in turn cre-ated a greater sense of understanding and ownership of neighborhood issues As facilitators we stepped back as much as possible to let the energized group identify potential next steps

Both of these examples illustrate the importance of understanding the unique culture of a given community and work-



ing to adapt how engagement and facili-tation are approached accordingly

Create New Social Capital and Build Trust Effective facilitation requires establishing neutrality and gaining a sense of trust with community members However trust does not happen overnight Given limited time and resources we have found it very effective to incorporate preworkshop events aimed at getting people comfortable with each other This is important for both the facilita-tor and the workshop participants but often community members benefit the most from having more informal oppor-tunities to engage with each other This

can build a shared sense of purpose and respect for differing views which in turn can create a positive dynamic for foster-ing constructive dialogue through work-shop settings

Two effective and low-resource techniques include (1) breaking bread together (ie sharing a meal) and (2) community walking tours We have of-ten worked with community members to encourage a potluck dinner or spon-sorship from a local agency or business to provide food for a preworkshop gath-ering Potlucks are extremely powerful in building community and creating a sense of ownership over success of the planning process Potlucks also provide informal cultural exchanges as different

members of the community bring differ-ent types of food to the event To facili-tate conversation at preworkshop meal events the facilitator can set up cards at each table with prompting questions that encourage people to get to know one another and start talking about the issues at hand

Another effective technique in helping people get to know one anoth-er is to conduct facilitated walking tours This typically involves the identification of a walking route through town that might last one or two hours and empha-size some of the key place-based assets As the group walks and talks together facilitators can float between groups to help foster discussions that directly connect community issues with the physical place and elicit storytelling and anecdotes about the community This in turn creates a shared sense of under-standing about the community and can encourage new relationships between community members This can also pro-vide facilitators with insights about the different perspectives and personalities within the group which better prepares them for leading the group through sub-sequent discussions

Effective facilitation requires strong facilitators Facilitators need to un-derstand the place-based context strengthen their cultural competency skills and build relationships and rapport in advance of group discussions This background preparation will ultimately create a good foundation for tailoring facilitation techniques to the commu-nity and bringing group conversations to successful conclusions

Figure 33 In the Pico-UnionWestlake neighborhood of Los Angeles a festival-like event engaged community

members including children in sharing their experiences to inform subsequent discussions about health and

the built environment (Kate Ange)

CHAPTER 4MEETING ORGANIZATION AND PREPARATION


Successful meeting facilitation requires a foundation of proper planning and careful preparation Organizing and getting ready for a facilitated group meeting can be a considerable undertaking and there are a number of key elements facilitators must consider as part of the process This chapter outlines the basic steps of organizing and preparing for meetings

Meeting preparation includes tasks that may be per-formed by any or all members of the team Particular tasks that should be performed by the lead facilitator are noted These steps generally pertain to the full spectrum of meet-ings from small to large though the default context is that of a small meeting Where items differ when the context is a large meeting it is noted

Regardless of the size or type of meeting facilitators should be prepared to undertake several major advance tasks in preparing to facilitate a meeting

The basic steps of meeting preparation are as follows

1 Determine the purpose and objectives of the meeting2 Determine participation needs and methods of input3 Determine meeting location date and time4 Provide advance outreach and notifications 5 Design the meeting agenda and process6 Prepare meeting materials7 Prepare the meeting space

The following sections provide guidance on each of these tasks

DETERMINE THE PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE MEETING

A meeting that deals with public policy issues and involves work on plans ordinances and similar products may have one or more of the following typical purposes

bull Obtaining input or generating ideas or proposals for poli-cies plans or actions

bull Preparing or reviewing graphics or maps to describe ideas or proposals

bull Evaluating critiquing or reviewing ideas proposals or draft products

bull Building consensus on proposed goals policies or actionsbull Resolving specific conflicts (such as land-use conflicts)

Often in a series of meetings all of the above purposes will emerge at different points along the way building mo-mentum from issue identification and goal setting early on to resolving conflict and building consensus near the end The design of each meeting in the process will then be aimed at achieving the purpose of that particular step

A meetingrsquos purpose greatly influences the agenda tasks and how much time is allocated to each Time allocation is always a judgment call and experience with various types of meetings helps in making these judgments It also helps to have an idea of what some of the likely potential points of conflict within the group are and to allow adequate time for discussion among participants The purpose and objectives of the meeting are also key in determining how the facilita-tor may wish to frame and lead the conversation The sidebar on pp 42ndash44 details a useful tool for planners in designing these discussions

In addition to defining the purpose the context of the meeting in terms of any larger ongoing process must be de-fined How the meeting fits into the larger process will vary depending on the nature and objectives of the project wheth-er it is a comprehensive plan process an effort to resolve a local land-use conflict a strategic planning process or some-thing else Depending on the nature of the project group members may know each other they may be strangers or the group may include both All of these factors affect the overall



THE TOP FOCUSED CONVERSATION A FACILITATION TOOL FOR THE PLANNING PROCESSSeva Gandhi Director of Programs and Partnerships Institute of Cultural Affairs

Public participation in the planning process is key to creating successful and implementable plans Unfortunately the term often conjures up images of angry residents stifling-hot rooms in old buildings with dim fluorescent lighting and a group of people that simply cannot agree

A planner may be coming into a community with fresh ideas for improve-ment but is met with residents and local organizations that seem to be in opposi-tion to change Residents and stakehold-ers may have a much different narrative that is part of a longer history comprised of failed promises and years of not hav-ing their voices heard in decisions that impact them This history is what often causes the fracturing and frustration that can appear at every turn during public engagement in the planning process

In order to elicit genuine participa-tion in plans policies projects or pro-posals content-expert planners must be able to pivot and become neutral facilitators When in the facilitator role planners must learn how to create a way for groups of diverse stakeholders with varying histories to have a meaningful dialogue around a topic and move to a productive end The Technology of Par-ticipation (ToP) Focused Conversation is a facilitation tool that can help planners do just that

The ToP Focused Conversation helps a facilitator maintain the grouprsquos focus on a topic while personally re-maining content neutral It is designed to maximize the participation of every-one in the group and to bring people to a new place of shared awareness at its conclusion This method is based on a model of human consciousness that identifies a four-stage progression

as the natural flow in peoplersquos think-ing process it closely aligns with David Kolbrsquos experiential learning cycle (Kolb and Kolb 2005)

For example imagine yourself ap-proaching a yellow light at a busy in-tersection The first thing that happens is that you observe the light itselfmdashan objective piece of information Next you may feel a surge of adrenaline shiver up your spine or a sinking feel-ing in your gut as your hands clench on the wheelmdashyou are having an automatic gut response reflecting on the situation Next you think about whether you are in the suburbs or in the city if there is a red-light camera nearby if you are running late or have plenty of timemdashyou weigh and inter-pret the different options available to you Finally you decide to either put your foot on the brake or the accelera-tormdashyou make a decision

In this scenario all of thismdashthe ob-serving reflecting interpreting and de-

cidingmdashhappens automatically within the blink of an eye The ToP Focused Conversation attempts to slow down this internal decision-making process to help groups process information to-gether collectively It is based on these four levels of consciousness collectively known as ORID (Figure 41)

When using the ToP Focused Con-versation method or ORID a facilitator begins by asking simple objective-level questions that elicit what is known about the topic being discussed to collectively ground the group in the range of under-standing around the topic In a neigh-borhood meeting about a proposed project for example objective-level questions a facilitator might ask include

1 Whatrsquos a word or phrase from the pre-sentation that stood out to you

2 What are the different parts of the proposal

3 What other projects have taken place on this street

Figure 41 The ToP Focused Conversation Model (copy Institute of Cultural Affairs 2019)



Reflective-level questions then in-vite people to share their initial gut reac-tions to the objective-level information both positive and negative as well as past experiences and associations that may influence their feelings towards the information Planners might be inclined to avoid delving into feelings about a topic especially if there is perceived contention around the issue However it is important to create space for people to share their reactions and emotions so they donrsquot dictate and color the rest of the meeting Once feelings are named and heard people are more able to fo-cus on other elements Examples of reflective-level questions the facilitator might ask include

1 What part of the proposal did you like

2 What parts of the proposal raised questions for you

3 Where did you find yourself feeling frustrated

Following this interpretive-level questions turn to a consideration of meaning significance options and ways to interpret or respond to the data Dur-ing this step people are choosing what meaning they will assign or how they will relate to the project Interpretive-level questions might include

1 What would it mean for this commu-nity if this plan were to move ahead

2 What would it mean to not complete this project

3 What components need to be modi-fied to make this proposal feasible

Finally decisional-level questions allow either individuals or a group to now make a decision about what is to come next The planner might wrap up the neighborhood meeting with these decisional-level questions

1 What are some next steps we need to take

2 What needs to get done for this proj-ect to move forward

3 What is something you might do differently as a result of our time to-gether

It is important that the planner be willing to follow up on the next steps named by the group

Before coming up with a series of questions however the first step to lead-ing a successful ToP Focused Conversa-tion is establishing a rational aim and an experiential aim for the meeting

The rational aim is the practical outcome of a conversation or planning session It answers the questions ldquoWhy are we hererdquo and ldquoWhat do we expect to have at the end of this sessionrdquo It re-flects what a group needs to know learn or decide A rational aim for the series of questions above might be ldquoto create the space for authentic community input in the upcoming park planrdquo

The experiential aim considers the existing mood or shared attitude of the group and the desired impact that the process might have upon it Formulat-ing this intent helps the facilitator set an appropriate context modify his or her personal style accordingly choose rel-evant stories and exercises and gener-ally fine-tune the process An illustration of an experiential aim for the example above might be ldquothat attendees feel that their voices were heard their time was well spent and that their thoughts will impact the final planrdquo

Depending on the nature of the meeting the facilitator might determine that the rational aim might be more im-portant in design ormdashfor example if the group is charged around a contentious topicmdashthat the experiential aim is The questions the facilitator asks the group should be crafted to help achieve these

predetermined aims of the meeting These aims are not written to be shared with the group but rather to help fa-cilitators be intentional about how they will lead meetings and value attendeesrsquo time and energy The facilitator should take adequate time to prepare carefully considered questions for each level of conversation aligned to both the ratio-nal and experiential aims to achieve the desired meeting outcome

The following are some tips for planners in using this valuable tool

bull For a ToP Focused Conversation to be successful the facilitator must ask open-ended neutral questions that promote group discovery Do not ask ldquoDid you like the proposalrdquo (which elicits a simple yes or no response) but rather ldquoWhere did you find your-self nodding in agreementrdquo

bull At the beginning of the meeting when possible the facilitator should solicit a few words from everyone in the room Have you ever been to a meeting and never spoken The longer you go without putting your voice in the room often the harder it becomes to speak up even if you want to Creating the space for ev-eryone to quickly say something at the beginning of meeting breaks that invisible ice thereby creating the space for more voices to be in-cluded as the conversation devel-ops Generally facilitators design the first objective-level question to be simple enough to do a round robin with the entire room

bull The reflective level can be uncom-fortable for both facilitators and the attendees who are not used to prac-ticing vulnerability A trick to ease this potential discomfort is to ask ques-tions like ldquoWhat concerned yourdquo in-stead of ldquoHow do you feelrdquo Facilita-tors may find themselves met with



process design and agenda for each particular meeting Ide-ally no meeting should be designed or conducted without knowing the larger context and how the meeting fits into it

Decisions on these matters are rarely made by just the facilitator or facilitation team but rather include consul-tation and collaboration with the technical team manage-ment client representative and sometimes the primary cli-ent as well All parties should reach general agreement as to the meeting purposes the meeting type or format and the agenda approach

Typically the client looks to the facilitator to propose an approach and will then provide input and ultimate approval If the facilitation team is an outside consultant the general approach may have already been defined in the project con-tract and scope of work thus input from the client at any particular stage consists mostly of refinements rather than fresh invention An experienced facilitator can help orga-nize the information and meeting purpose into appropriate ldquochunksrdquo sequences and timing

DETERMINE PARTICIPATION NEEDS AND METHODS OF INPUT

Who is invited to attend Who is allowed to attend Who is recruited to attend The answers to these questions will de-pend entirely on the nature of the larger process especially whether it is a public process such as that for a comprehen-sive plan or a private process such as that for an organi-zational strategic plan Who the stakeholders are and who needs to be at the table for the outcome to have meaning and be effective must be determined Is the meeting for the pub-lic at large or is it a meeting for specific members of an ap-pointed committee

For some meetings the facilitator may be retained to conduct a meeting and will not be involved at all in the par-ticipant selection This is common for a small one-off meet-ing But for larger projects the facilitator often has an active role in assisting with participant selection or determination As the discussion in Chapter 3 on the importance of facilita-tor neutrality shows the public and stakeholders will quickly recognize ldquostacking the deckrdquo and manipulating participa-tionmdashensuring failure from the beginning

At times questions about participation may be difficult to answer with certainty but need to be thought through very carefully to ensure a successful outcome of any group pro-cess The answers to these questions are usually determined through a joint effort of the client leaders staff and facilita-

silence when asking directly about ldquofeelingsrdquo It is also important to ask questions that make room for both positive and negative feelings about the conversation topic

bull The facilitator should take the time to prepare multiple questions for all levels When crafting the questions the facilitator should try them out on themselves or a colleague to make sure they are answerable

The ToP Focused Conversation is an extremely versatile tool Though it can appear deceptively simple it is quite complex Practitioners of the ToP Focused Conversation continue to deepen their understanding of the toolmdasheven after decades of usemdashand see the usefulness of its applicability of it everywhere even as a meta-method for event design It can also be blended with other facilitation methodologies such as World Cafe or Open Space to create deeper levels of engagement and help ensure agreement on deci-sions or actions

To learn more about the ToP Fo-cused Conversation or to get trained in this tool or other participation-based facilitation methods visit www top-trainingnet Three ToP coursesmdash ToP Facilitation Methods ToP Strategic Planning and ToP Secrets of Implemen-tationmdashoffer 145 CM credits each for members of the American Institute of Certified Planners



ciacutea Garfinkel-Castro and Pfeiffer 2019) The sidebar on pp 46ndash47 describes how planners in El Paso have engaged the citys Spanish-speaking residents

The most difficult decisions regarding participation in public planning processes come when the process calls for a temporary ad hoc committee to be appointed to represent stakeholders at large Usually appointments are made by the board council or commission although in rare cases a staff member may be assigned to choose committee membership Often the facilitator will be asked to advise

Participation in such committees is formal and limited and thus the selection of participants requires delicate choic-es When making such appointments the board or council must consider objective issues of proper stakeholder repre-sentationmdashand often political issues as well The size of the group is another key consideration If it is too small it may lack sufficiently broad representation but if it is too large it may become cumbersome to facilitate

Ideally individual appointees to ad hoc planning com-mittees should have several key attributes They should

bull Be known and respected within the stakeholder com-munity

bull Have the time and commitment to serve (including pre-paring for and attending meetings)

bull Have the respect and trust of their constituent groupbull Have broad knowledge of their communitybull Have a suitable temperament for engaging in serious yet

civil discussions

Ideally they should also have as few potential conflicts of interest as possible and any of these should be disclosed in advance of any meetings One useful approach to recruit-ing effective members from constituent groups is to ask each group to offer a representative from its members Depending on the size of the committee and the number of constituent groups identified it may be desirable to ask for two nominees from each group

Collectively the membership of any such stakeholder committee should be broadly representative of stakeholders at large and of any key interest groups (consider factors such as race gender ethnicity economic sector geographic area and others) Once the committee members are identified the ap-pointing body should review the list of members and identify any missing slots that need to be filled to avoid the criticism that a key stakeholder group is not represented Sometimes a single member may be asked to represent two or more groups to avoid the need for an extremely large number of members

tion team (particularly the lead facilitator) and sometimes with additional informal input from outside stakeholder rep-resentatives The default should be toward inclusiveness

Having a list of potential participants and how to notify them is helpful If the meeting is of an appointed group the list is essential Developing robust contact listsmdashand keep-ing them up to datemdashrequires diligence Successful contact and follow-up with participants help establish goodwill and a failure to do so can often sour peoplersquos views of the project

For meetings of boards councils and commissions par-ticipation is clearly centered on the official members of that body The involvement if any of senior staff or subject mat-ter experts will depend on the needs for the discussion but ultimately depends on the style and wishes of the board or council Normally only members of the board or council will be at the table Staff may be in the room but only participating when called upon by members Sometimes the facilitator will be the only nonmember involved in the discussion

Participation in public policy meetings such as those for preparing comprehensive plans is more complex and vari-able Conference forums are usually open to the general pub-lic with key stakeholder groups specifically notified invited or recruited to attend rather than leaving their participation simply to chance The purpose of any such special recruit-ment efforts is to make the meeting as meaningful as possible by ensuring that key stakeholders are involved

Outreach to commonly underrepresented groups can be a particular challenge in the meeting design process For a fully inclusive process involvement of such populations is critical to a viable and credible outcome Yet they may be re-luctant or uninterested in participating for a variety of rea-sons including past planning or development actions that have harmed their community doubt about the amount of influence they will have on the final outcome and the bur-dens of taking time and effort away from work and family

Gaining adequate representation from such groups can be enhanced by reaching out to known community leaders and recruiting their help in promoting involvement Direct contact with local businesses clubs churches and other as-sociations and institutions that are respected and known to the population is also helpful To overcome any barriers to inclusiveness it may be necessary to go to those groups where they normally meet in settings they trust rather than expect-ing these underrepresented groups to come to unfamiliar places that may be more difficult for them to access Addi-tional guidance for reaching out to people of different eth-nic and racial groups including immigrants is provided in PAS Report 593 Planning With Diverse Communities (Gar-



EL PASOrsquoS APPROACH TO MEETING FACILITATION Alex Hoffman aicp Deputy Director of Planning amp Inspections and Jeffrey Howell aicp Lead Planner City of El Paso Texas

El Paso the 19th largest US city is situated along the US-Mexico border and has a demographic profile different from the rest of the United States According to the 2017 American Community Survey the country as a whole has a Hispanic or Latino population of about 18 percent while El Pasorsquos is approximately 81 percent Moreover about 69 percent of the cityrsquos 680000 residents speak Spanish at home These demographics underscore the importance of cultural competency regarding public meeting notification and facilitation

Providing a more inclusive participation approach has been an ever-increasing effort and learning experience for the city An important improvement in the planning process has been providing hearing notice provisions in Spanish as well as English Outreach efforts include bilingual notices sent via mail and email for meetings in local venues within the subject area at prominent civic spaces that residents are comfortable and familiar with such as schools libraries and museums These places typically have assembly areas with audiovisual equipment and room for seating allowing proper sizing of projections and acoustics

Within the meeting itself to make sure participants feel comfortable and engaged as valued members of the community staff greet attendees in their preferred language and assist them in getting meeting materials such as pens comment cards and agendas Reserving public comment and questions until the end of presentations helps improve meeting flow (but be sure to allow enough time for those comments and questions) Comment cards allow attendees to provide written

comments at their leisure if they do not feel comfortable voicing their concerns Presentation slides are provided in English as well as Spanish In some cases text-in real-time bilingual surveys using pictures from around the area allow staff to familiarize themselves with the neighborhood and demonstrate that staff value the area and took the time to visit the community For those without a cell phone bilingual paper copies of the survey are also provided

Hands-on approaches are good ways to bypass literacy barriers and encourage creativity among meeting participants For a streetscape project staff organized participants into small

groups that placed cutouts of design elements on street cross-section templates to create desired outcomes (Figure 42) Participants could represent their ideas visually and explain what elements were important to them giving them a sense of ownership and pride and leading to additional discussion and input from others

Staff have also used bus and walking tours to augment public engagement for a corridor study announcing the tours via bilingual flyers posted on social media Multiple staff members facilitated moving discussions while walking or driving through neighborhoods in the area of interest making stops at local

Figure 42 A public meeting using a hands-on approach to community design (City of El Paso)



landmarks to discuss assets desires and challenges Self-guided maps and bilingual surveys were also distributed The group then came back together to share those ideas offering community members the opportunity to talk passionately about what future they wanted to see

Facilitators working with diverse groups should be aware of planning terms and translate them properly to the local vernacular For example in Spanish there may be multiple words to describe the same English term Also providing meeting information on social media or dedicated project websites for those who are unable to attend as is posting pictures of events and survey results to show input is important

Moving forward El Paso is estab-lishing standard public engagement and outreach policies to ensure that meetings are conducted in an effective manner with cultural competency at its core Others can learn from a majority-minority city how they may more effec-tively engage diverse populations

DETERMINE MEETING LOCATION DATE AND TIME

Among the most important (and sometimes most difficult) issues to decide in preparing for any group meeting but par-ticularly for larger meetings is the location date and time of the meeting

In determining where within the community the meet-ing will be held and at what specific venue it is important that the needs of the expected participants are fully taken into account Accessibility and functionality of the location and the space are critical as is the symbolic nature of them For example public meetings are typically held in public buildings but in small communities a church or a private commercial space may be the most physically suitable In such cases care must be taken to know whether such a space might create distraction or resistance among some partici-pants due to cultural religious or political issues

The day of the week on which the meeting will be held is often a cultural consideration that depends on the habits and expectations of the local community or specific members on an ad hoc committee People may have standing conflicts with certain weekdays or evenings

Public entities such as city councils tend to hold public meetings on weekday evenings Sometimes though holding a meeting on a Saturday allows for a greater time commit-ment and more work to be accomplished by the participants People are often more refreshed on a Saturday morning and the agenda can include morning and afternoon sessions al-lowing more total contact time These settings can be very energetic relatively informal and exciting for participants However in some communities a Saturday meeting will at-tract fewer participants due to conflicts with other activities such as shopping sports or family time

Each choice of meeting time has trade-offs Ultimately the choice should primarily depend on the customary prac-tices expectations and preferences of the community or a targeted stakeholder group Sometimes disregarding those traditions and trying something new will be effective but that can present risks These are all decisions that the facili-tation team should make carefully and collectively in close conjunction with the client

When appropriate and within budget one approach is to conduct two meetings of the same purpose and structure but on different days or times to allow for greater attendance However it must be made very clear to the public that such meetings are redundant and not unique sessions with different purposes



PROVIDE ADVANCE OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATIONS

Advance outreach is required before any public event occurs to get to know the community before you meet in public This can include researching newspaper archives public meeting minutes and neighborhood blogs or community newsletters to identify any earlier issues or conflicts as well as positive activities and aspirations

Planners can contact other public and nonprofit orga-nizations about their knowledge of and experience with the community Conducting a carefully planned round of ldquokey person interviewsrdquo representing important sectors interests and stakeholders in the community can be essential to suc-cessful public meetings The experienced facilitator and his or her team should be sufficiently prepared so as to minimize the number and degree of surprises in a public meeting and to deftly respond to any that do arise

Sending advance notification of the meeting to partici-pants is essential The facilitation team should have some gen-

eral idea of who is likely to participate The expected partici-pants should be notified invited or recruited as appropriate If the meeting is a public meeting notify the public and the local news media via press releases (a strong reason to have a communication professional on the team) social media and web postings and other methods of public notice proven most effective for the affected community (Figure 43)

In many cases the client will handle all notifications However if the facilitator has any responsibility for the out-come of the larger project he or she should be involved in preparing or reviewing the notifications With any invitation or notification the time place and purpose of the meeting should be indicated in the notification as well as the expected roles of participants

DESIGN THE MEETING AGENDA AND PROCESS

One of the most important tasks for the lead facilitator or fa-cilitation team is to envision the specific process and types

SAVE THE DATE OCTOBER 22

HEALTHY PLACES FOR HEALTHY PEOPLEWORKSHOP IN WENATCHEE WA

You are invited to share your ideas for how improving access to healthcare and promoting healthier lifestyles can support a more vibrant and stronger Wenatchee This is a workshop to bring people together to create an action plan for Wenatchee through local health and community planning strategies We encourage anyone interested to come out to the opening evening session on October 22nd

to learn more and share ideas If you have continued interest please also plan to attend the full-day on October23rd for more presentations and discussion of specific strategies

Do any of these topics interest you

Access to healthcare promoting healthy

behaviors and lifestyles revitalizing downtown

supporting local entrepreneurs fostering

workforce collaborationsand morehellip

Contact to RSVPBrooklyn HoltonCity of Wenatchee

(509) 888-3258bholtonwenatcheewagov

Se habla Espantildeol

October 22nd 5-7 PMOpen Community Meeting

Wenatchee Community CenterSocial Hall

504 S Chelan AveWenatchee WA 98801

iexclRESEacuteRVESE LA FECHA 22 DE OCTUBRELUGARES SALUDABLES

PARA PERSONAS SALUDABLESTALLER EN WENATCHEE

Estaacute invitado a compartir sus ideas sobre coacutemo mejorar el acceso a la atencioacuten meacutedica y promover estilos de vida maacutes saludables puede ayudar a que Wenatchee sea maacutes vibrante y fuerte Este es un taller que reuniraacute personas para crear un plan de accioacuten para Wenatchee mediante estrategias de planificacioacuten de la comunidad y la salud local Alentamos a todos los interesados a asistir a la sesioacuten inaugural vespertina el 22 de octubre para obtener maacutes informacioacuten y compartir ideas En caso de intereacutes continuo tambieacuten tenga previsto asistir todo el 23 de octubre para seguir analizando las estrategias especiacuteficas y ver maacutes presentaciones

iquestLe interesan algunos de estos

temas

Acceso a la atencioacuten meacutedica promocioacuten

de conductas y estilos de vida saludables

revitalizacioacuten del centro respaldo a los

emprendedores locales fomento de la

colaboracioacuten entre el personal y maacutes

Comuniacutequese para confirmar su asistencia

Brooklyn HoltonCity of Wenatchee



22 de octubre De 5 a 7 PM

Reunioacuten comunitaria abierta



Figure 43 Bilingual flyers invite both English- and Spanish-speakers to a public meeting (Kate Ange)



of exercises and tasks that the group needs to do to achieve its objectives within the allotted time and budget The lead facilitator usually initiates the design but the final product is normally the result of close collaboration with the client and other team members

Preparing the agenda includes determining

bull Purpose of the meeting How does it fit into the larger pro-cess if the process includes more than a single meeting

bull Start time and duration of the meeting The time of day the meeting is held and how long the meeting should last depend on the customs of the community as well as the meeting objectives the expected attendance and the tasks to be conducted Overall time and calendar constraints are usually established by the client and provide context for the processes and tasks of each meeting agenda

bull Roles and responsibilities of all participants The proper assignment recruitment and notification of participants is critical including assigning specific responsibilities to members of the facilitation team

bull Authority and duration of the group What is the power of the group in relation to the client organization What is the lifespan of the project and the duration of the group How is membership in the group determined defined and modified if needed For example many public plan-ning processes have meetings that are open to the general public but also have a distinct role for an appointed ad hoc steering committee or advisory committee to provide ongoing guidance on behalf of the larger stakeholder com-munity The differing roles and responsibilities of these participants need to be clear so all understand the context expectations and authority of their involvement at each point in time

bull Information to be provided This can include presentations of technical data or proposed plans programs or actions For large meetings preparing information materials and presen-tations can be a very time-consuming task and this should be accounted for when scheduling a series of meetings

bull Timing and format How and when will information data or analysis be presented or distributed to the group

bull Process and group exercises or tasks during the meet-ing This should include whether and when to break into smaller groups if the agenda is for a larger meeting

bull Preparations for subgroups within a large meeting It is ideal if subgroups are formed at random to ensure a good mix of participant backgrounds One way of dividing into smaller breakout groups is to have people count off This neatly ensures random groupings because people who know

each other will usually be sitting together when they arrive and it allows the facilitators to base the maximum count-off number on the known size of the full group after it has formed An alternative is to number name tags when people sign in but that approach requires a fairly accurate estimate of the size of the crowd before it has formed or a procedure to regroup if the size estimate is wrong Another option that blends these two approaches is to prepare in advance num-bered slips of paper or cards and hand these out at random When forming breakout groups from a known larger group such as an appointed ad hoc advisory committee individu-als can count off or the facilitator can simply assign them to subgroups based upon expertise geography or other relevant factors In large meetings where breakout groups are tackling different substantive topics such as housing environment or land use participants can be permitted to choose their pre-ferred breakout group but may be asked to take their second-priority choice if the groups are overly imbalanced

bull Timing and duration of breaks In small meetings de-fined breaks should be scheduled in the agenda In larger meetings they can be scheduled or they can occur when the group switches tasks such as when breakout groups are formed or reconvened into a plenary session

bull Meeting logistics These details include room and furni-ture setup equipment materials lighting temperature and sound

The facilitator must also address other considerations for review by the group For these more involved issues the fa-cilitator should prepare advance drafts for group affirmation These include

bull How information will be brought into the process This issue can be complex given the pervasiveness of social me-dia and access to information via the web yet the question of bringing information into the group for formal consid-eration needs to be defined Who may submit information How is it vetted How is it disseminated Most important-ly how is unsolicited information handled or processed by the group The group needs to decide how it handles such information based in part on overall time constraints Time constraints will require the group to be very careful about what it spends time discussing Having a ground rule that sets a general standard that the information be di-rectly relevant to a specific topic or issue the group is deal-ing with is helpful as well as discussing only information brought to the group by a member Agendas may provide a time slot for members to request that certain informa-



PREPARING FOR PUBLIC MEETINGSDonna J Carney leed ap Director Citizens Planning Institute Philadelphia City Planning Commission

Preparing for a public meeting is about much more than developing the pre-sentation or the materials being shared Creating a welcoming and comfortable environment is essential for getting to the most positive outcomes

The first important element is find-ing the best venue for your meeting During the Philadelphia City Planning Commissionrsquos district planning process we used a venue scoping checklist to make sure we had our bases covered by visiting the space in advance Nonnego-tiable assets included ADA accessibility proximity to public transit and parking and a location that residents would rec-ognize as part of their community

Because the quality of spaces could vary greatly we included these on the checklist

bull Directional signage neededbull Climate control (heating and cool-

ing) bull Lightingmdashis it dimmable (avoid win-

dowless rooms)bull AV needsmdashis there a staff person at

the venue to assist (assume the mi-crophone will not work and bring

your own backup system)bull General space and furniture require-

mentsbull Break-out area for childrenbull Access to restrooms waterbull Electrical outlets (test them)

We usually made a floor plan sketch of the space to show staff and other vol-unteer facilitators how the room would be set up and to assign specific tasks by location including setup and takedown (As an architect I found this extremely helpful) When staff is prepared attend-ees will feel more comfortable Since our staff is limited we ask for volunteers (from the steering committee and Citi-zen Planners) to help facilitate meeting table work We also invite them to ad-vance facilitator training so they under-stand the exercises and potential hot-button issues

As attendees arrive you are much like the host of a party Make sure you have extroverted welcoming people near the entrance (Figure 44) We asked Citizen Plannersmdashgraduates of the cityrsquos Citizens Planning Institute coursemdashto use clipboards to take names and con-

tact information as attendees arrived and before they picked up materials at the welcome table

As people enter the meeting space create an environment that is welcom-ing by checking lighting levels placing refreshments near the entrance and playing music (Pharrell Williams radio station recommended) Notice the dif-ference when background music is played before a meeting versus silence As long as the music is appropriate peo-ple will feel more relaxed and be more open to discussion

We stationed easels with back-ground information about the district on the way into the meeting space and near the entrance so those arriving early could get more information before the meeting and talk to staff (Figure 45)

Our meetings usually included a short presentation but we tried very hard to avoid the perception of one-way communication We set up the room so it would be comfortable for people to participate We always had a contin-gency plan for overflow crowds For one of our unexpectedly large turnoutsmdashwe expected 200 but got 350mdashstaff led

Figure 44 Have friendly extroverted staff and volunteers welcome attendees

(Philadelphia City Planning Commission)

Figure 45 Provide multiple opportunities for attendees to get information (Phila-

delphia City Planning Commission)



overflow exercises on easels in the hall-way outside the meeting room and re-minded people they could also provide feedback through an online link to the same exercises

A helpful checklist for general meet-ing planning is the ldquo7 Psrdquo framework from Gamestorming A Playbook For Inno-vators Rulebreakers and Changemakers (Gray Brown and Macanufo 2010)

bull Purpose Be clear about why you are having the meeting

bull Product Plan what the desired out-comes will be and how they will be captured

bull People Who should be invited to get the best outcome

bull Process Codesign the agenda with attendees if possible (you MUST have an agenda)

bull Pitfalls Write down anything that could go wrong

bull Prep Any ldquohomeworkrdquo or advance work for attendees

bull Practical Concerns Address all logisti-cal issues and assign responsibilities

Checklists checked Responsibilities assigned Relax

tion be discussed and the group can decide by consensus whether and when to take it up based on the overall time budget and tasks it faces Notifying the group members of information that is available but that will not be formally discussed can be an effective way of avoiding distractions

bull How decisions will be made This is the most fundamen-tal question to answer Ideally the group will accept the concept of using consensus decision making Sometimes groups are reluctant but when a facilitator explains the benefits of it most groups will accept it with enthusi-asmmdashor at least willingness Using broad consensus for decisions especially regarding meeting procedures is a good approach for most group processes The consensus process is discussed in more detail in Chapter 6

bull Ground rules The secret of a successful group meet-ing is to establish a set of ground rules or protocols for the meeting Such rules usually have a magical effect on the behavior of the participants especially if they are af-firmed by voluntary consensus Usually the facilitator prepares a set of draft ground rules and presents and ex-plains them at the beginning of the meeting He or she then asks for the group to affirm by consent The group can modify them if it wishes but only by unanimous consent The facilitator must make the judgment whether it is necessary to propose ground rules If the participants are very friendly with one another very little tension may exist among them and proposing ground rules may come across as heavy-handed When in doubt though recom-mend them to the group In such cases the facilitator can make a lighthearted comment about the need for rules to downplay the seriousness while still having them af-firmed by the group just in case any surprises surface during the meeting Ground rules are discussed in more detail in Chapter 6

PREPARE MEETING MATERIALS

Meeting materials include the agenda handout materials (including worksheets background information for partici-pants etc) presentation materials (including slides or boards as appropriate) sign-in sheet and other materials Expert facilitation and communication professionals can be help-ful in framing ldquochunkingrdquo editing and packaging copious amount of planning data and research as clear focused and purposeful information keyed to the specific event

Facilitators should prepare two versions of the meeting agenda One is a standard outline version to be provided to



participants in advance if possible handed out in print form at the meeting and posted or projected on a wall at the meet-ing It shows the objectives of the meeting and the major tasks and exercises along with expected time allotments

The other version is an annotated agenda with detailed ldquochoreographyrdquo of all the tasks and procedures with de-scriptions or explanations of what each member of the facil-itation team will be doing This version should be provided only to the facilitation team (facilitators recorders and cli-ent representatives) Even for small meetings preparing an annotated agenda helps the facilitator fully think through the details and logistics of how the meeting will go This is especially important for large meetings that have com-plex tasks for the group to tackle or that will include smaller breakout groups

The facilitator should make a rough outline of the vari-ous tasks envisioned for the meeting and then mentally walk through it very carefully tracing out every step and nuance thinking about the time it will take and the mood it will cre-ate in the group Only by carefully envisioning every minute of the meeting in advance will the facilitator feel totally con-fident that the agenda will work properly and smoothly es-pecially for larger meetings This process is easier to do for a small group meeting but it should always be done to make sure that the agenda is solid Then when the inevitable sur-prise occurs it is much easier to make adjustments

Background information and other handout materials should be limited to those necessary for the meeting with-out overwhelming participants with stacks of paper If work-sheets are needed for any group exercises or surveys these should be prepared as well

For large group meetings a sign-in sheet is helpful to gener-ate an attendance list and get the contact data of participants Evaluation sheets for participants to provide feedback are also helpful A sample template is included in Appendix C

Handouts such as the agenda are usually placed at the sign-in table Worksheets and evaluation sheets are often handed out at the appropriate time during the meeting though this depends in part on how large the meeting is The more people involved the more efficient it is to hand out all materials at the sign-in table

PREPARE THE MEETING SPACE

Logistical items include equipment materials room size and configuration furniture and room setup lighting sound and acoustics refreshments climate control and other elements Refer to Appendix A for a comprehensive checklist of logisti-cal meeting items Not every meeting will require all of these items The specific tasks and objectives of the meeting as well as the facilitatorrsquos experience will determine what specific items are needed

The facilitator should make clear assignments of re-sponsibilities for logistical items Certain items should also have backups Nothing is worse than having a projector bulb burn out and not having a backup handy The facilita-tor can never have too much redundancy in preparing lo-gistical items

The success of a meeting will be guided by suitable space furniture and equipment Sometimes a facilitator does not have full control over these factors and must improvise and

Figure 46 Two common alternative arrangements for small groups (Milton Herd) Figure 47 Common arrangement for a large group (Milton Herd)



make the best of a less than ideal situation Desirable condi-tions include the following

bull Adequate floor space Have a large enough room to com-fortably accommodate the expected number of people for the tasks they are doing For a meeting of a small group most conference rooms will suffice but if multiple break-out groups are planned as part of a larger meeting separate rooms (such as classrooms in a school) are ideal If one large room is the only option try to use one that is large enough that tables can be far enough apart to provide a minimum amount of audio privacy and allow separate conversations

bull Adequate lighting acoustics and ventilation Lighting should be sufficient for participants to see materials such as flip charts maps and handout materials Having windows in the room to see the outdoors is ideal avoid basement spaces if possible If using projection screens have a way to dim the lights or close the blinds Sound amplification is often necessary for large groups in large meeting rooms This can be a complicating factor when multiple speakers are involved Ideally wireless lapel microphones will be available for all team members especially for the leaders Adequate amplification is essential The facilitation team should arrange for an audio technician to be available un-less someone on the team has that capability Make sure the space is well ventilated and appropriately cooled or heated

bull Refreshments Food can have a strong influence on an event usually the more the better Some public entities have rules against food ldquogiveawaysrdquo but a get-together without refreshments can feel somewhat inhospitable The amount and kind of refreshments will vary greatly de-pending on the size of the group the nature of the meet-ing and the budget Smaller ongoing committees might share a meal Larger one-off public meetings might sim-ply provide coffee and juice Some sort of nourishment is greatly appreciated by participants and goes a long way to creating a friendly and enthusiastic group event Refresh-ments should fit the culture of the participants Some places have had success working with local community groups and businessesmdasheven community college restau-rant programsmdashto provide food at or before meetings Refreshments are best located on a table at the back of the room in the hallway or even an adjacent room to prevent meeting disruption

bull Furniture Suitable tables and chairs make participants comfortable although usually the facilitator must work with whatever is available Again for a small meeting standard table and chair arrangements in conference

rooms are usually fine Be sure to allow enough time to set up the room well in advance or to adjust the setup if it is done by a third party (Rarely does a third party get it right on the first try) Usually round tables are ideal to allow all participants to face each other

bull Room setup Typical room setups are shown in Figures 46 and 47 (p 52) A common habit of many people in setting up for a large meeting is to have a podium at the front of the room However many speakers avoid using podiums even for large group meetings because they act as a barrier between the facilitator and the participants It is more natural and friendlier for the facilitator to move around at the front of the room and walk into and through the crowd while presenting information and directing the discussion If a projected presentation is used a wireless remote control is very important

bull Adequate access Safe and convenient parking bike racks and access to transit if possible all help to ensure full ac-cess and encourage attendance Elevators or ramps to meetings rooms ensure that disabled participants can at-tend meetings Public meetings should be held in places that conform with ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act) requirements

The sidebar on pp 50ndash51 shares some additional meeting preparation tips from the Philadelphia City Plan-ning Commission

CONCLUSION

Though planning and executing a meetingmdashlet alone an en-tire planning processmdashcan seem like a daunting proposition following the basic steps of meeting organization and prepa-ration presented in this chapter can help break this down into a series of manageable tasks

Once the meeting preparations are over and setup is complete itrsquos time for the meeting to begin The next chapter walks readers through a step-by-step process for conducting a meeting and facilitating group participation

CHAPTER 5FACILITATING A GROUP MEETING


The planning process has been designed the meeting itself has been organized preparations have been made and the day of the meeting is here It is time for the facilitator to practice the fine art of meeting facilitation

When conducting a facilitated group meeting a facili-tator should follow certain basic steps that are common to every type of meeting regardless of the scale of the group or the design of the overall process These basic steps include the following

1 Set up the space2 Begin and end the meeting on time 3 Open the meeting and welcome the group 4 Review the agenda and ground rules 5 Choose a recorder and a reporter 6 Explain the meeting objectives and present information7 Initiate and manage the discussion8 Wrap up and follow up

Within the framework of these basic steps specific tasks will vary depending on whether the group is a large plenary group (more than a dozen or so people meeting together at one time) or a small group (a stand-alone group or a breakout group formed from a few members of a larger group) The specific tasks may also differ depending on the process de-sign including the number of meetings the sequence of top-ics the attributes of the participants the need for consensus and the level of consensus desired

The actual tasks a facilitator performs may also depend on his or her specific role and responsibilities As noted in Chapter 2 large projects usually have a team of facilitators (as well as subject matter experts) The leader is responsible for designing the meeting agenda and supervising the team while the other members may only have to conduct the facilitation of a small group discussion As with any team the division of labor is based on expertise and designated authority

This chapter outlines the basic steps for facilitating meet-ings and provides additional detail to distinguish some of the

variations in specific tasks that occur with different types and scales of meetings The larger the meeting the more complex and involved are each of these tasks For each element dis-cussed the basic steps for a small meeting are described fol-lowed by any special considerations required for larger-scale meetings Sidebars throughout this chapter share additional tips from the trenches from both the public and private sectors beginning with suggestions for running a public meeting from the Philadelphia City Planning Commission on p 56

SET UP THE SPACE

If the facilitation team is responsible for room setup arrive early enough to ensure that the main room and any breakout rooms are completely and appropriately set up with furniture arrangements equipment and materials Allow plenty of time for surprises (eg the building may be locked exten-sion cords may be missing tables and chairs may not have not been arranged properly) The room setup requires its own checklist see Appendix A for an example

BEGIN AND END THE MEETING ON TIME

Being timely is a sign of respect for the participants The more rigorously the time allotments are enforced the bet-ter the participants will perform during the meeting and at subsequent meetings and the better they can plan their own schedules to accommodate the meeting

Depending on circumstances it may be necessary to de-lay the start of the formal agenda by a few minutes In this case the meeting should still begin on time with the leader opening the meeting and welcoming everyone but the initial



TIPS FOR RUNNING A PUBLIC MEETINGDonna J Carney leed ap Director Citizens Planning Institute Philadelphia City Planning Commission

How you run a meeting refers to the process you will use to execute the agenda and get the best outcome for your meeting For staff at the Philadelphia City Planning Commission the best outcome for public meetings means that attendees feel satisfied that their voices were heard their ideas were recorded and their questions were answered We do so much advance preparation and rehearsal for our meetings that running the meeting is essentially about good time management and sticking to the agenda The following practices are especially important

Start on Time End on Time Show people you value their time by sticking to advertised timelines If itrsquos an open house make clear whether there will or wonrsquot be a presentation

Presentations Rehearse rehearse rehearse Make sure people can hear the speaker and keep the information in plain language Keep it conversational and use images that help tell the story Never use (or read) text-heavy slides

Public Input Group table exercises were the focus of most of our district

plan meetings (Figure 51) The presenter introduced each exercise but the staff or volunteer facilitators directed the activities kept time and moderated the group Ideally a second staffer would be the ldquoscriberdquo or notetaker on map exercises while the main facilitator had the task of getting input from everyone at the table This can be challenging if people start talking over one another One technique wersquove used is the ldquoround robinrdquo in which the facilitator calls on each person going around the table while also allowing discussion When consensus is required objectorsrsquo comments can be recorded by the notetaker For open house meetings staffers were assigned easel-mounted topic boards to take comments on sticky notes to write on the board or to instruct attendees to use dot voting

Question Management One technique that works very well for our community zoning trainings is to take questions before the presentation We write each question on a flipchart board at the front of the room where everyone

can see them and we revisit these questions after the presentation We also ask everyone to hold their questions during the presentation but we make ourselves available afterwards to answer questions for those who still have them This respects everyonersquos time and those with case-specific questions get answers without annoying other people

We apply this technique to other types of public meetings by typing questions into a PowerPoint slide so that everyone can see them This prevents the same questions from being repeated and gets everyone focused on asking clear questions

For meetings where there may be many questions and people are seated at smaller tables you can ask each table to agree on one question Answer each tablersquos question and go around again if you have time Any unanswered questions can be written on the evaluation form everyone turns in Answers can then be sent to everyone who attended There is also the index card method ask attendees to write their questions on index cards collect them and answer the ones that are most relevant or timely

Evaluation Attendees should have the opportunity to provide feedback on the meeting process through an evaluation form (How do you know yoursquove done a good job if you donrsquot ask) You can bask in the glow of the positive feedback yoursquove gotten but you also need to ask staff what their experience was like Schedule a short meeting to regroup and ask what worked well and what could have been done better (constructive comments only) and write it all down Always remain on the path of continuous improvement Figure 51 Group table exercises for gathering public input (Philadelphia City Planning Commission)



REVIEW THE AGENDA AND GROUND RULES

The agenda includes the purpose of the meeting and the over-all project the objectives and the priorities It also includes a general description or naming of the exercises or tasks that the group will engage in during the meeting and procedures and timing for each part of the meeting Depending on the context of the meeting it may also include a brief summary of expected follow-up meetings and the overall project schedule ahead A number of sample agendas are provided as an ap-pendix to this report

After the formalities of introduction are completed the facilitator should present the agenda explain the rationale for each part invite and respond to any questions and ask for con-sensus agreement from the group that the agenda is understood and suitable Adjustments can be made if the entire group af-firms them and the agenda meets all the objectives for the meet-ing Be sure to allow some time in the agenda for the potential of discussion and refinement of the agenda itself

For small meetings the agendas are usually relatively simple and quick to review For larger meetings they are often far more complex Usually however most participants are in-terested and excited about engaging and do not fuss about de-tails of the agenda The facilitator should always be prepared to provide further explanations however and to make refine-ments if it is the consensus of the group to do so

The facilitator will then review the proposed meeting ground rules and ask for the consent of the group (Ground rules are discussed in detail in Chapter 6) If any adjustments to the agenda or meeting rules are necessary to get consent those changes will be posted on a flip chart or projected on a screen Participants can mark the changes on their own cop-ies of the handouts

CHOOSE A RECORDER AND A REPORTER

In small meetings (or breakout groups of large meetings) the recorder is preferably a member of the facilitation team However depending on staffing levels the facilitator may also need to serve as the recorder This is not ideal but it can be done if necessary Alternatively depending on the makeup of the group the recorder could be recruited as a volunteer from the group itself

If the group is a breakout group of a large meeting and is expected to report out to the full plenary group the facilitator should ask for a volunteer reporter from the group Usually at least one member is more than willing to step up and take

introductions can be lengthened by providing some useful but nonessential information

In smaller groups of a dozen or so observing some fun facts about the community the organization or the project helps warm up everyonersquos attention while buying a little time for latecomers to arrive In large plenary groups this might include introducing other officials in addition to members of the clientrsquos board of directors or governing body

OPEN THE MEETING AND WELCOME THE GROUP

For a small group or a breakout group within a larger meet-ing the facilitator begins with a self-introduction explain-ing why he or she is there defining his or her role and thanking those in attendance for participating

For the opening plenary session of a large public meet-ing a client representative such as the mayor or governing body chair will usually open the meeting After welcom-ing participants the chair will provide introductions of the client representatives the facilitation team and any other prominent officials then turn the meeting over to the lead facilitator

If time allows and depending on the number of par-ticipants it is useful to let all of the participants introduce themselves individually However the facilitator must make clear that participants must keep their comments to one or two sentences who they are where they are from or what constituency they represent and one sentence on why they are there For large meetings with dozens or hundreds of participants an alternative is to ask for a show of hands on one or more interesting and useful questions such as what neighborhoods people are from whether they are from the jurisdiction itself whether they are residents or business people (or both) or other features that may be relevant to the meeting This helps both attendees and facilitators get a sense of who is participating Personal introductions may also be given once small groups have formed

Agendas and sign-in sheets are usually provided at a sign-in table at the room entrance so people can provide their name and contact information for future communi-cations The facilitator should make sure all participants have copies of the agenda and other relevant handout ma-terials and then review logistical matters such as restroom locations sign-in sheet refreshments fire exits and any other important information This completes the formal introductory matters



are available depending on the specific objectives and nature of the subject matter Often in the early stages of a compre-hensive plan process for example brainstorming exercises are useful to identify key issues and potential solutions At later stages when choices need to be made dot- or keypad-voting exercises can be used to identify consensus priorities

In some cases after the objectives and tasks have been made clear subject matter experts will present any analysis draft reports or other information that the group needs to proceed Depending on roles and staffing levels sometimes the facilitator will handle such presentations If this is the case the facilitator must project neutrality credibility and trust In these instances the information being presented should be prepared by another team member so that the facilitator has less ldquoownershiprdquo of it and can stay distant from the substance

Such presentations should be supplemented with sum-mary handout materials when feasible If presentation slides are used the handouts can track the slide presentation Pro-viding participants with links to websites where the informa-tion is posted is also helpful

A key factor in technical presentations is to keep them concise and understandable for the audience Timing is criti-cal Often particularly for large meetings or complex subject matter presenters fail to properly time their presentations and go beyond their allotted time This can be very disrup-tive to any meeting but is particularly so for large or lengthy meetings with complex agendas The facilitator should re-view presentations with the presenters in advance to make certain the presentation fits the agenda schedule or vice versa Facilitators should also enforce presentation time limits and give presenters a one-minute warning before their designated time is up to keep the meeting on track Questions from the audience should be held for the end of the presentation

INITIATE AND MANAGE THE DISCUSSION

In a small group meeting or breakout group once partici-pants have settled in the facilitator will begin by welcoming the group introducing him or herself and then reviewing the tasks and time allotment for the grouprsquos work The fa-cilitator should be standing up throughout the discussion This supports the authority and the energy of the facilitator and provides a clear focal point for the group The recorder should also stand if the recording is being done on flip charts and not a laptop

A ldquowarm-uprdquo or ldquoice breakerrdquo task can set a friendly col-legial tone to the session The sidebar on p 59 offers some

on this role Occasionally a little nudge is needed If timing is very tight or logistics like table or easel setup are difficult the facilitator or recorder may also serve as reporter

When the time comes for reporters to begin their presen-tations they should be reminded of the time constraints Typ-ically a five- or 10-minute period is assigned depending on the nature and complexity of the work products created the number of groups reporting and the overall time constraints for the meeting The lead facilitator should help reporters ad-here to those constraints by giving them a heads-up warning when one minute remains To keep the time needed for group reporting short and consistent the facilitator may instruct each group to select its top three to five issues ideas or recom-mendations for the reporter to share The facilitator can help the group organize its thoughts if needed

EXPLAIN THE MEETING OBJECTIVES AND PRESENT INFORMATION

For both small and large meetings the facilitator should ex-plain in more detail the objectives of the session Often dis-agreements arise later when a clear explanation is not provided at the beginning For example is the meeting a brainstorming session to generate ideas about potential solutions to a prob-lem Is it aimed at evaluating one or more policies or plans that have been proposed Is the purpose to set priorities for actions or budget expenditures of an organization Objectives must be made clear at the beginning

Transparency about the level of public power allowed by the meeting is also vital Is the meeting being held to share in-formation about a project in its early stages and gather initial feedback Or are participants being asked to evaluate and se-lect a desired alternative to wrap up a public planning process Depending on the meeting purpose and design a clear expla-nation must be provided as to how the outcome of this and later meetings will influence the final project outcome Too often the public may be led to believe that it will get whatever it wants as opposed to its input being one of several impor-tant considerations and influences on the final adopted result Facilitators must balance assuring the group that its input will make a difference with being realistic about political proce-dures and legislative requirements

The facilitator should then explain in detail how the spe-cific tasks will be conducted during the meeting to achieve the objectives Will there be an unstructured open discus-sion Will there be survey instruments map exercises dot-vote ranking exercises or other tasks Any number of tools



examples of icebreakers At the very least all members should briefly introduce themselves to the group

For single stand-alone small group meetings any in-formational presentations will usually be given prior to the group discussion though in breakout groups with different areas of focus or tasks facilitators may need to present addi-tional information or instructions When it is time to start the substantive discussion or group exercise the facilitator will ask for input from group members and the recorder will write comments on the flip chart

The facilitator should call on people as necessary and make sure everyone is participating but should not force people to speak Thoughtful use of questions can help clarify comments (ldquoWhat exactly do you mean Sam by lsquoimprove the schoolsrsquordquo) or draw out quiet members (ldquoThanks Emily and Robert those are helpful points Do you have anything to add Mariardquo) Other suggestions for ldquolubricatingrdquo the dis-cussion include the round-robin approach of calling on each person in sequence Or the discussion can be enhanced by having participants write their ideas on index cards prior to the discussion so they are primed with ideas in their hand The cards can be collected at the end of the meeting so if a participant doesnrsquot speak up very much the core of his or her input is still captured

As noted above it is important to keep the group on schedule The facilitator should stay cognizant of the time and progress being made and remind the group as needed

In a large meeting with multiple breakout groups the lead facilitator will often circulate throughout the room to help keep all groups on track and on schedule and monitor how various facilitators are working with their groups par-ticularly when there are different rooms personalities and levels of engagement

The facilitator should intervene with the group as needed to enforce the ground rules This can be done subtly Body language is sometimes enough For example if someone is talking too much or for too long before calling them on a ground rule violation the facilitator can take a step or two toward them Often this subtle signal prompts the speaker to wrap up his or her comment Also the facilitator can gently insert a statement such as ldquoThank you for those comments Does anyone else have a commentrdquo

Sometimes such as with a simple brainstorming session group facilitation involves simply managing a discussion among the group members Other times certain technical exercises are useful to focus and refine ideas that are gener-ated or work toward consensus on certain ideas or proposi-tions The facilitator should always carefully explain how

ICEBREAKERS

Many public meetings entail some level of tension because they often deal with difficult and challenging public policy issues with major implications for the financial and social well-being of participants Further participants often do not know each other personally Thus it can be very helpful to the mood and spirit of the meeting to begin with an ldquoicebreakerrdquo exercise

The examples listed here are simple and all use the same structure of identifying one word that describes or explains something about the individual These are quick easy and fun without inviting conflict or tension on sensitive topics

bull One Word to Describe Our Place Ask each person to choose a single word that best describes the county city town or neighborhood where the meeting is being held or that the meeting is about

bull One Word to Describe a Key Idea The idea can be related to the topic at hand for example ldquoplanningrdquo ldquoconflictrdquo or ldquocommunityrdquo

bull One Word and a Short Phrase to Describe One of These Ideas (or other similar ones) bull If you could be any animal what

animal would you choose and whybull If you could be any age forever what

age would you choose and why bull If you could have one superpower

what would you choose and why

There are plenty of other variations and as noted the question asked can be targeted at the specific context Icebreakers are a good tool to help to set a positive collegial tone in support of the notion that ldquowe are all in this togetherrdquo for the meeting ahead



FACILITATION EXERCISES

Hundreds of different types of exercises have been developed for working with groups to define priorities create option-al solutions and reach other desired out-comes A few types of group exercises are commonly used in urban planning contexts these are described below

SWOT (Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities and Threats) Analysis This is a classic strategic planning exer-cise where ldquostrengths and weaknessesrdquo are usually framed as internal (local) con-ditions that can be changed and ldquooppor-tunities and threatsrdquo (or ldquochallengesrdquo) are external outside conditions It is mainly a brainstorming exercise to generate ideas and is especially useful at the beginning of a project to begin identifying essential core issues as well as potential common ground among participants Most peo-ple usually find it stimulating and fun It often produces expected ideas plus a few surprises or key insights Depend-ing on time constraints and the overall agenda this can be either a warm-up ex-ercise or a crucial initial informative com-

ponent The SWOT discussion can be simplified to address strengths together with opportunities and weaknesses to-gether with threats

In a SWOT analysis the group brain-storms a list of ideas for each of the four categories typically beginning with strengths Give the participants a few minutes to make their own lists before they begin the open brainstorming ses-sion Ensure that participants maintain a brainstorm mode in which ideas offered are not evaluated or critiqued only use question to ensure clarity and under-standing The recorder should write down every item except for redundant ones Once initial lists are completed for each of the four categories the facilita-tor can lead the group back through the lists to consolidate any redundancies that were missed add missing items or further clarify terms Linkages and trade-offs or tensions between various points can also be identified in the recap

Asset Mapping and ldquoTreasured Placesrdquo Asset mapping allows partici-

pants to identify and locate on a map the most important or valuable features of their community The focus is on physi-cal elements but it can include more ab-stract items as well Similar is a ldquotreasured placesrdquo exercise in which participants identify and express their priorities for the future physical form of their community

These mapping exercises are usu-ally used as part of a larger public input meeting and occur early in a compre-hensive planning process They help participants identify features of their community that have special impor-tance or value and they also help iden-tify common ground and shared val-ues Participants work in small groups with a map or aerial photo of the com-munity and use markers or stickers to identify physical resources that they hope will be preserved or protected from change as well as those that they feel should be changed removed en-hanced or revitalized (Figures 53 and 54) Participants in a series of meetings may be assigned to photograph their

Figure 53 A small group doing asset mapping in a workshop on sustainable

communities in Evanston Illinois (Mike Callahan EPR)

Figure 54 Asset mapping by a small group at a public input meeting for a

comprehensive plan in St Maryrsquos County Maryland (Milton Herd)



personal assets with smartphone cam-eras to share at a later meeting

Dot Voting This type of exercise is used mainly to identify or rank priorities of resources actions or ideas Many ver-sions of dot voting exist and it can be done with large or small groups

For dot voting the group is present-ed with a set of graphics or texts often posted on a wall that present choices of policies or actions (these may be a list the group has generated in a brainstorming exercise) Each person is given a small set of colored dots the number is calibrated to be effective for the number of items to rank Participants stick dots on those items that are of greatest importance or value to them (Figure 55) After the group has completed this exercise the pattern of dots will often provide a clear graphic depiction of the overall priorities of the group Here it is important to let the group know they are ranking not ex-cluding any of the generated ideas

Land-Use Allocation Games These exercises are fun invigorating and dy-namic yet also very informative for both participants and planner-facilitators They allow participants working in small groups to show how they would allocate

a resource They can be used in the early stages of a comprehensive planning pro-cess to allow people to show on a map different prospective allocations of land uses or population levels in various areas of the jurisdiction This can be done by using colored dots or cardboard squares to indicate preferences for where devel-opment should occur and how intense it should be

This concept can also be used for other resources such as municipal bud-gets (although in that case it is more like-ly that a chart or table framework is used rather than a map) Another very effec-tive tool is to let people buy priorities with play money (Figure 56) This can become a very serious adult Monopoly game with the play money becoming very real in the minds of participants

Figure 55 Residents dot voting on preferred urban design choices for new devel-

opment in the historic courthouse village in Gloucester County Virginia (Milton

Herd)

Figure 56 A resource-allocation game using play money (Philadelphia City Plan-

ning Commission)



The facilitator should listen actively and ask follow-up questions of participants during the discussion This is a key responsibility When the facilitator asks members to clarify or illuminate points expressed it more deeply engages the group helps build trust and tends to generate more complete information The answers to follow-up questions also allow the group to more fully understand the point or concern be-ing expressed Finally this also helps to ensure a complete and accurate record of the meeting

Active listening is a key tool for facilitators It is the pro-cess of being deeply engaged in the conversation so as to draw participants into the discussion Some of the classic tech-niques of active listening include the following (Doyle 2019)

bull Building and maintaining trust and rapport (an essential component of facilitation)

bull Demonstrating concern and showing empathybull Paraphrasing to show understanding (this clarifies and af-

firms the point being made)bull Using nonverbal cues to show understanding such as

nodding making eye contact and leaning or stepping forward

bull Giving brief verbal affirmations such as ldquoI seerdquo ldquoSurerdquo ldquoThank yourdquo or ldquoI understandrdquo

bull Asking specific follow-up questions to seek clarification

If the facilitator meets resistance during the discus-sionmdasheither substantive or proceduralmdashhe or she should re-frame the issues from another angle or viewpoint and focus on procedural agreement before moving on Note that some amount of resistance or frustration among some participants during a facilitated meeting is not uncommon but this is normal and quite different from ones where participants are truly disruptive These cases are discussed in Chapter 7

When conflicts over substance or procedure emerge in the group the facilitator should embrace such conflict not avoid or suppress it Conflict is natural and inevitable Re-solving conflicts over substantive matters is often the very purpose of the meeting The key for the facilitator is to re-spect all speakers and the points they express even as they disagree with each other and to try to understand the true basis of the conflict Dealing with conflict respectfully en-courages participants to do the same with each other By embracing conflict openly and fairly and seeking to fully understand what the conflict is about it can be resolved or stabilizedmdashor if not it can at least be ldquoparkedrdquo for future work If conflicts are suppressed they may emerge later in a more intense or more disruptive form

the exercise will work and how the results will be used in the overall process The sidebar on pp 60ndash61 provides a few ex-amples of the many kinds of facilitation exercises that can be used in group meetings and another hands-on approach to public engagement is explained in the sidebar on p 64

Guidance for Facilitators The facilitator should always show respect and humility to-ward all participants As emphasized throughout the report showing respect for all parties is a critical element for effec-tive facilitation

Do not be defensive if challenged or criticized Being pa-tient and polite is essential as is acknowledging peoplersquos feel-ings and points of view regardless of merit Try to determine and clarify any concerns or disagreements expressed and de-pending on the objectives and scope of the meeting help the participants resolve them

As discussed earlier neutrality is important If a facilita-tor is criticized for a perceived lack of neutrality or objectiv-ity he or she should probe the reason for such criticism and offer ways to address or correct it The facilitator should make sure the complainant is satisfied with the response even if it means getting only contingent approval

The facilitator must keep the process moving yet main-tain credibility In some cases such as a brainstorming ses-sion the facilitatorrsquos job is fairly simple refraining from cri-tiquing ideas from the group discouraging members from critiquing otherrsquos ideas facilitating idea generation and avoiding getting bogged down in analysis

Do not hesitate to admit a mistake or ask the group for help Remember that the process belongs to the group a fa-cilitator simply helps them do their job Check in with the group on how they perceive progress and ask for their advice and consent at key junctures

Using humor can be helpful in defusing tension and help-ing people relax and enjoy the moment However be careful with humor because often the topics involved in a facilitated meeting are very serious Keeping the discussion light and good natured is usually relatively safe whereas cracking jokes can be risky and off-putting for some participants

Directing the Flow and Being Engaged The facilitator is a traffic cop and should keep the process moving politely but firmly He or she must make sure that each person has a chance (and feels invited) to speak up and prevent anyone from dominating This helps keep the process fair and partici-pants engaged Check in with the participants as needed to be sure that they perceive it as fair Make adjustments as needed



Interpersonal conflicts or squabbles that are not about substantive issues however are a different matter These must be handled through reliance on the ground rules to have a productive meeting They do not always need to be fully re-solved (sometimes that is not possible) but they must at least be mitigated or put on hold for purposes of having a success-ful meeting Verbally identifying such conflicts as interper-sonal and not relevant to the matters at hand is usually effec-tive because participants want the meeting to be successful and not become bogged down in such squabbles Revisiting the ground rules is a good way to help the group focus on the heart of the process rather than interpersonal conflicts Often if an individual becomes disruptive a skillful facilitator can recruit the group to manage the disruption

The facilitator must be flexible yet firm and also patient with the group He or she must constantly make judgments on how firmly to enforce ground rules For example should the discussion flow on when progress is being made and reso-lution is near or should it be cut off to stay within the allotted time When in doubt it is useful to ask the group if they are willing to allocate more time to that agenda item and less to a later item Always let the group decide such matters but stay within overall time constraints

This is especially important when a discussion encroach-es upon the adjournment time for the meeting In that case the facilitator should ask the group how it wishes to proceed Is everyone comfortable with extending the meeting time a little bit to complete a discussion or not Be careful that those who wish to extend do not pressure those who wish to stop on time If there is any doubt as to full consensus the default is always to stick to the original agreed-upon schedule

For small breakout groups within a larger meeting there is usually very little flexibility on the end point because all groups must finish on time to regroup for the concluding ple-nary session (Note that in some cases however the overall agenda may be designed so that the breakout groups are the last task and there is no reconvening of the full group) Fortu-nately for the facilitator most buildings used for public meet-ings have a closing time for the janitorial staff to lock up so the meeting cannot go all night long even if everybody wants it to

Another way to handle the overall time limit particu-larly for large meetings is to ask the group at the start of the meeting how they wish to handle the adjournment time when it arrives That way the group has a policy in place before the question becomes encumbered by any emotions associated with the discussion Regardless it is helpful to build 15 min-utes more into the agenda than is thought to be needed for the final item in order to provide this last-minute flexibility

Recording Input A facilitated meeting requires active engagement of both the facilitator and the recorder The recorder should accurately and concisely record statements from the group using key words and short phrases (Figure 59) A nonverbatim record-ing makes the recording process technically feasible and it creates a written record that more clearly shows the essence of the ideas generated and allows easier comparison and ab-sorption when reviewing results It ensures that good ideas wonrsquot be lost A good recorder will also help limit repetition of points from the group members A good primer on the roles of facilitators and recorders is How to Make Meetings Work by Michael Doyle and David Strauss (1993)

Record input on a medium that is visible to all partici-pants such as a flip chart or a digital projectionmdashnot on somebodyrsquos personal notepad or tablet This ensures that participants can see all the information as it is being created which helps promote comprehension openness and active engagement of the participants and establishes the ldquogroup memoryrdquo It also helps build and maintain trust

In small groups recording on flip charts helps promote active engagement of the participants as they are usually seated around a small table or sitting in a semicircle and the information recorded is prominently in front of them While this old-fashioned method of notetaking does require the extra subsequent step of typing notes for digital files the act of writing down comments in view of all provides trans-parency and allows participants to clarify or confirm what they have said

Figure 59 The recorder must accurately capture the information generated by the

group (Kate Ange)



HANDS-ON VISUAL AND SPATIAL TOOLS FOR PLANNING BUILDING WITH OBJECTS MEMORIES AND ASPIRATIONS James Rojas Founder Place It

The physical environment entails a spa-tial visual and emotional language that humans learn to navigate with their bodies before they learn how to talk This intuitive language is defined by shapes colors textures and memories It brings meaning and value to place and is illustrated through our behavior programmed through our minds and articulated with words

Most planners learn a more technical and abstract language of place that uses maps numbers and other abstract tools to define the environment People who know how to read maps and are versed in this language can participate in the plan-ning processes that result However oth-ers who are visual and spatial thinkers have a difficult time using these tools and may not want tomdashor be able tomdashparticipate And training people to use these tools takes time and resources that in most cas-es are scarce or nonexistent

To overcome these barriers I have developed a tool for visual and spatial thinkers as well as nonnative English speakers that uses the right side of the brain The Place It model applies peoplersquos memory behavior emotions and aspirations along with the tenets of artmaking in which people imagine in-vestigate construct and reflect with the help of objects in a community vision-ing process (Figures 57 and 58)

Rather than being asked what they want or need in their community resi-dents build solutions with objects based on reflection their own on-the-ground knowledge and imagination Through residentsrsquo material expressions of their ideas this method improves communi-cation inquiry reflection collaboration ownership of the process and idea gen-eration in a quick and playful manner The outcomes can be used to document qualitative data establish collective val-

ues as metrics to measure development of urban plans or policies and promote further discussion

A Place It workshop entails two activities The first activity Childhood Memory helps participants reflect on place and how it impacts our lives The second activity Collaboration teaches participants that city planning is not a competition but a collaboration where ideas are generated vetted and shared to achieve consensus and values The workshop can be used as a learning ex-perience to engage a community help collect data or kick off a long-term plan policy or development process Below is a step-by-step overview

PreparationIdentify facilitator recorder and par-ticipants The facilitator is responsible for explaining the process outlining the objectives guiding the group through

Figures 57 and 58 In the Place It model participants use small objects to build childhood memories and imagine better communities sharing their experiences and

perspectives with others (James Rojas)



the activities and helping synthesize their findings He or she encourages participants to talk smile laugh move nod make eye contact and communi-cate through body language The re-corder is responsible for documenting the activities and findings and setting down this information for everyone to see The number of participants can range from five to 100 More time and facilitators are needed for each activity for larger groups

Set Up Choose a time and venue for optimal attendance and create a safe space for people to listen to themselves and each other The activities can be performed outdoors or indoors in a park or in a classroom Prepare a collection of materials for the building exercises The materials should consist of everyday nonrepresentational vibrant and inter-esting objects such as colorful beads painted blocks hair rollers pipe cleaners buttons plastic flowers and other non-architectural objects

WorkshopIntroduction The facilitator introduces the workshop goals and objectives the reason for the activities and why partici-pantsrsquo lifestyles are important to urban planning matters (5 minutes)

Reflection Activity Childhood Memory The facilitator asks participants to build their favorite childhood memo-ry choosing from objects provided and building on a sheet of construction pa-per (10ndash15 minutes)

When time is up the facilitator asks each participant to give their name and explain their memory to the group (one minute each) The recorder should write it down for everyone to see and photograph the model After each participant presents the facilita-tor should summarize the model to the group and acknowledge the ac-complishment with applause

At the end of this activity the facilita-tor asks participants to identify and share three words or themes settings places relationships or details that were consis-tent throughout (5ndash8 minutes) Partici-pants are asked to take a picture of their built memory and email it to someone

Planning Activity Collaboration Now that the participants have bonded and have a sense of shared values they can collaborate The facilitator places the participants in teams ensuring that each team is diverse based on age gender profession nationality race and interests (3ndash5 minutes)

The facilitator then asks each team to solve a community problem by build-ing a solution together (15 minutes) The team members work by choosing from the same or more objects they used in creating their individual childhood memories They can build from scratch or incorporate their built memories Through visual verbal and spatial nego-tiations new ideas emerge from existing ones with the help of others and solu-tions can begin to take shape through the models within minutes

Once the time is up the facilitator asks each team to introduce the team members and present their solutions using the model (10ndash15 minutes) After each team has presented the facilitator quickly synthesizes the information to the larger audience and acknowledges the team with applause If time permits the facilitator can ask each team mem-ber to pick a day time and activity that the model represents This embeds the vision into the participantsrsquo future

At the end of this activity the facili-tator again asks participants to identify three words or themes ideas or solu-tions that were consistent throughout (5 minutes) The facilitator should also ask the participants if they enjoyed working together and what they learned from each other

Synthesis To wrap up the facilitator leads a discussion on what the groups learned about themselves others and the goals and objectives of the work-shop (5ndash8 minutes) The facilitator can use the notes as a comparison between the two activities This synthesis allows people to reflect on the process and consider what impacts the workshop may have on their lives place and the broader urban planning process The facilitator and recorder write down the findings which should be shared with participants and workshop sponsors

The Place It workshop is low-cost requires few preparations and is spa-tially flexible It can be used to promote an in-depth investigation of place by participants to promote meaningful dialogue By creating a safe space for all participantsmdashespecially women immi-grants youth and the LGBTQ commu-nitymdashto come together to share their stories they learn how these experi-ences inform their values as a commu-nity and create the power they need to reshape it Tapping into their memories and imagination lets people gener-ate creative solutions and learn how to solve problems themselves

This tool has long-term impacts in helping people change their attitudes and outlooks about the planning pro-cess It does not replace the planning process but enhances it by capturing qualitative experiences that demon-strate why planning matters in peoplersquos lives Using visual and spatial thinking engages a wider audience is more ef-fective and efficient and empowers ev-eryday folks It lets them see that they can be planners too



Keying the input into a laptop as the meeting unfolds saves one step although it creates a bit more distance between the participants and the recorder and most importantly with larger meetings of multiple small groups each small group must have its own projector or participants canrsquot see the information as it is recorded For stand-alone small group meetings this is not a problem but multiple small breakout groups within a larger meeting will require a lot of projectors In addition typing on a laptop does not allow convenient use of diagramming tools such as arrows underlining and other drawn additions to create a dynamic visual record

While recording comments the recorder (or facilitator) should check with the speaker about the meaning of the state-ment if needed and use the speakerrsquos same key words or short phrases to accurately capture the essence of what a participant has said Follow-up questions to the speaker can help achieve greater clarity and understanding of the original statement and encourage the speaker to expound just a bit The recorder may ask the speaker to confirm the accuracy of the word or phrase used to record the idea The silent moments that occur while recording notes are not a bad thingmdashthey give partici-pants a chance to think about the comment and to formulate their next thoughts

If a volunteer from the group is serving as recorder the facilitator must give that person a quick primer on the fun-damentals of recording in a group meeting He or she must then monitor the recorderrsquos performance and ensure that any errors are corrected and omissions added As noted in Chapter 2 volunteer facilitators and recorders may be re-cruited from the communityrsquos professional network of insti-tutional facilitators and oriented in a short training session before the public meeting

Unrelated issues or ideas should be recorded on a sepa-rate flip chart sheet called a ldquoparking lotrdquo (or in recognition of other travel modes a ldquobike rackrdquo) The parking lot tool is also useful for dealing with larger off-line process issues that would derail the discussion if taken up at that moment For example if during a discussion on a proposed zoning ordi-nance someone makes a point about lowering property taxes the facilitator can note this as a worthwhile comment and write it in the parking lot When the issue is preserved in the parking lot the speaker knows the point will not be forgotten and the facilitator can continue with the priority objectives of the meeting

Other issues for the parking lot include any points or concerns about substance process or feelings as well as in-formation or data that all members do not accept as accurate or truthful If there is disagreement about the veracity of in-

formation it can be parked for additional examination and vetting after the immediate discussion

All items in the parking lot should always be reviewed at the end of the meeting so that participants are aware of the items that were not addressed If there is enough time to allow discussion or analysis that can be done However it is usu-ally most practical to postpone detailed discussion to a subse-quent meeting or if there is not another meeting scheduled for a follow-up communication such as a memo or posted file Often parking lot items require additional research so having extra time beyond the meeting is necessary or the facilitator may need to deliver the comment to the appropriate agency or organization for consideration

When a flip chart sheet is full the recorder should tear it off the pad and tape it to the wall so that the entire discus-sion is visible to participants as the discussion continues This also allows participants to take pictures of meeting notes for their own records if desired Be sure to number pages to keep their order clear Use drafting tape or blue painterrsquos tapemdashnot masking tapemdashso as not to damage the wall (Sticky-back flip charts may be used although they are often smaller than standard flip charts and may be cumbersome to handle)

After the meeting the facilitation team should key the flip chart information into an easily reproducible digital re-cord As noted above the task of keying in the data is avoided if a digital file is created at the meeting notwithstanding the trade-offs discussed as noted above

WRAP UP AND FOLLOW UP

Wrapping up a meeting and carrying out follow-up steps af-terwards are important components of a successful meeting The facilitator is normally responsible for most elements in these key steps

Wrapping Up a Small GroupOnce a small group exercise has been completed the facilita-tor can wrap up by reviewing and summarizing the results This is a fairly simple task if the results cover only a handful of flip chart sheets or a few pages of typed material Sometimes however the results may not be a simple list but rather a com-plex matrix of ideas and edits In such cases when recording during the meeting itrsquos important to flag results or conclusions as they emerge so that when looking back at the record of notes those key points jump out When using flip charts dif-ferent colors of markers can be used to denote different kinds of input such as questions statements or conclusions



WHAT WORKS A WESTERN PLANNERrsquoS PERSPECTIVEJoanne Garnett faicp Orion Planning + Design

Most of my career has been in the Rocky Mountain West where land-use planning can sometimes be regarded as a plot to take away private property rights or be viewed as an interference with private enterprises While many parts of the West have grown to understand the benefit of sound planning practices the fact remains that there are those places that still have skeptical distrusting citizens who do not believe in the value of planning The right approach is critical if these individuals are to become more receptive to doing things differently than in the past and to get beyond the ldquobecause we have always done it this wayrdquo mindset

Whether itrsquos a public workshop or trying to help residents understand the value of good planning practices some techniques work better than others to talk withmdashnot atmdashresidents and property owners Many of these hinge on using common sense and paying attention to your audience and constituents These techniques are particularly relevant in the West or anywhere antigovernment attitudes thrive

While working as a local government planner in rural areas applicants would occasionally inform me that they believed in private property rights Rather than being painted into a corner as the bad guy for making them do certain things to comply with local land-use regulations I told them that I also believed in private property rightsmdashand that those same rights applied to both the applicant and the surrounding property owners who could be impacted by the proposal By addressing it head on the applicants knew I had heard them and that my role was to

protect everyonersquos property rights It is also possible that the applicants then gained the understanding that planning can actually protect their property rights and is not completely evil

The approach is much the same when conducting public meetings and workshops Participants want to know they have been heard and how their input will be used So while this may seem simplistic it is still worth mentioning Skip the jargon of plannerese never use acronyms get back to people with answers to questions you canrsquot answer on the spot and understand that it is your job to keep the audience on topic

Above all put away your devices unless you are using them for the meet-ing Do not check emails or messages while yoursquore supposed to be listening to the public speak they will see it as a sign that you are not paying attention to what they have to say Disaster



In all cases make sure that the group understands the work it has done and agrees with the record of it as reflected in the notes Reviewing the record with the group is the time to add any additional ideas or clarifications from participants

If the small group meeting is a stand-alone session and not a breakout group within a larger group meeting the fa-cilitator can end the session by thanking and complimenting the group explaining next steps if any in the process de-scribing how the results of the meeting will be used and of-fering information on how to contact the facilitators or client representative to provide additional comments or ask ques-tions prior to the next step in the process

The recorder or facilitator should put the facilitatorrsquos name recorderrsquos name group number if relevant and date on flip chart sheets and be sure all the sheets are numbered Be-fore packing up the facilitator should take quick digital pho-tos of all the sheets to ensure preservation before later keying the information into a digital file Never just throw away the flip chart notes Roll them up and take care of them as impor-tant public documentsmdashwhich they are They may become important should there be a legal or other formal objection Consider them part of the permanent file for the project and treat them accordingly

Wrapping Up a Large GroupIf the small group session is part of a larger plenary group meeting the small groups will often be reporting back to the larger group to share and compare results If this is the case the flip chart sheets from each group must be rearranged to enable a brief presentation back to the full group This can be a logistical challenge for the facilitation team especially with very large meetings so it should be well planned in advance Allow time for moving easels note sheets and chairs and for people to reseat themselves in the space

Ideally the reporter is someone from the group as this lends authenticity and helps promote solidarity among par-ticipants In some cases due to time or complexity the facili-tator or recorder might do the summary presentation for the small group

In very large group meetings sufficient time may not be available to allow every small group to present results In this case the facilitation team can select a sample of groups to present that will capture a representative spectrum of mate-rial created by the group as a whole Or the team can review all of the group results and present a collective summary to the full group

After all groups have presented the lead facilitator and members of the facilitation team should conduct a summary

review and identify the conflicts commonalities resolutions and outstanding issues reflected in the documentation This is often an enlightening and exciting moment representing sometimes intense work by dozens or hundreds of people In many cases it is possible and desirable to identify key points of agreement or disagreement that reflect an important turn-ing point in a planning process This task must be done by the facilitation team ldquoon the flyrdquo This summarization activity can also create a dynamic result within the group to bring closure to their work

As in small groups after presenting results and asking the group for any additions questions or observations the lead facilitator should then thank participants and let them know what the next steps are in the process if indeed there are any next steps and how they can remain engaged pro-vide additional input later on or ask questions of the plan-ning team or client organization Contact data for client representatives should be listed on the handout agenda Itrsquos always helpful to give the group some accolades for a job well done (If the facilitator has done his or her job it is usually easy to find something to compliment the group about)

The facilitator should also invite feedback on the session If possible provide a written evaluation sheet that partici-pants can fill out and hand in on the spot or take home and mail in Online evaluation tools can also be offered by pro-viding a link to the project website The facilitation team can use this feedback not only to help refine the current process but also for later use in related projects See Appendix C for a sample template for a meeting evaluation sheet

The final step in a large public meeting is for the client representative who opened the meeting (often the mayor city manager or other leading official) to briefly thank the par-ticipants for attending and encourage them to stay involved in the process

As soon as feasible after the meeting typically within a few days the facilitator should compile and disseminate notes of the results of the meeting to participants and inter-ested parties after giving the client an opportunity to review the summary Dissemination can be done digitally as well as via hard copy depending on the customs of the group Digi-tal communication now dominates in most cases including posting documents on web sites

An advantage of using a proactive distribution tech-nique such as an email list or a list serve is that the client can also use that avenue to inform or remind participants of next steps in the overall process If the facilitator is a consultant to the client group the client staff will sometimes assume the responsibility of dissemination The facilitator and the client



ALWAYS LEARNING LESSONS FROM COMMUNITY-BASED ENGAGEMENT IN MILWAUKEEMonica Wauck Smith aicp Senior Planner City of Milwaukee

In 2018 Milwaukee wrapped up a year-long study funded through the Fed-eral Transit Authorityrsquos pilot program for transit-oriented development to address potential development and community needs along two differ-ent proposed extensions of the Mil-waukee Streetcar The community had some trepidation about the merits of a streetcar system in general and also whether a future streetcar extension would cause gentrification or dis-placement of long-time residents and businesses Planning staff developed a comprehensive outreach strategy and over the course of a year led five larger community workshops as well as many smaller events and meetings that resulted in lessons learned to im-prove meeting facilitation

First never allow government staff or consultants to dominate a presenta-tion or discussion One key approach that the city used for this study was to bring on community-based organiza-tions as paid members of the public engagement team Having community partners participate in and have a speak-ing role at the meetings was invaluable because it increased the study teamrsquos credibility which helped build trust from residents In one instance when a partici-pant started shouting and talking over other participants it was very helpful to have a community partner stand up and ask the person to allow others to speak This message would have been received very differently if it had been delivered by city staff

Another useful meeting facilitation tool is instant survey technology such as iClickers or cell-phone-based surveys to allow both staff and participants to get a broader perspective of what others are

thinking not just the most vocal people Instant surveys allow every attendee to voice an opinion on a question or image preference As long as the presenter is clear that the survey isnrsquot a vote or referendum on an issue instant surveys can be a great discussion tool

Always remain flexible If members of the public are more interested in one topic than another be willing to switch the agenda order or use a structured open house format that allows people to spend more time in smaller groups or stations tailored to individual areas of interest For example if people are more interested in hearing about plans to address potential displacement start with that rather than discussing more traditional planning topics such as zoning code updates that residents may not be as interested in

For longer meetings providing food should be standard practice and advertised in the meeting notice People are busy and should not have to skip dinner or rush home to eat before a meeting to be able to provide input on issues affecting their neighborhood Food brings people together and our staff has found that it also increases attendance and participation in community meetings

Attention should also be paid to preparing an inviting environment with music and some attractive decorations so the atmosphere feels inviting Finally it should go without saying that the meeting should be conveniently located in what is viewed as a neutral location and accessible to all



should be clear about responsibilities for maintaining a com-plete and accurate file of all meeting materials

CONCLUSION

This chapter has provided a comprehensive manual for step-by-step preparation for and facilitation of group meetings both large and small The details are many but facilitators should remember a few big-picture points

bull Stay neutral and nondefensive This is absolutely critical but is often easier said than done Practice helps If filling dual roles as both an expert and a facilitator the planner-facilitator must still maintain and demonstrate neutral-ity The facilitator must keep subjective opinions to his or herself and ask the group to be certain that members are comfortable with the facilitatorrsquos role and performance in terms of neutrality

bull Show respect to all participants Showing respect fosters trust and active engagement of the group

bull Rely on the consent of the group as the basis for all deci-sions Decisions may include the role of the facilitator sub-stantive policy decisions process decisions like changes to the agenda or any other issues that arise

bull Embrace any conflict that emerges whether regard-ing substance or procedure and help participants work through such conflict

bull Make sure to keep a complete accurate and visible record of results and record less pertinent or unrelated ideas in the ldquoparking lotrdquo or ldquobike rackrdquo for later consideration

Facilitation is dynamic Facilitation skills are live-action skills that require active improvisation and creative interac-tion Thus it takes practice to develop them Look for oppor-tunities to exercise and develop facilitation skills either on the job or within the community as a volunteer



CHAPTER 6GROUND RULES AND CONSENSUS BUILDING


Two aspects of facilitating meetings are particularly important setting ground rules and reaching consensus Ground rules are useful for every meeting because they underpin and support a cooperative and productive process even with groups that begin with a high level of conflict And although not every meeting is concerned with reaching consensus on substantive policy facilitation often does involve helping a group reach consensus on such matters and achieving that outcome is one of the more valuable benefits that facilitation can bring This chapter takes a deeper dive into these two elements

ABOUT GROUND RULES

The purpose of ground rules is to provide firm guidance for participantsrsquo behavior to ensure that they act respectfully and civilly stay on track to complete their tasks and accomplish the defined objectives

Ground rules are in some ways the most important fac-tor in making a meeting successful They have a seemingly magical power to support the work of the facilitator Without them a discussion can easily go off the rails With themmdashif they are properly formulated and enforcedmdashthe discussion can remain focused and productive even when it involves difficult issues and difficult people

Traditionally facilitators have used the term ldquoground rulesrdquo because that is what they are However this can be off-putting to participants because it can sound somewhat authoritarian An alternative term is ldquoprotocolsrdquo This is still accuratemdashit also refers to a system of rules for governing con-ductmdashand may sound a bit friendlier than ldquoground rulesrdquo Ei-ther term works The key is that the facilitator proposes them and the group affirms them either as proposed or with modi-fications that earn the grouprsquos consensus

Ground rules focus on basic behaviors most are obvious and self-explanatory As noted previously in the report in a group of willing participants with little conflict or tension between them ground rules are less important However it is good practice to always use them because it is far better to have them and not need them than to need them and not have them With a friendly willing group the rules can be modified to focus not so much on preventing disruptive con-flict as on being most productive

Ground rules provide a kind of benchmark or contract that the group (and the facilitator) can refer to if a participant goes astray Reminding a participant of the ground rules to which they agreed is a polite and easy way to bring them back to behaviors that are conducive to effective group work Par-ticipants should also know that they can amend the ground rules at any time they choosemdashas long as they have a consen-sus to do so Where contention and conflict might be antici-pated having everyone sign these agreed-upon ground rules places them in the position of a contract agreement

It is always good practice to post ground rules on a flip chart sheet that is posted on the wall This also provides a good place for participants to sign them In smaller or less formal meetings the facilitator will often rely on verbal ap-proval of ground rules However itrsquos important to note that in these cases the facilitator must be careful to get the openly expressed approval of each and every participant Donrsquot let anyone hide in the crowd to avoid saying ldquoyeardquo or ldquonayrdquo

Ground rules should be approved by group consensus not imposed by the facilitator This is essential The power of the ground rules is rooted in the fact that participants have all agreed to follow them The facilitator should propose them but never impose them If imposed they lose their power

Key Ground RulesFor most meetings only a half-dozen or so ground rules are needed Below is a list of standard rules some combination of which is usually sufficient Which rules are chosen for a spe-cific meeting or group will depend on the needs of the group The first six rules listed are especially valuable and generally applicable to most situations



bull Make decisions by broad consensusThis is a standard rule and the most fundamental Some facilitators consider this rule essential and will always propose it to the group

Each member of the group has equal status in the meetingmdashno individual should be permitted to dominate or control decisions Consensus agreement on everything protects against that Using group consent for all decisions will often surprise and disarm those individuals who are ac-customed to dominating groups They suddenly find that they canrsquot force their will on the group merely through their personality expertise or style The more extreme forms of disruption or dominance are discussed in Chapter 7

The rule for consensus normally applies to both substance and process It works particularly well for procedural issues which normally are not as complex or divisive as many substantive issues Yet even for the most complex substantive issues consensus is a good target and it can be modified to slightly softer levels of ldquobroadrdquo consensus (as opposed to total absolute con-sensus) Such modifications are a way to achieve a very large amount of consensus in a group without letting perfection prevent progress

The meaning of consensus should be defined precisely to fit the needs of the group (the various levels of defining consensus are discussed later in this chapter) Sometimes participants are hesitant to adopt this rule because they fear it wonrsquot work that the issues are too difficult and the group will get bogged down The facilitator should offer encouragement by pointing out that achieving as much consensus as possible will be worthwhile and if consensus canrsquot be reached on every issue the issue can be revisited later or if time is not available the level of agreement and disagreement that has been obtained can be documented Progress is still possible and the consensus process builds goodwill for future work

bull Be polite and courteousThis is a broad idea that includes speaking politely not interrupting others arriving on time turning off cell phones and generally respecting others and the group process

bull One person talks at a time no sidebar conversationsThis is simply a method of maintaining order It overlaps somewhat with politeness but is more specific and often useful Again it is a matter of members showing respect for each other It also ensures that all participants can hear everything that is said and are always focused on the speaker

bull Listen actively and participate fullyListening carefully to others is key to a successful group meeting and promotes mutual understanding and full participation It reinforces the idea of giving respect to fellow participants and having members learn from each other which is a valuable aspect of group meetings Hav-ing this as a rule provides a reminder to participants

bull Share responsibility for the process and outcomeThis is a way of ensuring that people canrsquot get away with blaming others for outcomes This rule also reinforces the idea that ldquowersquore all in this togetherrdquo and the awareness that the grouprsquos work is about collaborating and creating unity This may be less critical for one-off meetings that are sim-ply for idea generation where the participants are not part of an ongoing process But it helps to remind everyone that they are working together during the meeting

bull Keep comments briefSome people enjoy expounding But to get work done in a group everyonersquos time must be respected so this is a good rule to encourage people to think carefully and express themselves concisely and efficiently

Other rules that are more situational in nature include the following

bull Raise your hand to be called on direct your comments to the facilitator Often a meeting begins with this rule but as people be-come comfortable with each other the issues and the facilitator this rule can be allowed to soften and the dis-cussion can be more informal and spontaneous It is im-portant however that people still adhere to the rule of not talking over each other

bull ldquoBrainstormrdquomdashdonrsquot debateThis rule only applies to meetings that are for the purpose of brainstorming But when that is the purpose it helps to have this ground rule so that people do not fall into the habit of critiquing ideas prematurely

bull Begin and end meetings on time This rule is included here because while it is essential it need not be a formal group ground rule The facilitator can usually impose it by simply announcing it as a respectful policy that he or she will use in conducting the process (and then following it in conducting the meeting) Howev-er raising it to a level of an affirmed ground rule will give it that much more credibility and force Making it a formal ground rule also allows the group to tailor the definition to suit its needs such as providing a grace period This can



have the effect of putting more attention on it and raising its importance for the group making it more likely to be achieved with minimal effort

bull Have funThis ground rule is not suitable for every meeting In fact it isnrsquot so much a ground rule as a light-hearted note of en-couragement Thus it is most suitable for situations such as early visioning and goal-setting meetings in a com-prehensive plan process in which people are asked to be creative and idealistic about the future When the topic is somewhat grim or inherently divisive however such as a local land-use issue about which people are in heated con-flict it may seem flippant and thus not appropriate as a ground rule Keep in mind however that various group exercises can be conducted during a tense meeting to brighten spirits such as mapping exercises dot-vote rank-ings or land-use allocation games (see Chapter 5 for more information on these exercises)

Additional potential options for ground rules are listed below depending on the needs of the group and the nature of the meeting or process

bull Focus on interests not positionsThis is a good general guide when building broad consen-sus It can serve as a reminder to participants about the im-portance of not pushing too hastily for a particular solution before all options have been identified and explored

bull Disagree openly but respectfully with any memberIf participants feel constrained to speak freely this rule can help remind them to open up as long as it is combined with the rule for courtesy

bull Keep the discussion focusedThis rule is also a task for the facilitator as much as a ground rule but again depending on the nature of the group and the process it can be a good reminder to the group to stay on track and not become diverted to extraneous issues

bull Share all relevant information with the entire groupHaving a rule regarding what sources and kinds of in-formation will be considered and used by the group can be very useful It doesnrsquot necessarily have to be to share everything (which is aimed at avoiding secrets and surprises within the group) Yet some protocol that addresses how to bring information to the group can help avoid arguments and tension around such is-sues during a multi-meeting process This is particu-larly important in the world of social media and online communications

Developing a Set of Ground Rules Before the meeting the facilitator should draft an initial set of ground rules based upon the needs of the group and the na-ture of the process The facilitator should then present them to the group for consensus approval as one of the first things on the agenda If the meeting is expected to be contentious setting ground rules can be the first thing a facilitator does after initial introductions

Ground rules may be many in number or very few Ide-ally a small number is preferred simply so people can hold them in their minds and not have to refer to the list like a rulebook For each project the facilitator can choose the most relevant and appropriate ones from the lists provided and add others as needed this list can then be modified by the group as needed

The main variables that will help the facilitator deter-mine the number and type of rules to propose to the group include the following

bull objectives of the meetingbull level of tension and divisiveness within the group and the

level of conflict between stakeholders at largebull general subject matter of the meeting and the nature of the

product the group is producingbull relationships between the participants bull number of meetings and amount of contact time the

group will have

Table 61 (p 76) shows three sample sets of ground rules ranging from simple to extended Some combination of the items on the ldquosimplerdquo and ldquoconciserdquo lists is usually sufficient (ldquobrainstormingrdquo and ldquohaving funrdquo can be used whenever appropriate)

An extended set of ground rules may be suitable or nec-essary for a long-term process with an established group and many meetings particularly when there is a great deal of conflict or potential conflict within the group Table 62 (p 77) shows a set of protocols that was developed and used by a technical advisory committee for an environmental plan in a process with multiple meeting over several months This project was highly technical in nature and also highly con-troversial The committee included members of scientific and engineering stakeholder groups but also representatives from environmental industry agricultural and business groups Tensions at the outset were high Thus the protocols had to be more robust than just the normal ground rules for small groups Note for example the expanded set of rules for deal-ing with new information and for dealing with the media



Also note that the definition of ldquobroad consentrdquo adopt-ed by the group is a supermajority agreeing that ldquoI can live with itrdquo (item 11 in the protocols list) This group consid-ered the alternative standard of ldquounanimity minus onerdquo but felt that was too demanding given the difficulty and com-plexity of the issues

Implementing and Enforcing Ground Rules Usually implementation of ground rules happens naturally without much if any formal enforcement Once people have affirmed their commitment to follow the rulesmdashwhich the facilitator obtains at the very beginning of the meetingmdashthey have it in their minds and behave accordingly Usually all the facilitator must do when a ground rule is violated is remind the violator of the ground rule and ask if he or she has or might have infringed on the rule The facilitator can also ask the group the same question Indeed the group members should be empowered to call out rule violations In any case the group is the primary conscience and en-forcer of the rules

If the group agrees that a rule has been violated the fa-cilitator may simply let that fact serve as a corrective If nec-essary the facilitator may ask the member to modify his or her behavior taking the ground rule into account These are nonthreatening and respectful approaches that nudge the member toward conformance Keep in mind that the rules are for the benefit of the group Group members should all want to follow them

The key judgment the facilitator must make is striking a balance between letting the discussion flow and being firm in enforcing the rules If the facilitator is too permissive with people who are talking over or interrupting others for ex-ample other group members may become rightly angry that the violator is allowed to run amok and cause an unpleas-ant unproductive meeting Yet if the facilitator steps in too quickly to shut someone down this can stifle the free flow and energy of the discussion Often such calls are simple other times they are more ambiguous The facilitator must sense the mood and spirit of the group at that time to decide how rigorous to be with enforcement When group members take it upon themselves to call out the violator then the facili-tator truly becomes the referee and not the cop

When in doubt err toward enforcing the rulesmdashwith af-firmed consent of the group at each step Consider writing the ground rules on the back of the agenda as well as posting them on a flip chart visible to all The chart becomes a handy refer-ence point for the facilitator to use (and provides a good place for participants to sign their agreement when that step is used) If the group modifies the ground rules before affirming them members can mark up their agendas to reflect the changes

BUILDING CONSENSUS

Ground rules set the stage for a meeting while consensus brings it home Not every project or process regarding sub-

Simple Concise Extended

1 Make decisions by broad consensus

2 Be courteous

3 Share responsibility for the process and outcome


2 Be courteous


4 Keep comments brief

5 Raise your hand

6 Listen actively


2 Be courteous



5 Raise your hand

6 Listen actively

7 One person talks at a time no sidebar conversations

8 Direct comments to the facilitator

9 Focus on interests not positions

10 ldquoBrainstormrdquomdashdonrsquot debate

11 Have fun

TABLE 61 SAMPLE SETS OF GROUND RULES



Protocols for the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

Affirmed by TAC

Purpose of the rules To ensure that each participant has a full and fair opportunity to participate and to achieve the most effective and productive use of everyonersquos time and energy

Participation

1 Keep comments brief courteous and respectful and direct them to the facilitator

2 Refrain from side conversations when another person is speaking listen closely and learn from the viewpoints and knowledge of others

3 The TAC will enforce its affirmed protocols through the facilitator

4 Alternate TAC RepresentativesmdashTAC members may assign membership powers to an alternate representative however TAC members must make any such assignment prior to the second TAC meeting (October 1)

Procedures

5 Review materials and complete any assignments prior to the meeting

6 TAC members will attend meetings on time Meetings will begin and end promptly on schedule Members will notify the staff co-chair in advance if unable to attend a meeting TAC may extend or truncate a meeting by broad consent in accord with 11

7 Members will submit information they wish to share with the full TAC to the staff co-chair in advance (48 hours prior to the meeting) to allow for dissemination via email Correspondence between members and between members and staff on TAC matters will be shared via a group email address list to include TAC members and alternates project support staff and the facilitator

8 In any public communications on TAC matters members will use the same tone of courtesy and respect for fellow members as in the TAC meetings and will make it clear that they speak only for themselves and not the TAC as a whole Members will not use the news media to lobby for their own viewpoints Any inquiries from the news media will be forwarded to the two co-chairs who will decide jointly how to respond

9 Keep all cell phones on a silent setting during the meetings if it is necessary to make or take a cell phone call leave the room

10 A summary of each meeting will be provided prior to the next meeting and the staff co-chair will post relevant materials on the County website All meeting announcements and materials will be posted on the County website and will be open to the public

Decisions

11 TAC decisions on substance and procedures will reflect the broad consensus of the representatives present defined as at least two-thirds of members present

Decisions may only be taken if a quorum is present A quorum is defined as 10 or more members Meetings may be held without a quorum but no decisions may be made unless a quorum is present

The test for each memberrsquos decision about an issue is not ldquodo I like itrdquo but rather ldquocan I live with itrdquo Members who did not participate in a particular discussion need not be part of the consent agreement on that particular issue

Multiple viewpoints may be put forth as viable alternatives if a clear consensus on a particular issue is impossible to reach within the time constraints of the process

The official record of input from TAC members will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors upon completion of the TACrsquos portion of the outreach process

12 The TAC members may amend the protocols by broad consensus agreement as per 11

Note the group consisted of 14 total members so 10 was a ldquosuper-quorumrdquo

TABLE 62 EXAMPLE OF AN EXTENDED SET OF GROUND RULES



stantive policy outcomes lends itself to consensus decision making but great benefits result from using it whenever fea-sible Generally consensus is the goal of a task-oriented group such as a task force ad hoc committee or other standing group rather than open public forums and similar events

When a group makes decisions by consensus the out-comes will enjoy broad support from members of the group thereby avoiding the creation of winners and losers This helps build goodwill solidarity and trust among the par-ticipants and it promotes durable decisions with minimal reneging in the future

The consensus process also promotes the value of learn-ing and empathetic listening and it encourages self-reliance of the group This is especially useful for a standing group such as a board council or commission even though such bodies are accustomed to using Robertrsquos Rules of Order and majority votes for decision making (and indeed sometimes are required to do so)

Two types of consensus decisions are most relevant to fa-cilitators One regards issues of process (eg agenda ground rules) This should be a component of every facilitation proj-ect The other regards substantive issues (eg policies ac-tions) and may or may not be called for depending on the nature of the meeting the project and the group

It is critical that any consensus process be based on open critical thinking and collaboration by group members Con-sensus should not reflect ldquogroupthinkrdquo resulting from undue pressure to conform It should result from the honest and frank discussions of the participants who are sharing power with each other The facilitator should be mindful of this risk during any consensus-building work and in any group dis-cussions in general

Normally consensus decision making for substantive is-sues is feasible in public policy processes where the issues are complex but generally negotiable and where multiple parties have shared interest and power It can sometimes take a bit more time than simple up and down votes but it can also ultimately save time by avoiding the problem of revisiting issues or previous decisions Thus the payoffs of consensus decision making can be substantial

The Definition of ConsensusThe definition of what constitutes ldquoconsensusrdquo for the group mustmdashwithout failmdashbe established at the front end of the process Consensus does not necessarily mean ldquofull agree-ment of everybodyrdquo There are different levels of consent and as a practical matter it is often helpful to use a definition that falls short of perfection thereby avoiding the tyranny

of the minority or giving one person veto power over the entire group

As Steven Saint and James Lawson wrote in Rules for Reaching Consensus (1994) consensus is ldquoa state of mutual agreement among members of a group where all legitimate concerns of individuals have been addressed to the satisfac-tion of the grouprdquo Thus this definition requires that the level of consensus be defined precisely Bruce Dotson a former planning professor at the University of Virginia has said that several possible levels of consensus may be achieved in a group as follows (2018)

1 I love it all [rare]2 I can live with it I understand it3 I will not oppose it or undermine it4 I can support the package though I object to parts

Number 2 is especially useful in most cases It allows people to achieve results that have durability and commit-ment from the group while still allowing for differences in views to remain and continue being refined

An alternative approach is to seek broad rather than unanimous consensus in which at least 90 percent or more of participants agree Here ldquounanimity minus onerdquo or a similar standard is another option This avoids the ldquotyranny of the minorityrdquo Broad consensus means that not every member of the group has reached the level of agreement that has been defined as constituting consensus This standard allows for some members to not be a part of the consensus-supporting majority This needs to be clearly defined and agreed to as the standard for the group

The Process of Reaching ConsensusMany techniques or methods are available for reaching con-sensus in a standard small group of about a dozen or so peo-ple A critical factor is to allow enough time for the discussion and exploration of possibilities to find common ground The core process and concepts described below apply at the small group level but they can be integrated into a larger process with multiple subgroups and plenary sessions

Advance TasksAs with any facilitated meeting working with a consensus-based group requires some advance steps The membership of the group must be determined If it is part of a plenary group at a conference forum the group might be formed at random through counting off or assigning numbers as described pre-viously If it is part of an organizational strategic plan the



group might have been appointed by the board of directors No matter how the group is selected membershipmdashand the status it entailsmdashneeds to be clear

The purpose role authority objectives and duration of the group must be defined in advance The client usually in collaboration with the facilitator often determines these The meaning of consensus needs to be defined in advance and then affirmed with or without modification by the group

Using Discussion and Testing to Reach ConsensusOne of the simplest yet most effective natural and practi-cal methods for reaching consensus is through discussion and testing in repeated rounds An outline of this process is as follows

1 A group member offers a proposal (eg an idea policy or action)

2 The group discusses it but not to critique raise objec-tions or make modificationsmdashsimply to clarify and un-derstand

3 Group members state any legitimate concerns (concerns that affect the common good or conflict with the pur-pose of the group or process)

4 If concerns are minor the facilitator tests for consensus by asking ldquoHave we reached consensusrdquo Group mem-bers respond in the affirmative or negative

5 If there is not consensus the group engages in discus-sion to identify and resolve any objections Resolution of objections can be achieved bybull Further clarifying the proposalbull Modifying the proposalbull Adding new elements to the proposal

6 After resolution of objections is complete the facilitator again tests for consensus reminding the group of their definition of consent

7 Repeat these steps as needed to refine the proposal until all objections are resolved and consensus is reached

If consensus isnrsquot reached after several rounds of this process the group has several options

bull Pare down the proposal to a statement that is acceptable to the group

bull Seek additional time to work toward consensusbull Send the proposal to a subgroup for further workbull Conduct a supermajority vote (This works only if the

ground rules permit such a method for reaching con-sensus)

bull Conduct a straw poll to determine how close to consensus the group might be If the group is close objecting mem-bers may choose to stand aside and let the proposal go for-ward (equivalent to ldquoliving with itrdquo or ldquohave objections but will not oppose or underminerdquo)

The above process is very fluid and can accommodate many different group styles When a group has simple con-flicts of substance or is comfortable working together con-sensus can often be reached simply by talking through the choices the tests for consensus can emerge organically and informally from the discussion In such cases the facilitator must identify consensus and focus the group on its conclu-sions in order to clarify and document the results The facili-tator must also take special care to guard against the emer-gence of groupthink which might create an apparent level of agreement that does not actually exist Note that this process like any consensus process hinges on the definition of con-sensus that the group has established up front

One technique that can be incorporated into any facili-tation process but especially the discussion and testing ap-proach to building consensus is that of framingmdashputting topics into understandable and nonpolarizing terms Re-framing a situation can help participants completely reimag-ine the intent and possible outcomes of a perceived conflict Words do matter and how and when they are delivered can determine the success of a project at the very beginning

Using the Nominal Group Technique to Reach ConsensusAnother common technique for reaching group consensus is a classic process known as the nominal group technique which involves multiple rounds of ranking exercises to ar-rive at the grouprsquos top-ranked choices This technique can help to build consensus in larger groups by working upward through smaller subgroups in repeated rounds It works particularly well when the objective of the consensus pro-cess is to set priorities

In this approach a facilitated small group proceeds as follows

1 Group members silently write down their ideas for what-ever the task or topic calls for

2 The group openly brainstorms to create a list of ideas us-ing multiple rounds until ideas are exhausted

3 The group discusses each idea to clarify meaning ex-plain logic or analysis raise and answer questions or state agreement or disagreement An idea may be modi-fied if its originator agrees



4 The group refines the list of ideas to consolidate similar ideas and delete redundancies

5 Each group member then ranks his or her top five (or other agreed-upon number) items on the list by assign-ing a 5 to the top choice and a 1 to the fifth choice Indi-vidual ranking can be done using work sheets with items numbered and coded to the flip chart notes or it can be done by sticking colored dots on the flip chart sheets next to each item

6 Numerical votes for each item on the list are tallied yielding a clear consensus of priorities of the group

If the small group is part of a larger group the results of this process from each small group can then become the input material for the same process with the larger plenary group Each small group becomes a de facto ldquomemberrdquo of the large group providing a list of priority ideas for the plenary group which then uses the same process to ultimately end with broad agreement

Resolving conflicts about policy (as opposed to personal-ity) is usually a key element of any consensus-building pro-cess Two fundamental things that help support such reso-lutions are for participants to understand the true nature of the conflict and to share responsibility for both the disagree-ments and the resolutions

Often a policy conflict is actually a misunderstanding or an incomplete understanding of the problem or the pro-posed solution If the participants drill down to the root as-sumptions they are making they can clarify or dispose of any differences in assumptions that are leading to disagreements about what solutions may be feasible One tool that can help facilitators lead productive dialogues that get all participants on the same page and lead them to a shared conclusion is the Technology of Participation (ToP) Focused Conversation de-veloped by the Institute of Cultural Affairs described in fur-ther detail in the sidebar in Chapter 4 pp 42ndash44

Also if the group agrees to share responsibility for hav-ing a disagreementmdashthat is agreeing that policy disagree-ments must be based on facts rather than preconceived ideas bias or personal annoyancemdashthey are more likely to be will-ing to listen to each other seek common ground and resolve the conflict Note that the idea of sharing responsibility for outcomes is often a specific ground rule for the discussion

CONCLUSION

Ground rules and consensus building are two key compo-nents of meeting facilitation Ground rules provide a foun-dation for a successful group meeting of any scale or type especially if those rules are affirmed by the group through its own consent Consensus decision making is critical for deci-sions about process and procedure Consensus will ideally be used for substantive policy decisions as well for the impor-tant reasons discussed here but if absolute consensus is not a feasible standard the definition can be modified by the group in various ways to still achieve some of the benefits



CHAPTER 7SPECIAL CHALLENGES IN FACILITATION


Facilitation is a complex and dynamic process often conducted in a complicated setting with high-stakes outcomes and high levels of intensity among a diverse set of participants with different interests and priorities This is especially true in public planning processes of local governments These circumstances often produce special challenges that facilitators must navigate to perform successfully

Among the special challenges that occur rather fre-quently are handling disruptive people dealing with limited project budgets and timelines and managing the various changes that are emerging in the way people at large interact with the public planning process

HANDLING DISRUPTIVE PEOPLE

Most meetings are attended by people who sincerely want to reach a successful outcome of the meeting and of the over-all process This is especially true in organizational settings However sometimes in public meetingsmdashespecially regard-ing contentious public policy issues such as comprehensive plans zoning decisions or specific land-use conflictsmdashsome participants may have concerns that cause them to be disrup-tive or difficult for the facilitator to handle Others may come to the meeting with a gripe formed another time against an-other agency but to the individual itrsquos all the same govern-ment and herersquos a time to let rsquoem have it

As explained earlier in this report facilitators should al-ways keep in mind that his or her authority is derived from the consent of the group Thus the facilitator relies on the group to enforce the ground rulesmdashor more often the ground rules are used as the mechanism for enforcement with clear support of the full group

While the facilitator must accept that he or she cannot control everything or everyone there are some ways to mini-mize the negative effect of disruptive people

People who disrupt a meeting often by talking excessive-ly or rudely usually fall into one of two types the inadvertent disrupter and the strategic disrupter Each is discussed below

The Inadvertent DisrupterAn inadvertent disrupter is someone who does not have a ne-farious intent to disrupt the meeting or process but who does so unintentionally because of personal tendencies or habits These are the most common types of disruptive people and they are normally relatively easy to handle Usually inadver-tent disrupters are willing to ldquogo along with the programrdquo with sufficient guidance from the facilitator and other group members because they do not mean any harm

This type includes the following common subtypes

bull Talkers go on and on and will not be concisebull Debaters challenge points made by others and provoke ar-

gumentsbull Lecturers expound to the others with excess details or opinionsbull Interrupters interrupt other people often with extraneous

points

Most inadvertent disrupters exhibit one or more of the following traits

bull They just want attention and recognitionbull They want a specific outcome and will fight to get itbull They think theyrsquore being helpfulbull They donrsquot know a more constructive way to participate

The following general approaches define ways a facilita-tor can approach the challenge of inadvertent disrupters and productively incorporate them into the meeting

bull Give them attention Show them respect Acknowledge their concerns and invite their positive participation Re-



member that their behavior will not be changed by de-mands or tricks any such attempts will simply increase their distrust

bull Remind them of the purpose content and benefits of the ground rules which they have agreed to follow and that ev-eryone in the group deserves an equal chance to participate

bull Donrsquot try to be the lone enforcermdashdraw on the grouprsquos af-firmation of the ground rules

bull Assure the disrupter that he or she is being heard and re-spected and acknowledge his or her value and importance to the process

bull Assure the disrupter that he or she will have further op-portunities during the process to share thoughts (assum-ing that this is indeed the case)

bull Acknowledge the disrupterrsquos interest ideas and energy yet pointedly invite and challenge the person to listen to fellow participants

The sidebar on p 85 shares some guidance on dealing with inadvertent disrupters

The Strategic DisrupterStrategic disrupters are more difficult because for whatever reason they are consciously trying to undermine the process They are often reluctant or even unwilling to go along with the ground rules and affirmed process of the meeting (even when they have agreed to the ground rules) They are pur-posefully executing a strategy of disruption

The first defense is to establish the ground rules at the very beginning of the meeting and ask all present to com-mit to follow them and enforce them together The facilita-tor should make it clear that the group is establishing its own clear ground rules for dialog He or she should be sure to get this affirmation from everyone present In smaller groups it is possible to ask for participants to sign a copy of the ground rules posted on the wall as discussed earlier

If anyone abstains or tries to hide from this commitment the facilitator should call them out and ask them to explain If strategic disrupters are expected to be in attendance take special care to handle the ground rules clearly and firmly as one of the first items of business If there is any concern that such disrupters will be present add a ground rule that requires honest and free policy discussions not personal attacks

When a strategic disrupter emerges at a meeting the facilitator should show respect and patience and avoid be-ing defensive This is critical As frustrating as strategic disrupters can be they also need and deserve respect and the facilitator must give that There are limits of course

If the disrupter gets so out of hand that he or she is in-fringing on the rights of others at the meeting then that should be called out The facilitator can build trustmdasheven with strategic disruptersmdashby being respectful transpar-ent open and inclusive

Additional strategies for dealing with strategic disrupt-ers include the following

bull Insist on having the disrupter state clearly his or her objec-tions for the record (Often strategic disrupters will make comments that are vague or extraneous to the issue at hand)

bull Focus on how every resident can help solve local com-munity problems The facilitator can emphasize sharing responsibility for outcomes (ldquoWersquore all in this togetherrdquo) This is especially relevant to local planning processes in which the government authority for the process is local to the constituents such as in small towns The facilitator can truly say ldquoThis planning effort is being done by us for usrdquo The implied question is ldquoArenrsquot you one of usrdquo

bull The facilitator can also remind the disrupter of the value of protecting the rights of those present who wish to hold the meeting

bull Sometimes strategic disrupters will attack information that has been presented during the meeting process by the planning team (or by others) If possible the facilita-tor should verify information openly and objectively and acknowledge any gaps or uncertainties Do not become defensive if information analysis or data is challenged or criticized Rather respond with a careful sober ra-tional explanation of how and why the information was prepared and brought into the process Acknowledge any gaps or uncertainties in the data (without apology) Note any objections show respect for the opinions expressed and note that if further evaluation of the information is needed it will be conducted

If the strategic disrupter problem is extensive especially if multiple parties are involved or if the problem is ongoing and not a one-off event the facilitator can create an advisory committee or various ad hoc topic committees to obtain or-derly input from participants including the disrupters By breaking a large meeting into smaller units you will find that the disruption can be diluted or mitigated When dis-rupters are ldquobrought inside the tentrdquo it is more difficult for them to act as disrupters This approach can include simply asking the disrupter for ideas for improving the legitimacy or quality of the process



WRANGLING RUN-ON RESIDENTS AND HANDLING HIJACKERSJoanne Garnett faicp Orion Planning + Design

How can we courteously (and effectively) cut off a participant that is rambling wildly off-topic at a planning workshop or deal with someone who has come to a public meeting to attack the item under discussion and derail the process Are we supposed to let them talk because they have the floor

It may seem counterintuitive to make someone stop talking at a public meeting but facilitators must be willing to do that to preserve the integrity of the event and keep the momentum of the meeting going forward Most residents who attend planning functions are there to listen learn and contribute to the discussion under way Their time is valuable and it is not fair for them to have that time wasted by someone who is speaking off-topic or actively trying to be disruptive

One tip Use the structure of the meeting itself as a tool to limit the impacts of hijackers and ramblers while still gathering important feedback from the group To help keep a single negative or just plain loud voice from dominating and to be efficient with the use of time my planning firm uses a small-group breakout format when convening many of our public meetings

The process is straightforward Begin the meeting by welcoming attendees and providing a brief background and an explanation of expectations for the meeting Then break the large group into smaller groups Each group is given five minutes to work together to answer a question presented to them by the facilitator with one person per table recording their collective answers At the end of the five minutes each table ranks their answers and a reporter for each group presents the top responses

The facilitator then notes the common themes found in all the responses Typically two or three rounds of questions can be covered in this format per meeting

With this approach the tight time frame forces each group to stay focused on the task at hand and the small group format limits the influence and dominance of loud negative voices While there may still be some negativity that creeps into the responses we find that most of the content generated through this process is constructive and very useful for planning purposes

Sometimes however even a carefully structured process isnrsquot enough to keep the conversation on track What happens then Recently I observed a planner (a partner of my firm) handle this potentially thorny problem extremely well We were facilitating a public workshop in Wyoming to discuss the update of a county plan and more than 50 citizens and elected officials were in attendance Based on the meeting structure described above the planner was leading an exercise in which small breakout groups at different tables were given three minutes to brainstorm answers to a specific question about the county with each table then given one minute to share their answers with the larger group

With these parameters very clearly set one individual launched into a diatribe that very quickly ran off the rails and had nothing to do with the question at hand He began by saying he had recently moved to the area from out of state and after 30 seconds of listening to him speak about how difficult it was to live in the Chicago region and what he hated about that area the other 49-

plus people in attendance had looks of confusion on their faces and were beginning to squirm in their seats

As soon as it became clear that the person was indeed off the rails the planner stopped him in mid-sentence and asked him to please focus on answering the question his group had been asked to address The individual continued to talk off-topic about Illinois and was cut off once more by the planner who politely repeated his request for the individual to answer the question his table had been discussing This time the individual answered the question As soon as he did the planner thanked him for his response and moved on to the next table

At the end of the meeting the chair of the county commissioners approached the planner to thank him repeatedly for how he handled the situation and kept the meeting flowing and productive

The message is this When something like this occurs donrsquot be shy about stopping a member of the public when they are speaking off topic Letting participants ramble or talk off topic frustrates everyone else in the room doesnrsquot address the issue being discussed and frankly can be a waste of time when time is limited Just remember that it is important to remain calm polite and respectful while still being firm Being able to deftly halt those one-way conversations and still get the desired feedback before moving on is a much-needed skill for all facilitators of public meetings



The Worst-Case ScenarioStrategic disrupters whether following a plan or as a one-off emotionally charged actor may make it difficult to conduct a peaceful civilized meeting process

If one or more disrupters is totally uncooperative and actively interferes with participants the facilitator should respectfully insist that he or she take up the issue later in a separate forum and identify what that forum would be

Often such attacks are aimed at the very legitimacy of the larger meeting or planning process If so ask the disrupter to put his concerns on record and then move on with the meeting

As a last resort call a recess to the meeting and talk indi-vidually with the disrupter(s) and ask them to follow the rules or leave the meeting If serious disruptions are expected prior to the meeting it is not inappropriate to have law enforce-ment personnel present to assist with escorting people from the meeting if necessary This obviously is a last resort and fortunately is not a common occurrence

The facilitator should try to avoid ending the meeting prematurely However if he or she senses that it is impossible to have a productive meeting because of multiple disrupters it may be appropriate to check in with the group to deter-mine whether participants wish to continue the meeting If the consensus is that it is more feasible and productive to end the meeting and reschedule to continue at a future time the facilitator should respect that preference and may indeed of-fer that option as an attractive alternative to the other partici-pants if they feel rattled or intimidated

An advance disrupter management approach when such disrupters can be anticipated is to have an appropriate author-ity figure such as a key staff member from the mayorrsquos or man-agerrsquos office act as an ombudsman that the facilitator can send the disrupter to for mediation and follow-up as needed

Above all be mindful of the British motto ldquoKeep calm and carry onrdquo

The sidebar on p 87 shares some additional advice for preparing for disruptive behavior from the Philadelphia City Planning Commission

RESOURCE LIMITATIONS

Facilitation is labor intensive both in the preparation and execution of facilitated meetings Thus it often stresses the budget resources of any planning project Sometimes elected leaders fully appreciate the need and requirements of a well-facilitated meeting process for public policy making in high-stakes projects However every elected body has multiple

competing priorities for limited financial resources thus fa-cilitation efforts may often be pared down to the minimum Further as discussed in the next section public interest in face-to-face involvement in planning processes is changing

Facilitators should do two things when designing a meet-ing process for a planning project First they should make the case to the client of the benefit and importance of providing adequate facilitation resources in the first place Second they should design the process to make the most efficient use of whatever resources are made available A reasonable rule of thumb is to designate 10 to 15 percent of a planning projectrsquos budget for facilitation and communication

Conceptually the main way to limit expenditures is to limit the person-hours required to facilitate meetings This can be done by having fewer large meetings (such as con-ference forums which tend to be labor intensive) and more smaller meetings (such as advisory committee meetings us-ing stakeholder representatives) Greater use of surveys and online tools can also extend the reach of involvement at a po-tentially lower per-contact cost

A third approach is to truncate the overall time schedule by using a more intensive and compact meeting schedule In addition to limitations on funding many public policy proj-ects are limited by time or more specifically a sense of ur-gency There is often a tendency to want to complete a project quickly in order to satisfy the demands of stakeholders who are clamoring for a solution to a major policy issue However experience has shown that too often if a project is rushed it can cause a backlash of fear and suspicion among those con-stituents who may be skeptical or worried about the potential results This again can cause the policy makers to have to slow the process or even start over with a reconfigured public in-volvement approach to dispel the mistrust that was caused by the initial rush In such cases it is ironic that rushing the project causes it to take longer to be completed than if it had been done more deliberately in the first place

Fortunately the best approach to getting the most valu-able and effective public involvement is often also the most economical from a resource and time standpoint For exam-ple if an appointed advisory committee consists of a dozen or two carefully selected representatives of the stakeholders at large and the public is provided with clear and convenient ways to review the work of that committee and provide per-sonal input at key junctures through an online tool and con-ference or open house meetings the result might be both a better product and a more timely and cost-effective process This approach isnrsquot always the best but it shows that if the facilitator begins with the question ldquoWhat is the best method



PREPARING FOR DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIORDonna J Carney leed ap Director Citizens Planning Institute Philadelphia City Planning Commission

A key part of meeting planning is thinking about who will be in the room and why they are there Whether you are planning a small workshop or a large public meeting there is always a potential for disruptive behavior that could derail the agenda or cause you to lose credibility

People arenrsquot ldquodifficultrdquo They are only behaving in ways that donrsquot match up with your expectations People come to meetings with all kinds of motivations They may want to talk about something other than the focus of the meeting and want others to hear their passion Or they may have a grudge against someone presenting or associated with the topic

At the Philadelphia City Planning Commission we sometimes see people from neighborhoods who feel theyrsquove been ignored or who have had negative experiences with someone in city government that affects their perception of everyone who works in city government Instead of hoping these people donrsquot show up you can prepare for how you will handle disruptive behaviors

Planning commission staff worked on meeting strategies over the eight years of public meetings we held for 17 different district plans As public servants we have a responsibility to be responsive to everyone who shows up at every meeting we host The following tips are written from a city planning staff perspective

Create a welcoming environment Itrsquos harder for someone to take an adversarial position when they are personally greeted at the entrance and are offered refreshments (even if itrsquos only pretzels and water) We show we value

their attendance and want to learn more about them by asking them to sign in and to add a ldquodotrdquo on a map that shows the general location of their residence

Be clear about the purpose of the meeting and the agenda We let people know that we value their time and wersquore here to listen Most meetings start with a front-of-room presentation with background information and a description of the small table group work they will be doing The focus of the meeting is on facilitated exercises at small tables We avoid grandstanding by not opening these meetings up to QampA We make it clear participants are here to provide their insights as the ldquoexpertsrdquo in their community and our job is to listen

If you do need to include a QampA period make the ground rules clear Never let go of the microphone Have someone moderate who is not afraid to redirect anyone without a clear question or cut off someone who goes off-topic

Provide options for people to express their opinions We ask people who may not want to participate in the planned activity to record ideas on a ldquoparking lotrdquo flipchart board We also use staff ldquofloatersrdquo who walk around the room and watch for individuals who may be disrupting a table discussion with a specific concern They will either provide support at the table or will direct the person to designated staffers to community members on the steering committee or to city council office staff for a private discussion

Use community contacts to learn who may be coming to disrupt Each district plan has a steering committee with representation from all community organizations They test the group exercises in advance and let staff know

who may be coming with a particular issue we need to know about in advance Citizen Planners (those who have gone through the cityrsquos Citizens Planning Institute course httpscitizensplanning instituteorg) are our community advocates They not only help us get the word out that this is a meeting people need to go to but help us build credibility in those communities As trusted members of their neighborhoods Citizen Planners have stepped in on our behalf to defuse tensions They help us build trust with the neighborhood by challenging the ldquousrdquo (citizens) versus ldquothemrdquo (city government) perception

Last resort get backup In Philadelphia city agencies can request nonuniformed ldquocivil affairsrdquo personnel to attend the meeting and observe If needed these officers can talk to or remove anyone who threatens the peace and safety of a public meeting These are situations that staff shouldnt be expected to handle



for this community at this time to involve the public in this projectrdquo and then modifies the design to fit the budget it is possible to have a win-win result

TRENDS IN THE LEVEL AND TYPE OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

Sometimes the biggest challenge to facilitated meetings for public planning processes is not limited resources but the limited interest or availability of the stakeholders at large Many residents are hesitant or unable to spend precious time involved in public meetings

Digital communications have transformed our society and economy in many ways These tools have influenced the nature of public involvement in local planning processes as well In some places they have made participation in public meetings more vigorous especially by younger people by making it eas-ier to spread information about issues projects and events In other places the rapid pace of modern life has constrained the ability of residents to participate in live meetings

In some communities public involvement has become less consistentmdashwhat one might call ldquolumpyrdquo Attendance at live public meetings is less consistently robust than in the past Interested parties may come out in full force to meetings for the occasional controversial or urgent matter but people are often busy with other priorities Thus not every public meeting process can rely as much on getting strong citizen at-tendance at conventional live meeting events as it might have before our lives became so multilayered

One way to counter these trends is to engage more young people directly in the planning process This adds a youth perspective directly to public input that may not otherwise be captured in public engagement efforts It also introduces youth to the planning process and may make them more likely to engage in future community planning projects The sidebar on p 89 offers specific guidance for facilitating meet-ings with students

In rapidly growing communities or communities fac-ing a crisis (eg economic or environmental) live attendance may still be very robust for particular projects Yet the chang-ing tools for communication and information distribution in our society offer both encouragement and discouragement of live meeting involvement The trend toward more sporadic citizen involvement may be an ongoing challenge in many mdashbut certainly not allmdashcommunities

To the extent that the trend of reduced or sporadic in-volvement is evident in a community the design of a facilita-

tion process should take it into account Several of the tools discussed in this report can be part of the solution Certainly use of online tools has shown a tremendous ability to expand engagement and as tools continue to improve this expansion should continue In addition to surveys engagement tools that allow deep interaction among participants are now avail-able and improving all the time The sidebar on pp 90ndash91 explores digital engagement tools more deeply

Several conventional tools still hold promise as well in-cluding greater use of intensely focused representative tools such as focus groups and stakeholder advisory committees both of which allow strong and targeted representation of the broad population of stakeholders with less direct involve-ment of the public at large

Greater use of smaller and more intensive representa-tional tools as well as online engagement tools allows for proportionately less use of conventional (and costly) mass en-gagement tools such as open conference forums (which can potentially be replaced in part by these alternative approach-es) Most often the selection of engagement approaches for major projects will not be ldquoone or the otherrdquo but rather a mix-ture of tools Planners and facilitators should be constantly exploring and testing new ways to improve public engage-ment in the local government planning process

CONCLUSION

Facilitating complex group meetings about challenging is-sues especially with conflicts among participants can pres-ent difficulties and challenges for the facilitator Common ones have been discussed here Others may emerge some-times in surprising ways Facilitators must be nimble and creative to respond positively and productively to whatever challenges do arise Experience and practice will help facilita-tors prepare for and handle all types of situations including constantly evolving demographics and technology



MEETING FACILITATION FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTSMiguel A Vazquez aicp

In 2004 the Department of Public Health in Riverside County California created the LUPA project (httpdophlupaweebly com) to raise youth awareness about the importance of land-use planning in the eastern Coachella Valley where more than 90 percent of the population is Latino

LUPA stands for Land Use Planning Awareness and the term in Spanish means ldquomagnifying glassrdquo Through the lens of planning we can carefully examine issues that may otherwise go unseen just as a magnifying glass allows us to see beyond the naked eye LUPA fosters community empowerment through critical thinking civic dialogue and civic engagement as avenues to influence decision making in land-use planning LUPArsquos main components include building youth power through land-use planning awareness and knowledge fostering critical thinking to improve decision making and showing participants how general plan elements connect to planning projects and issues especially individual and community health

As part of the project planners held multiple meetings over a period of nearly six months with three separate cohorts of high school students The experience generated a number of les-sons for effectively facilitating meetings with youth

bull Successful meetings with youth require at least three times the amount of time allocated to a traditional meeting For a three-hour meeting the first hour should be dedicated to breaking the ice building trust and connecting through storytelling The second hour should entail connecting the

issue with their personal experiences and the last hour should be used to plan and summarize

bull High school studentsrsquo attention spans are generally short so keep the meeting lively and entertain-ing Create various activities that can help avoid boredom each activity should not last more than 15 min-utes Providing prizes and pizza can help to set a positive fun tone for the meeting

bull If possible team up with an adult who may already have a relationship with the group such as a principal teacher advisor or someone they know and trust

bull Facilitation techniques may vary by grade For the lower grades integrate elements of play and surprise to capture their attention Working with higher grades may involve posing more critical-thinking questions

bull Avoid using planning lingo but

provide the necessary depth when explaining planning issues For ex-ample do not assume that the au-dience will know the meaning of ldquogentrificationrdquo Explain the situa-tion or concept first and then pro-vide the term

bull Do the best you can to learn the studentsrsquo names immediately When asking for feedback call on whoever wants to share by their first name

bull To ensure that everyone participates wrap up the meeting by going around the room and asking the students for any thoughts they may want to share in relation to the topic the meeting itself or any new information they learned

Facilitating meetings with high school students can be one of the most rewarding experiences for a planner and in the process you may be inspiring the next generation of planners

Figure 71 The author facilitating a meeting with high school students from the eastern Coachella Valley in

Riverside County (Miguel Vazquez)



DIGITAL ENGAGEMENT TOOLSMichael Callahan aicp Principal Planner EPR

Digital engagement tools have enhanced the ways planners work with the public While not a complete solution for drawing in fragmented audiences and distracted people they can reach more people than traditional tools and extend the reach of planner-facilitators The key to success is how they are used Critical questions include

bull Why are we engaging the publicbull What information do we need now bull What is the best way to obtain

this information from groups that represent the entire community

Answering these questions will help in selecting the proper tools for the job

Most digital engagement tools fall into two broad categoriesmdashtools for engaging people online and tools to facilitate participation at live meetings A key principle is that the tool should supplement face-to-face conversations not replace them The hard and critical work of negotiating conflict and crafting plans still happens best when people are gathered in person and working together However the digital tools described here can certainly enhance and deepen face-to-face contact and the technology continues to improve

Online Engagement Planners typically use online tools to inform the public and provide opportunities for input for a project You may choose from a wide array of low-cost or free tools or subscribe to a service that meets your needs in one platform

bull Project websites This original digital engagement tool is still important and can be a gateway to more

robust interactive tools Surveys and mapping tools that allow people to pinpoint spatial opportunities and issues add an element of interaction to project websites

bull Social media Planners have found creative ways to use social media tools and hashtags to connect people interested in planning efforts Social media is important because people visit these sites many times a day whereas a project website may not be as fresh and current

bull Survey tools A simple survey is a powerful way to gather large amounts of input although it does not offer opportunities for interaction like social media As with any survey the questions must be carefully crafted to be clear and unbiased Planner-facilitators must also be careful about drawing conclusions from surveys Unless a rigorous random or stratified sample is used the results may not be statistically valid and thus may not be any more precise a measure of public opinion than any other self-selected sample of opinion

bull All-in-one packages Several tools are available to help planners meet many needs from a single platform often as a subscription service Some may be geared towards a particular planning approachmdashsuch as scenario planningmdashwhile others are robust community en-gagement platforms

Engagement at Face-to-Face MeetingsDigital tools are available that enable planners to obtain large amounts of information from an assembled group of people The advancement of GPS technology has also enabled tools that

can be used in the field which can be incorporated into a walking tour to quickly capture observations

bull Voting tools Meeting time is valuable and tools that allow people to answer a question from their seat using a handheld device allow planners to quickly ascertain how the assembled group feels about a particular issue These devicesmdashwhich could be cell phonesmdashalso allow anonymity which can be useful when the topic is particularly sensitive These tools can be incorporated into presentations and results can be tabulated and presented in real time providing much greater productivity to a live meeting

bull Storytelling tools Planners can use video and audio recording tools to capture stakeholdersrsquo stories The stories can articulate values treasured places whatrsquos already working in a place and much more

bull Asset mapping tools Traditional asset mapping uses paper maps dots and markers to learn what people value in their community But new tools allow people to share their input on the go and can be incorporated into a walking tour of the neighborhood

Advantages and Disadvantages Like all tools online digital engagement tools have advantages and disadvantages The advantages include

bull Convenience Digital engagement tools expand the time during which people can engage Participation is no longer limited to a two-hour



meeting at 6 pm on a weeknight This greatly expands the potential for stakeholder involvement

bull Inclusiveness Many people such as those with a physical disability people who work evenings or people with child care conflicts may find it easier to engage online This makes it possible to reach new audiences and hear from new voices compared to conventional face-to-face meetings

bull Quick readability These tools can be an effective way to ldquotake the temperaturerdquo of the stakeholder population Digital tools tend to generate a lot of information from many different people which provides high-level insights into public opinion and understanding

bull Anonymity While anonymity comes with drawbacks discussed below it can also empower people to be more open and honest and give voices to people uncomfortable with speaking in a public forum

The disadvantages include

bull Data overload Digital engagement can unleash a tsunami of responses and making sense of everything can be challenging One solution is to create themes that capture recurring sentiments Be judicious in creating themes distill information for decision makers

bull Validity One cannot assume that the input obtained through digital engagement tools is valid simply because many people participated Digital tools will suffer from the same bias inherent in self-selection as in-person meetings

bull Anonymity Although anonymity can be beneficial it can also give people opportunities to engage in unproductive or rude discourse In general digital engagement tools

should incorporate methods to limit anonymity where possible

With virtual tools the facilitation team does not know who is ldquoin the roomrdquo The discussion cannot be contained within four walls People come and go people ldquolurkrdquo People may comment using an alias Policing the discussion becomes the default A facilitator canrsquot ldquofacilitaterdquo when he or she doesnrsquot even know who is in the ldquoroomrdquo and who is participating It is a completely different environment from conventional meetings

Digital engagement tools do not replace a person trained as a facilitator whose job it is to create an environment where all voices are respected and given equal opportunities to participate in a conversation While some online tools allow for a moderator that person must frequently monitor and engage in the conversation which requires a significant investment in time

Other difficulties in facilitating an online engagement compared to a face-to-face engagement include the following

bull The conversation is ongoing continuous and indefinite The facilitator cannot be present for every moment Thus ldquomoderatorrdquo is a better term than ldquofacilitatorrdquo because that is someone who must check in periodically to make sure the ground rules are followed but is not an ever-present force like a facilitator is in a live meeting

bull The distance and separation between participants in the discussion makes it easy for people to say things they would never say face-to-face So again the moderator is in a monitoring mode more than a facilitation mode

bull With virtual engagement people can say something and then ldquowalk awayrdquo whereas in person there is normally

an opportunity for the facilitator or another member of the audience to respond and engage in conversation

Online digital engagement tools allow facilitators to expand the scope of involvement among stakeholders generate more input and interaction in a given time period and involve groups of people who might not otherwise participate in a conventional meeting However they generate huge amounts of information that must be processed they are time consuming to monitor and the anonymity can invite unproductive behavior among participants Though planners should weigh these pros and cons carefully overall digital engagement tools add a welcome array of instruments to the plannerrsquos toolbox

CHAPTER 8MAKING IT ALL HAPPEN


Facilitating meetings is challenging enjoyable and rewarding work Fortunately urban planners usually get to do a lot of it Even as more group interactions move to online formats many of the principles of facilitation still apply Especially in the public policy arena the need for some face-to-face group interactions will remain for the foreseeable future Thus all planners will benefit from developing their facilitation skills as will professionals in other fields who want to help groups work produc-tively and reach consensus decisions

Some of the most rewarding work a planner can do is to fa-cilitate difficult meetings in which people begin in conflict over an important issue of public policy that matters to them personally Helping them to better understand each otherrsquos concerns and to reach agreement on new solutions to seem-ingly intractable problems is deeply satisfying

The keys to successful facilitation can be summarized briefly as follows

1 A facilitatorrsquos authority is given by the groupThis is a wonderful paradox The facilitator exerts ldquocon-trolrdquo over the group by giving it the power to control it-self The group gives the facilitator his or her authority as facilitator The key is that the power resides in the group as a whole not one individual This reinforces collabo-ration and shared power As facilitators planners must always rely on the group to determine how things are going to judge progress at each step to affirm all deci-sions and to enforce (or help the facilitator enforce) the ground rules If the facilitator can maintain the trust of the group the group will look to the facilitator for guid-ance on process and will have faith in the facilitator as a neutral party who is very helpful to them

2 Show respect to all at all timesThe most fundamental tool in working with any group is to show respect for all participants This is critical for a facilitator No person can be dismissed or favored regardless of their knowledge or personality In fact a well-planned and framed meeting should be structured to not give a ldquoknowledge expertrdquo an unreasonable ad-vantage over the rest of the group Framing should lean

toward questions based on opinion preference vision and insight Like sharing power showing respect can have magical effects in taming belligerent or disruptive people and in helping all people hear each other despite differences they may have on policy procedure or cul-tural background

3 Maintain neutrality to maintain trustBeing perceived as neutral and nonpartisan is critical to maintaining trust which is essential to maintaining authority as a facilitator The facilitator is only there to help the group work through the issues in a productive manner not to push for a particular policy choice Thus facilitators must have the discipline to refrain from im-posing substantive opinions on the group This is not an absolute principle because as noted planners may have to serve as both policy experts and facilitators Yet when balancing these two roles planners must take care to provide context for any policy advice or opinions they offer and to be careful and respectful in inserting that information into the grouprsquos discussions Facilitators should always check in with the group to make sure it doesnrsquot think they are being too heavy-handed with any substantive comments

4 Actively engage people Facilitators should be actively engaged in the discussion process They should provide energy to the group when it wanes and provide calm when the atmosphere becomes heated They should engage the group and ask questions for clarity follow-up or more detail as the discussions unfold Facilitators should show curiosity and enthusi-asm for the topic and the participantsrsquo ideas They should



not talk too muchmdashitrsquos the grouprsquos meeting not the fa-cilitatorrsquosmdashbut neither should they be passive wallflow-ers with no energy Facilitators should learn to read the flow and mood of the group and facilitate accordingly

5 Practice practice practiceThe main thing about facilitation is that itrsquos a bit like play-ing sports or music no matter how much someone might study it on paper it comes down to live performance Fa-cilitation is indeed a performance and the only way to develop and improve skill at facilitation is by doing it As in so many cases of professional development you canrsquot do it until you know how and you canrsquot know how until you do it Planners just have to dive in at every oppor-tunity Certainly observing and working with a skilled facilitator will allow you to learn key techniques includ-ing use of body language But do not hesitate to dive in

Planners can start with small meetings that have small stakes Internal staff meetings are good examples Volunteer-ing to help local nonprofit groups is another as is assisting experienced facilitators by serving as a recorder or cofacilita-tor As planners get comfortable with the nuances of handling a work group they can take on more challenging settings It took this author years of facilitating many dozens of meetings before he became truly confident that he could handle any kind of meeting regardless of the difficulty or complexity

Finding and working with a mentor who is already skillful at facilitation can speed up your development The American Planning Association offers opportunities to find or become a mentor see wwwplanningorgmentoring for more information Your APA state chapter may also have mentor resources as well as contacts for volunteer facilita-tion opportunities

Facilitation is an important and valuable skill Meeting facilitation skills lead to a general understanding apprecia-tion and use of collaborative work processes which are in-creasingly needed in todayrsquos complex and diverse world in both government and business settings The planning profes-sion can never have enough good facilitators

This PAS Report provides much of the basic information on which to build a set of strong facilitation skills Readers can use this information to further develop these skills in their professional practicesmdashand then apply those skills in taking on the exciting and rewarding work of meeting facili-tation in many different settings within the world of commu-nity and strategic planning




A PLANNERrsquoS GUIDE TO MEETING FACILITATIONPA S 595 A P P E N D I X A

APPENDIX A SAMPLE LOGISTICS CHECKLIST

This checklist covers the logistical tasks usually required for preparing for and conducting a meeting Not all of these tasks will always apply to every situation but this list provides good general guidance It includes the various tasks that need to be done in advance of a meeting as well as the materials and equipment that are often needed especially when preparing for large-scale meetings Facilitators can refine and customize this checklist to fit the precise needs of their own community or work environment Using a checklist in preparing for each meeting provides assurance that no critical element will be missed

bull Ground rules (proposed subject to modification by the group printed on back of agenda)

bull Contact data sheetroster (may also be printed on back of agenda)

bull Project summary (purpose schedule roles etc may also include client contact data)

bull Question sheets or exercise work sheets for participants as needed

For Facilitatorsbull Notesguidelines or annotated agenda with ground rules

as needed

Equipmentbull Projection screen [unless a wall surface is adequate]bull Laptop and projector with remote and extra bulb or back-

up projectorbull Microphoneaudio as needed [lapel mic if possible]bull Extension cords duct tapebull Sturdy easels for flip chart pads [a cloth case for each easel

makes transport convenient]bull Camerasmdashstill and video [smart phones may suffice

depending on desired production values]

Materialsbull Large-format markable base maps andor aerial photos

for display or use by breakout groups as neededbull Large-format information or resource maps for display or

use by breakout groups as neededbull Sign-in sheetbull Name tags (for a small group name ldquotentsrdquo for table tops if

Advance Tasksbull Advance work to learn about the community and

expected publicbull Schedule the meeting announce and advertise notify

participantsbull Reserve the space make sure itrsquos suitable (size lighting

acoustics breakout rooms thermostat control physical access etc)

bull Recruit and train project facilitation team for larger projects including volunteers

bull Public communication public information and media outreach in advance of the public events

Space Setupbull Post directional signs inside and outside building as

neededbull Sign-in table at entrance with handouts nametags and

sign-in sheets for names and contact databull Tables [round is preferred]bull Chairs around tables or semicircle for discussionsbull Flip chart with easel for plenary session and for each

breakout group number and date each flip chart padbull Set up breakout rooms as neededbull Install and check any audio visual or technology to be

used in advance

Handouts

For Participantsbull Agenda (handout format)



participantsrsquo names are known)bull Flip chart pads bull Drafting tape or painterrsquos tape if not using sticky-back

sheets [not masking tape to avoid damage to wall surfaces]bull Water-soluble markers for flip charts and maps [Water-

soluble markers do not bleed through the paper so underlying flip chart sheets are not marked up by the previous ones and adding notes to sheets after they have been posted on the wall doesnrsquot damage the wall]

bull Colored stick-on dots 34-inch diameter (for dot-voting exercises) [smaller or translucent ones can work better for use on maps and graphics]

bull Small sticky note padsbull Pencils pens and small note pads for participants bull Tacks or pins (if needed for pinning maps or charts on a

wall or bulletin board)

[Note that the materials for each breakout group can be stored in small cardboard boxes or plastic bins This makes transportation distribution and pack-up very convenient]

Refreshmentsbull Coffee juice water crackers fruit as appropriate [avoid

donuts and soft drinks due to the high sugar content]bull Utensils napkins paper towels plastic garbage bags as

appropriate


A PLANNERrsquoS GUIDE TO MEETING FACILITATIONPA S 595 A P P E N D I X B

APPENDIX B SAMPLE AGENDAS

Note that agendas vary greatly depending on the nature and scale of the meeting and the culture of the community or organization Following are examples of meeting agendas The first second and third examples are sets that include the handout agenda for the group as well as the annotated agenda for the facilitation team The last two examples did not require annotated agendas The fourth agenda had ldquo facilitator guidelinesrdquo (not shown here) and the fifth agenda was simple enough that the facilitator worked from the handout agenda

845 pm Recap and Next Stepsmdash Attendees

9 pm Adjourn

Contact DataJane Chairperson jchairpersontheboardofdirectorscomJoe Jones jjonesfacilitatorsruscom

Proposed Protocols [printed on the back of the agenda]1 Brainstormmdashdonrsquot debate2 Keep comments brief and polite3 Raise your hand to be recognized by the facilitator4 Listen closely to each other5 Share responsibility for the outcome 6 Make decisions by broad consensus

Annotated agenda for the facilitator and client representative

Community Meeting on Commercial Activities in the Town Center

Date amp Time Monday February 25 7 pm Location Community Center

Purposebull To allow all attendees to express concerns complaints

suggestions etc about activities on the Plaza andbull To reach agreement among ourselves about what are

acceptable levels of noise and activity for the community

SAMPLE AGENDA 1 PUBLIC NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING

This agenda is for the first of a series of public meetings of neighborhood residents to address and resolve complaints from residents about noise from commercial establishments in the neighborhood The handout agenda for the meeting had the proposed ground rules printed on the back The annotated agenda was for the facilitator and client representative

Agenda handed out to participants at the meeting






Agenda7 pm Welcome Introductions and Backgroundmdash

Jane Chairperson Chair of the Board of Directors710 pm Meeting Process Overview mdash

Joe Jones aicp Facilitator730 pm Facilitated Discussionmdash

Attendees (facilitated by Joe Jones)



Agenda7 pm Welcome Introductions and BackgroundmdashJane Chairperson710 pm Meeting Process OverviewmdashJoe Jones aicpbull Goals and purpose of this processbull Agendaprocess for tonightbull Protocolsmdashask for self-introductions when each person

first speaks730 pm Facilitated DiscussionmdashAttendees bull Why do you live in the townbull What are your expectationsbull What are the major issues and concernsbull Identify options

bull Activity limitationsbull Physical upgradesbull Procedurescommunication

845 pm Recap and Next StepsmdashAttendees9 pm Adjourn

SAMPLE AGENDA 2 PUBLIC VISIONING MEETING

This set of agendas is for the first of four public visioning meetings to prepare a new comprehensive plan for a growing rural agricultural county


Public Forum 1September 16 7 pmCentral High School

AgendaThe major objectives of this meeting are tobull Assess current trends in land use and developmentbull Clarify and affirm the vision of the County Comprehensive

Plan andbull Define the needs and expectations of local citizens

7 pm Welcome Introductions and Project Overview720 pm Review Comprehensive Plan Vision and Initial Planning Analyses750 pm Breakout Group Exercises850 pm Breakout Group Presentations Review Next Steps930 pm Adjourn

Annotated agenda given to the facilitation team and client project manager

Annotated AgendaPublic Forum 1 County Community Planning Project7 pm to 930 pm September 16

The major objectives of this meeting are tobull Assess current trends in land use and developmentbull Clarify and affirm the vision of the comprehensive planbull Define the needs and expectations of local citizens

5 pm Staff consultant arrive begin setup6 pm Facilitators arrive complete setup7 pm Welcome Introductions and Project Overview (15 minutes)bull Welcome and introductions (5 minutes)

bull Chair welcomes everyone introduces county staff and other officials

bull Lead facilitator introduces consulting team bull Project overview (10 minutes)

bull Lead facilitator reviews project objectives schedule proposed decision-making process and tonightrsquos objectives agenda logistics and ground rules (5 minutes)

715 pm Review the Comprehensive Plan Visionmdashconsulting team (30 minutes)Lead facilitator willbull Encourage participants to jot down questionsmdashteam

will answer at end of meeting andor in later email transmissions (5 min)

bull Review the eight points of the Vision (5 min)bull Review highlights of recent work toward implementation

(5 min)bull Agricultural task force bull County forum bull Current policies and regulations

bull Present summary of initial planning analysis (10 min)bull Growth trendsbull Buildout analysis

bull Review the process for developing methods to implement the vision (5 min)

At this forumbull Assess current trends in land use and developmentbull Clarify and affirm the vision of the comprehensive planbull (Define termsmdasheg ldquorural communityrdquo etc)bull Define expectations and needs of farmland owners and



other citizensbull Describe and illustrate the vision (mapping exercise)

At next forum Sept 24bull Clarifyaffirm assumptions about future trendsbull Define the problembull Identify and evaluate toolsactions that would achieve the

vision

At third and fourth forums evaluate refine and affirm toolsactions

745 pm Breakout Group Exercises (60 minutes)bull Lead facilitator reviews purpose procedures and ground

rules for the exercise including description of the base map materials at each table

bull Participants break into groups of five to ten (group number assignments are on the agenda that each person was given upon entering)

bull Each group will do two tasks (30 minutes each)bull Brainstorm a list of key ideas on flip charts

bull Attributes that describe a ldquorural communityrdquo and ldquoopen agricultural characterrdquo

bull Ideas for measuring whether rural community character is maintained (identify which areas are now ldquoruralrdquo and which are not)

bull Describe the long-term concerns and desires of citizensbull Farmers and owners of large landholdingsbull Other rural residents who donrsquot farmbull Residents on small landholdings in and around

towns and villagesbull Mark up base map showing preferred general long-term

locations ofbull Agriculture (farm-dominated) and conservation

(undeveloped protected) (green)bull Population and employment concentrations (red)

(show x acreage)bull Transportation link improvements (black)bull Other major public facility improvements such as

schools parks etc (brown)bull Each group will choose a reporter to present back to the

full group845 pm Breakout Group Presentations bull Reconvene set up maps and flip charts to present (5

minutes)bull Give five groups (randomly selected) 7 minutes each to

present (40 minutes total)

bull General assessment review next steps (5 minutes)

930 pm Adjourn

Instructions for Breakout Groups [given to each facilitator of the small breakout groups]

Complete in 60 minutes 1 Brainstorm a list of the following

bull Features that describe a ldquorural communityrdquo with an ldquoopen agricultural characterrdquo (about 10 minutes)

bull Examples of areas in the county that are ldquoruralrdquo and examples of areas that are NOT rural (5ndash10 minutes)

bull Long-term concerns and desires of (about 10 minutes)bull Farmers and owners of large landholdingsbull Other rural residents who donrsquot farmbull Residents on small landholdings in and around

towns and villages2 Mark up the base map to show brainstorm ideas for

bull Areas that should remain undeveloped (use green marker)

bull Areas for population and employment concentrations (use red marker)

If time allows show ideas for bull Transportation improvements (use black marker) and bull Other public facilities (use brown marker)

3 Choose ReporterOne person from the group needs to volunteer to report the results back to the full plenary group

Key guidelines for your facilitation workbull Be positive enthusiastic and helpfulbull Enforce the key ground rules gently but firmly

bull Do not let any one person dominate the discussionmdashurge everyone to be involved

bull Make sure any disagreements are recorded on the flip chart or map thus allowing the group to ldquomove onrdquo and not get bogged down in debates

bull Keep the group focused together and suppress any ldquosidebarrdquo conversations

bull Keep the group mindful of the timemdashthey have only 60 minutes total to complete the two tasks

bull For the first task ensure that key ideas issues questions etc are accurately recorded on the flip charts



bull For the second task (mapping exercise) be sure that citizens participatemdashurge them to mark up the maps and jot notes and ideas right on the map sheets (They may tend to hold back especially at the beginning of the mapping exercise)

bull Donrsquot try to answer factual or substantive questionsmdashrather be sure to record any such questions in a unique color such as RED (ldquothe binrdquo or ldquoparking lotrdquo) and also urge them to jot down questions and comments on the comment sheets that they were given

bull Keep it fun

SAMPLE AGENDA 3 BOARD RETREAT

This set of agendas was for a Saturday morning retreat of the board of directors of a nonprofit organization to set priorities for fund-raising


Strategic Planning SessionSaturday March 1 830 am to 2 pm

Objectivesbull Assess and affirm the mission statement bull Identify priority methods for raising revenuebull Create a work plan for near-term actions

Agenda830 am Welcome and Introductions (30 minutes)bull WelcomemdashJohn Boardman Chairbull Introductions and Review AgendamdashSally Smith

Facilitator9 am Assess Mission Statement and Committee Plans (75 minutes)bull Review and reaffirm mission statement bull Review general strategic goals derived from committee

plans bull Review and evaluate revenue-raising methods of

committee plans 1015 am Break 1030 am Detail Each Revenue-Raising Method (105 minutes)1215 Lunch Break 1245 pm Identify Priorities and Create Work Plan (60 minutes)

145 pm Summarize and Recap Results and Next Steps2 pm Adjourn

Ground Rules [printed on back]1 Keep comments brief and polite2 Raise your hand 3 Listen closely to each other4 Share responsibility for the outcome5 Make decisions by broad consensus




Annotated Agenda730 am Complete room set-up8 am Open for coffee830 am Welcome and Intro (30 minutes)John opens the meeting with welcome and overview of purpose introduces me (Sally)

I reintroduce myself (include mention of time on the board and raves about the organization to others across the state)

Intro Exercisebull Everybody introduces themselvesbull I suggest we do the ldquoone unknown thing about yourdquo intro

exercise (Use index cards and then collect and everybody guesses who it is) Itrsquos a fun warm-up

Review and Affirm Protocolsbull Goal is to decide things on a consensus basismdashtry to

talk through issues to consensus If consensus canrsquot be achieved wersquoll note the specific points of disagreement let them ldquofermentrdquo and come back to them later

bull Thus everyone will be urged to participate fullybull Of course Irsquoll ask for standard ground rulesprotocols be

polite brief etc



Review and Affirmbull Objectives of the sessionbull Agenda process allocation of times for each part of the

session (always subject to adjustment by consensus of the group)

9 am Assess Mission Statement and Committee Plans (75 minutes)Review and reaffirm mission statement (15 minutes)

Mission ldquoOur mission is to preserve the historic buildings and open spaces of rdquoReview general strategic goals derived from committee plans (15 minutes)Review and evaluate revenue-raising methods of committee plans (45 minutes)bull Affirm concept that some committees are revenue

generators but all committees play a role in assuring financial sustainability

bull Identify pros and cons of each revenue method one committee at a time

bull Identify any additional methods (or variations) that might be missing

bull Discuss relative merits among all methodsmdashconflicts synergies costbenefit etc

1015 am Break (this could slide to 1030 if needed)

1030 am Detail Each Revenue-Raising Method (105 minutes)bull For each revenue-raising method identify responsibility

initial cost and expected benefitbull Identify timingsequential relationships of all methods

critical path interdependencies etc

1215 Lunch Break (provided in the downstairs meeting room)

1245 pm Identify Priorities and Create Work Plan (60 minutes)bull Compare each method and identify the logical priority or

sequence for allbull Compile into an integrated chart showing responsibility

timing cost and benefit

For Method for Raising Revenue

What is the method

Whorsquos responsible

When does it happen

How much does it cost

What are expected revenues

Major Task 1

Major Task 1

Major Task 1

145 pm Summarize and Recap Results and Next Steps

2 pm Adjourn

I will bringbull 3 easelsbull 3 flip chartsbull Drafting tapebull Colored markersbull Push pinsbull Index cardsbull 3 x 5 note padsbull Green dots red dots (in case a voting exercise may be

needed)bull Ballpoint pens for participantsbull Copies of ldquoSummary of Revenue-Raising Methods derived

from Committee Plansrdquobull Copies of ldquohandoutrdquo agenda for participants

Staff will bringbull Copies of full committee plans and any other supporting

info materialbull Pads of notebook papermdashone for each participantbull Refreshments and lunchbull Name tagsname tents [for facilitatorrsquos benefit]bull Staff will reserve and set up the meeting space prior to the

event (NOTE It will likely be very helpful to have a good amount of wall space on which to post flip chart sheets so we can keep track of our collective work products Whatever meeting room is selected should have such a feature)



SAMPLE AGENDA 4 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKSHOP

This sample agenda is for a weekend public meeting as part of a comprehensive plan element for a growing area of a rural county Issues of growth and traffic were paramount to the stakeholders These agendas were for a Friday night meeting followed by an all-day workshop on Saturday The sessions consisted of plenary presentations followed by small facilitated breakout sessions No annotated agenda was produced ndash the facilitation team met together in advance and to review the agenda in detail

Friday Agenda6 pm Welcome amp Introductions615 pm Issue Briefingsbull County planning contextbull Transportation contextbull Development patterns7 pm Discussion amp Questions bull Share concerns questions and input with facilitators745 pm Discussion of Summary Opportunities amp Constraints8ndash815 pm AdjournSaturday Agenda10 am Welcome amp Introductions1015 am Recap Opportunities amp Constraints from Friday Night Session1030 am Transportation Work SessionExercisesbull Brief recap of transportation issuesbull Break into small groups with facilitatorsbull Work through exercisesbull The future of Rt 29bull The future local road networkbull Present back to whole group1230 pm Break for Lunch 1 pm Development Patterns Work SessionExercisesbull Brief recap of development issuesbull Break into small groups with facilitatorsbull Work through exercisesbull Views amp screeningbull Future development patternbull Present back to whole group3 pm Closing Thoughts amp Next Steps315 pm Adjourn

SAMPLE AGENDA 5 RURAL PUBLIC WORKSHOP

This sample agenda is for a public workshop to organize arts-related activities in a rural county No separate annotated agenda was needed

Arts Council SummitOrganizational SessionWednesday November 176 pm to 730 pmMain Meeting Room County Government Center

bull Objectives of the Meeting Identify a core group of people who would champion the effort to establish a group that organizes programs and promotes arts-related activities in the county

bull Identify desired outcomes and important concerns

Agenda6ndash610 pm Welcome and introductions (10 minutes)610ndash620 pm Review and affirm objectives of this meeting (10 minutes)620ndash650 pm Brainstorm desired outcomes and important concerns regarding formation of a community arts council including (30 minutes)bull scope and breadth of activities and participantsbull relationship to other organizationsmdasharts tourism etcbull relationship to local governmentsbull timing expectations for getting establishedbull other650ndash7 pm Identify core group of people to lead the effort (10 minutes)7ndash715 pm Address other relevant topics (15 minutes)715ndash730 pm Identify next steps and assignments (15 minutes)730 pm Adjourn


A PLANNERrsquoS GUIDE TO MEETING FACILITATIONPA S 595 A P P E N D I X C

APPENDIX C SAMPLE EVALUATION SHEET

This is a sample template for a meeting evaluation sheet An instrument such as this can be given to participants at the start of the meeting to turn in before they leave This example is a long version that fits on the front and back of one sheet it can be truncated to fit on a single side sheet of paper by consolidating the open-ended questions to a single space on the back for all questions and comments

Date ______________________ Event ___________________________________________________________________

MEETING EVALUATION SHEET

We would appreciate you taking a few minutes to share your opinions about this meetingPlease return this form to the organizers at the end of the meeting

Please circle your preferred choice after each question

1 The goals of the meeting were clear

Disagree Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Strongly

2 The meeting format and process helped participants reach the goals


3 The information provided at the meeting was clear


4 I felt comfortable voicing my opinion and I felt I was heard


5 The meeting helped me better understand the issues


6 I will stay involved in this process until it is completed




7 What questions were you left with after this meeting __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

8 What did you like most about the meeting__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

9 How could the meeting have been improved__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

10 What other feedback would you like to share__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thank You

Your personal data (optional but please give us your zip code)

Name ______________________________________________________________________________________________

Phone ___________________________________________

Email address ________________________________________________________________________________________

Zip Code ________________________________________


A PLANNERrsquoS GUIDE TO MEETING FACILITATIONPA S 595 R E F E R E N C E S

REFERENCES

Arnstein Sherry 1969 ldquoA Ladder of Citizen Participationrdquo Journal of the American Planning Association 35(4) 216ndash24 Available at wwwtand fonlinecomdoiabs10108001944366908977225

Carpenter Susan L and WJD Kennedy 2001 Managing Public Disputes A Practical Guide to Reaching Agreements San Francisco Jossey-Bass Inc

Cogan Elaine 2000 Successful Public Meetings A Practical Guide Chicago Planners Press

Doyle Allison 2019 ldquoImportant Active Listening Techniques for Interviewsrdquo The Balance Careers April 30 Available at wwwthebalance careerscomactive-listening-skills-with-examples-2059684

Doyle Michael and David Strauss 1993 How to Make Meetings Work New York Berkley Trade

Dotson Bruce 2018 Personal communication December

Fulton William 1989 Reaching Consensus in Land Use Negotiations Chicago Planners Press

Garciacutea Ivis Andrea Garfinkel-Castro and Deirdre Pfeiffer 2019 Planning With Diverse Populations Planning Advisory Service Report 593 Chicago American Planning Association Available at wwwplanningorgpublicationsreport9165143

Herd Milton 2011 ldquoTreasured Places Exercise for Early Public Inputrdquo The Community Planner 1(4) SummerFall

Keltner Dacher 2017 The Power Paradox How We Gain and Lose Influence London Penguin Books

Kolb Alice and David Kolb 2005 ldquoThe Kolb Learning Style InventorymdashVersion 31 2005 Technical Specificationsrdquo Case Western Reserve

Madill Holly Bill Lennertz and Wayne Beyea 2018 ldquoCrafting Charrettes That Transform Communitiesrdquo PAS Memo November-December Available at wwwplanningorgpasmemo2018nov

Saint Steven and James R Lawson 1994 Rules for Reaching Consensus San Francisco Pfeiffer amp Company

Schwarz Roger M 1994 The Skilled Facilitator San Francisco Jossey-Bass Inc


A PLANNERrsquoS GUIDE TO MEETING FACILITATIONPA S 595 AC K N O W L E D G E M E N TS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many thanks for technical review and critique of the original draft manuscript by my colleagues (and expert facilitators) Michael Chandler phd Darren Coffey aicp Karen Gavrilovic aicp and Vladimir Gavrilovic aicp Deep thanks to Tabby Finch for editing the original manuscript and my wife Dawn Perusse for her patience

Many thanks for sidebar contributions from Kate Ange aicp Renaissance Planning Michael Callahan aicp EPR Don-na Carney Philadelphia City Planning Commission Seva Gandhi Institute of Cultural Affairs Joanne Garnett faicp Orion Planning + Design Alex Hoffman aicp and Jeffrey Howell aicp City of El Paso Texas Abby Monroe City of Chicago Ste-ven Preston faicp James Rojas Monica Wauck Smith aicp City of Milwaukee and Miguel Vazquez aicp

Thanks to Steven Preston faicp Laura Stetson aicp and Ron Thomas faicp for reviewing the final manuscript and to Ann Dillemuth aicp for final editing

Learn more at planningorgpas

All APA members get digital access to every new PAS publicationmdasheach one filled with expert guidance on big planning challenges relevant research and best practices

Digital PAS publications include

PAS Reports | PAS Memo | PAS QuickNotes

Members also get unlimited access to the entire PAS online archive and APArsquos Research KnowledgeBase Hundreds of resources are available for download

Includes Planning Advisory Service PublicationsMEMBERSHIP

Photo by PeopleImangesgettyim

agescom

American Planning Association205 N Michigan Ave Suite 1200Chicago IL 60601-5927

planningorg

PAS_Facilitation_Cover_531_web


PASR_Facilitation-WebInterior

_GoBack

_GoBack

_GoBack

_GoBack

_GoBack

_Hlk7537644

_GoBack

_GoBack

_GoBack



Since 1949 the American Planning Associationrsquos Planning Advisory Service has provided planners with expert research authoritative information on best practices and innovative solutions and practical tools to help them manage on-the-job challenges PAS Reports are produced in the Research Department of APA Joel Albizo fasae cae Chief Executive Officer David C Rouse faicp Managing Director of Research and Advisory Services Ann F Dillemuth aicp Editor APA membership includes access to all PAS publications including PAS Reports PAS Memo and PAS QuickNotes Learn more at planningorgpas Email pasreportsplanningorg

copy June 2019 American Planning Association which has offices at 205 N Mich-igan Ave Suite 1200 Chicago IL 60601-5927 and 1030 15th St NW Suite 750 West Washington DC 20005-1503 planningorg All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means without permission in writing from APA

ISBN 978-1-61190-203-7

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Milton J Herd faicp is an award-winning urban planner consultant and facilitator who specializes in collaborative planning processes for comprehensive plans strategic plans and zoning ordinances mostly for local governments Since 1978 he has served more than 80 localities throughout Virgin-ia as well as localities in 10 other states He served for more than 13 years as a planner for Loudoun County Virginia in-cluding four years as planning director during which he over-saw the preparation of the Loudoun County 1991 General Plan which received a national award from the American Planning Association in 1994 Since 1991 he has run his own consulting practice in Leesburg Virginia In 2014 Herd was inducted into the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Certified Planners (faicp) He holds bachelorrsquos and masterrsquos degrees in architecture from the University of Florida When time per-mits he sings and plays bluegrass guitar

ON THE COVER

An asset mapping exercise held as part of a public meeting in Evanston Illinois sponsored by the US Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos Office of Community Revitalization (Mike Callahan)

The American Planning Association provides leadership in the development of vital communities for all by advocating excellence in planning promoting education and resident empowerment and providing our members with the tools and support necessary to ethically meet the challenges of growth and change

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5












REFERENCES 106




FOREWORD







Milton Herd faicp






FACILITATION

ConflictCAN MANAGE




Facilitation




MaintainTrust

StayNeutral

Show Respect






EXECUTIVE SUMMARY






























































































of product creation















































ABOUT THIS REPORT










































MEETING SCALES






























































































Development









































CONCLUSION




(Mike Callahan EPR)














































































CONCLUSION

























































































































civil discussions





























































temas
































































































CONCLUSION












SET UP THE SPACE



























































ICEBREAKERS


































Herd)


ning Commission)
































group (Kate Ange)















































































CONCLUSION













ABOUT GROUND RULES







































group will have










BUILDING CONSENSUS




2 Be courteous



2 Be courteous



5 Raise your hand

6 Listen actively


2 Be courteous



5 Raise your hand

6 Listen actively





11 Have fun





Affirmed by TAC


Participation





Procedures







Decisions


























































CONCLUSION

















points





















































































CONCLUSION

























































































as needed


















used in advance

Handouts













appropriate






9 pm Adjourn




















































vision


















930 pm Adjourn





















bull Keep it fun






















polite brief etc




















What is the method


When does it happen



Major Task 1

Major Task 1

Major Task 1


2 pm Adjourn






















Date ______________________ Event ___________________________________________________________________






















Thank You


Name ______________________________________________________________________________________________

Phone ___________________________________________

Email address ________________________________________________________________________________________

Zip Code ________________________________________



REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS











agescom


planningorg




_GoBack

_GoBack

_GoBack

_GoBack

_GoBack

_Hlk7537644

_GoBack

_GoBack

_GoBack



TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5












REFERENCES 106




FOREWORD







Milton Herd faicp






FACILITATION

ConflictCAN MANAGE




Facilitation




MaintainTrust

StayNeutral

Show Respect






EXECUTIVE SUMMARY






























































































of product creation















































ABOUT THIS REPORT










































MEETING SCALES






























































































Development









































CONCLUSION




(Mike Callahan EPR)














































































CONCLUSION

























































































































civil discussions





























































temas
































































































CONCLUSION












SET UP THE SPACE



























































ICEBREAKERS


































Herd)


ning Commission)
































group (Kate Ange)















































































CONCLUSION













ABOUT GROUND RULES







































group will have










BUILDING CONSENSUS




2 Be courteous



2 Be courteous



5 Raise your hand

6 Listen actively


2 Be courteous



5 Raise your hand

6 Listen actively





11 Have fun





Affirmed by TAC


Participation





Procedures







Decisions


























































CONCLUSION

















points





















































































CONCLUSION

























































































as needed


















used in advance

Handouts













appropriate






9 pm Adjourn




















































vision


















930 pm Adjourn





















bull Keep it fun






















polite brief etc




















What is the method


When does it happen



Major Task 1

Major Task 1

Major Task 1


2 pm Adjourn






















Date ______________________ Event ___________________________________________________________________






















Thank You


Name ______________________________________________________________________________________________

Phone ___________________________________________

Email address ________________________________________________________________________________________

Zip Code ________________________________________



REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS











agescom


planningorg




_GoBack

_GoBack

_GoBack

_GoBack

_GoBack

_Hlk7537644

_GoBack

_GoBack

_GoBack









REFERENCES 106




FOREWORD







Milton Herd faicp






FACILITATION

ConflictCAN MANAGE




Facilitation




MaintainTrust

StayNeutral

Show Respect






EXECUTIVE SUMMARY






























































































of product creation















































ABOUT THIS REPORT










































MEETING SCALES






























































































Development









































CONCLUSION




(Mike Callahan EPR)














































































CONCLUSION

























































































































civil discussions





























































temas
































































































CONCLUSION












SET UP THE SPACE



























































ICEBREAKERS


































Herd)


ning Commission)
































group (Kate Ange)















































































CONCLUSION













ABOUT GROUND RULES







































group will have










BUILDING CONSENSUS




2 Be courteous



2 Be courteous



5 Raise your hand

6 Listen actively


2 Be courteous



5 Raise your hand

6 Listen actively





11 Have fun





Affirmed by TAC


Participation





Procedures







Decisions


























































CONCLUSION

















points





















































































CONCLUSION

























































































as needed


















used in advance

Handouts













appropriate






9 pm Adjourn




















































vision


















930 pm Adjourn





















bull Keep it fun






















polite brief etc




















What is the method


When does it happen



Major Task 1

Major Task 1

Major Task 1


2 pm Adjourn






















Date ______________________ Event ___________________________________________________________________






















Thank You


Name ______________________________________________________________________________________________

Phone ___________________________________________

Email address ________________________________________________________________________________________

Zip Code ________________________________________



REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS











agescom


planningorg




_GoBack

_GoBack

_GoBack

_GoBack

_GoBack

_Hlk7537644

_GoBack

_GoBack

_GoBack





FOREWORD







Milton Herd faicp






FACILITATION

ConflictCAN MANAGE




Facilitation




MaintainTrust

StayNeutral

Show Respect






EXECUTIVE SUMMARY






























































































of product creation















































ABOUT THIS REPORT










































MEETING SCALES






























































































Development









































CONCLUSION




(Mike Callahan EPR)














































































CONCLUSION

























































































































civil discussions





























































temas
































































































CONCLUSION












SET UP THE SPACE



























































ICEBREAKERS


































Herd)


ning Commission)
































group (Kate Ange)















































































CONCLUSION













ABOUT GROUND RULES







































group will have










BUILDING CONSENSUS




2 Be courteous



2 Be courteous



5 Raise your hand

6 Listen actively


2 Be courteous



5 Raise your hand

6 Listen actively





11 Have fun





Affirmed by TAC


Participation





Procedures







Decisions


























































CONCLUSION

















points





















































































CONCLUSION

























































































as needed


















used in advance

Handouts













appropriate






9 pm Adjourn




















































vision


















930 pm Adjourn





















bull Keep it fun






















polite brief etc




















What is the method


When does it happen



Major Task 1

Major Task 1

Major Task 1


2 pm Adjourn






















Date ______________________ Event ___________________________________________________________________






















Thank You


Name ______________________________________________________________________________________________

Phone ___________________________________________

Email address ________________________________________________________________________________________

Zip Code ________________________________________



REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS











agescom


planningorg




_GoBack

_GoBack

_GoBack

_GoBack

_GoBack

_Hlk7537644

_GoBack

_GoBack

_GoBack








FACILITATION

ConflictCAN MANAGE




Facilitation




MaintainTrust

StayNeutral

Show Respect






EXECUTIVE SUMMARY






























































































of product creation















































ABOUT THIS REPORT










































MEETING SCALES






























































































Development









































CONCLUSION




(Mike Callahan EPR)














































































CONCLUSION

























































































































civil discussions





























































temas
































































































CONCLUSION












SET UP THE SPACE



























































ICEBREAKERS


































Herd)


ning Commission)
































group (Kate Ange)















































































CONCLUSION













ABOUT GROUND RULES







































group will have










BUILDING CONSENSUS




2 Be courteous



2 Be courteous



5 Raise your hand

6 Listen actively


2 Be courteous



5 Raise your hand

6 Listen actively





11 Have fun





Affirmed by TAC


Participation





Procedures







Decisions


























































CONCLUSION

















points





















































































CONCLUSION

























































































as needed


















used in advance

Handouts













appropriate






9 pm Adjourn




















































vision


















930 pm Adjourn





















bull Keep it fun






















polite brief etc




















What is the method


When does it happen



Major Task 1

Major Task 1

Major Task 1


2 pm Adjourn






















Date ______________________ Event ___________________________________________________________________






















Thank You


Name ______________________________________________________________________________________________

Phone ___________________________________________

Email address ________________________________________________________________________________________

Zip Code ________________________________________



REFERENCES

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS











agescom


planningorg




_GoBack

_GoBack

_GoBack

_GoBack

_GoBack

_Hlk7537644

_GoBack

_GoBack

_GoBack



a planner's guide to meeting facilitation (pas 595)

Documents