building a better colorado through civic engagement welcome! thanks for coming today! colorado...

Building a Better Colorado through Civic

Engagement

Welcome!

Thanks for Coming Today!

Colorado SpringsMarch 31st, 2010

This project is generously supported by:

With additional support from:

Colorado Springs Leadership Institute

Leadership Pikes Peak

Pikes Peak Library District

El Pomar Foundation Forum for Civic Advancement

Today’s Goals & Objectives

Engage civic leaders in an interactive dialogue to:

– Assess the level of support for changing the way that Colorado’s constitution is amended.

– Evaluate various options for such change and attempt to develop a consensus recommendation.

– Assess the collective will for implementing such change.

Principles of Civic Engagement

Colorado’s Future Process Principles:• We are open to any and all solutions that are developed

in the community forums as long as those forums operate in accordance with the Colorado’s Future model.

• We operate without any hidden agenda. Our sole purpose is to host transparent deliberative forums to develop good, sustainable, public policy for the people of Colorado.

• We will attempt in good faith to present all sides of the issue.

• We will attempt in good faith to ensure participants are representative of the communities in which they live.

As Individuals:

• We will engage in honest and open dialogue.

• We will each do our best to represent our own individual values and perspectives.

• We will each aspire to listen more than we talk, and seek first to understand the views of our colleagues rather than trying to convince them why our own opinion is “right.”

• We commit ourselves to working collaboratively, in a nonpartisan way.

• We will work for solutions which serve the interests of the statewide community for this and future generations, not for solutions which serve our own immediate desires.

Principles of Civic Engagement (2)

Principles of Civic Engagement (3)

As a Group:• This is a community-based process. We will solicit input from civic

leaders in order to define both the problem and the solution.

• We recognize that the value in this community-based forum is that the issue, discussion and outcomes are all built from the ground up – no individual or group has control over the process. We will resist efforts by any special interest to take such control.

• We will work for longer-term, sustainable solutions, rather than politically expedient solutions.

• Through thoughtful discussion, we will seek to achieve consensus on all recommendations.

• We will address statewide issues and seek statewide solutions which do not benefit one region of the state at the expense of another.

AGENDA

• Welcome & Overview• Principles of Engagement• Introductions• Keypad Polling Overview• How We Got Here• The Issue: Ballot Reform & the Constitution• Review of Options• Implementation Strategy• Wrap-up• Reception

• Your Name

• Your Day Job (or former profession, if retired)

• When did you (or your family before you) move to the community and from where?

Self-Introductions

Using your keypad is easy… but don’t push any buttons yet!

The Basics

• Keypad will turn on when you push a button▫and then the screen will go blank after a

few seconds• If you are having trouble, first thing to do is let

the screen go blank, and then try again to enter your answer

• If you still think something is not working, raise your hand and someone will come by to help

Answer 2/BYour answer will be displayed on the keypad.

Let’s say you press 2/B on your keypad:

The check mark indicates the answer was received properly.

Changing Your Answer

1/AYour Answer: As long as Polling is

Open, you can change your answer by pressing any other key.

Polling OpenPolling Open

How Long Have You Lived In CO Springs or the Immediate Area?

1. Less than 5 years

2. 6-10 years

3. 11-20 years

4. More than 20 years

5. All my life

Are You A ….

Colora

nt fro

25% 25%25%25%1. Native to this area.

2. Native Coloradan.

3. Transplant from another state.

4. Transplant from another country.

What is your age range?

1. 21-35 (Young Whipper Snapper)

2. 36-50 (Prime Time)

3. 50-65 (AARP)

4. 65 + (Seasoned)

What is your Political Affiliation?

44%1. Republican

2. Democrat

3. Other party

4. Unaffiliated

What is your Primary Organizational Affiliation?

ultura

h Educa

13%16%

1. Agricultural2. Business3. Healthcare4. K-12/High

Education5. Government6. Non-Profit7. Other

Public Policy Process Challenges

Colorado is facing some very difficult public policy challenges….

• Competing funding priorities

• Conflicting constitutional fiscal constraints

• Erosion of representative democracy

• Inequitable tax structure

…And our ability to fix these policy challenges is becoming increasingly difficult.

•Partisanship

•Election Cycles

•Lack of Public Dialogue and Vetting

•Special Interests

•Polarized Media

•Confusing and complex ballot initiatives

then WHERE do we find the answer?

As society becomes increasingly mobile, people choose to live in communities of like-minded people. This results in “red” communities getting “redder” and “blue”

communities getting “bluer”.

And it’s becoming evermore difficult to effectively deal with these public policy challenges

through the traditional mechanisms of the legislature or

the initiative process.

The Political Arena is Inherently Conflicted…

• Not even the BEST form of government in the world is perfect.

• The MAJORITY party’s focus is to take advantage of their time in power to accomplish their agenda.

• The MINORITY party’s focus is to regain power by denying the majority victories.

• The primary motivation of both political parties is to emphasize their differences, NOT seek common ground on which to build consensus solutions.

Trust in State Government

• Dictate how money will be spent.

…So the public has restricted their Legislature’s ability to legislate.

• Limited their revenue budget.

• Limited the length of time that they can serve.

This growing DISCONNECT between the citizens and their government is the root problem facing our state.

• The public doesn’t have time to study ballot proposals, and the possible alternatives and potential consequences.

• There is no public debate; only competing messages.

• As a matter of human nature, the public is inherently most interested in THEIR individual welfare TODAY, and less interested in what’s best for the common

good tomorrow.

Special interests capitalize on these challenges by using fear to motivate emotional decisions.

The increasing number of ballot questions sometimes yields poor decisions.

So, if it is difficult to achieve the public policy solutions that we need through the traditional mechanisms

of the legislature or the initiative process,

then WHERE do we find the answer?

• The public WANTS to do the right thing.

THE OPPORTUNITY:

QUESTION:

Is it possible for community leaders to build consensus public policy recommendations that

are motivated by

a shared desire to build a better state

rather than by

partisan politics or organizational agendas?

• The solutions which we seek are not partisan.

• Civic leaders are mutually interested in improving our statewide community.

Engage Civic Leaders in collaborative dialogue to build consensus solutions.

• Convene civic leaders within a geographically limited community.

• Participants are SELECTED based on their demonstrated commitment to the community; this is not an open invitation “public meeting.”

• Collectively, this group should generally represent the diversity within the broader community.

• A forum motivated by shared community values, rather than by partisan politics and organizational agendas.

• The outcome is in the hands of the participants.

The issue before us today:Ballot Reform and

Constitutional Review

States that Allow Initiatives & Referendums

Number of Initiatives to Date by State

2 34 1

Source: Initiative & Referendum Institute

(Shaded areas of each bar denotes number of measures approved.)

State Initiative Trends

0102030405060708090

California

Colorado

Oregon

NOTE: These are NOT cumulative values.

WHAT DO PROPONENTS OF CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM SAY?• The initiative process is over-used and contributes to

long, cluttered ballots. The result is the adoption of uninformed and short-sighted public policies with unintended consequences.

• The state constitution is bogged down in excessive detail (spending mandates/revenue limitations, and wildlife management policies) and is no longer simply providing a general framework for the state’s governance.

• The fact that Colorado has one of the most easily-amended constitutions leads to out-of-state special interests using Colorado as a sort of political Petri dish on which to test their policy agenda ideas.

WHAT DO OPPONENTS OF CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM SAY?• The citizen initiative gives citizens a way to circumvent

the legislature which isn’t always responsive to the will of the people.

• Citizen initiatives are the voice of the people, and an important part of the state’s history.

• Making it more difficult to pursue citizen initiatives to amend the constitution only will impede Colorado’s grassroots citizens, and will not stop well-funded special interests or millionaires from using the ballot to achieve their own policy goals.

• Coloradans can already choose to simply use the existing ballot process to remove or amend those policies that are obsolete or dated

• Surveys demonstrate that Coloradans strongly support the citizen initiative process even if it results in long ballots.

Ballot Process 101

There are two ways to amend the Colorado Constitution: legislative referral and citizen initiative.

Legislative Referral

• Requires 2/3rds approval of both Senate & House.

• Then requires simple majority approval by citizens.

Citizen Initiative

Constitutional Initiative

Statutory Initiative

• Both Constitutional and Statutory initiatives require a simple majority approval by citizens.

• Constitutional initiatives which are adopted may only be changed by another vote of the people.

• Statutory initiatives which are adopted may be changed by the state legislature.

Overview of Citizen Initiative Process

Staff identifies potential conflicts and makes suggestions to improve clarity

Initiative language reviewed by non-partisan legislative

76,000 signatures from anywhere in the state (representing 5% of people who voted in last election for Secretary of State)

Signatures are gathered

Ensures that signatures are registered votersSecretary of State certifies

ballot eligibility

People vote on the proposed ballot measure

Campaign

Ensures adherence to Single Subject RuleBallot title is approved by Title Board

NOW IT’S YOUR TURN!

We’re going to give YOU the steering wheel and ask you to tell us what YOU think.

As we drill down and ask for more detail about your opinions, for the sake of efficiency and out of respect for the majority opinion of the group, we will operate by consensus and only ask additional questions about those options which are most supported by the group.

Is there a problem with the current ballot process?

1. Yes

3. Uncertain

33% 33%33%

Should the citizen initiative process be retained or eliminated in Colorado?

1. RETAIN the citizen initiative process but amend it.

2. ELIMINATE the citizen initiative process.

3. No Opinion.

Options for Ballot Reform

We’ll Consider Several Options at Various Stages of the Ballot Process

Options concerning review of proposed initiative language.

Initiative language reviewed by non-partisan legislative

Options concerning clarity of ballot language.Ballot title is approved by Title Board

Options concerning the number and geographic requirements of signatures.

Signatures are gathered

Secretary of State certifies ballot eligibility

Options concerning the number of votes required to pass a ballot measure.

People vote on the proposed ballot measure

Campaign

TABLE DISCUSSION

The Road to the Ballot

•Review Process

•Signature Gathering for Citizen Initiative

The Issue: Extending the timeframe on proposed initiatives?

Arguments for:

Additional time would allow for more public review, vetting, and discussion on proposed initiatives by the Legislature, citizen groups, and the media. More public scrutiny could possibly prevent unintended consequences. Public hearings are very poorly attended at this time because most citizens are not able to commit the time .

Arguments against:

The current process works well. Legislative Council Staff is non-partisan and does excellent analysis of the issues.

Initiative Timeframe

Should the initiative timeframe be extended for the legislature to host public hearings on proposed initiatives?

23%20%

1. Strongly Agree

2. Agree

3. Neutral

4. Disagree

5. Strongly Disagree

The Issue: Colorado currently requires initiative proponents to collect 76,000 signatures from Colorado’s

2.4 million voters to place an initiative on the ballot.

Arguments for:

76,000 signatures or 5% of the number of people who voted in the last election for Sec. of State is too LOW for constitutional initiatives. Amending the state constitution should be more difficult and frankly more work than changing an ordinary statute.

Arguments against: 76,000 demonstrates support, but does not create an unreasonable barrier to the ballot. It is fair number for citizens. Wealthy special interests or individuals can easily pay for more signatures.

Number of Signatures Required

What do you think about the current initiative signature requirement of 76,000?

85%1.This is an appropriate number of signatures to collect.

2.The number of signatures required should be INCREASED.

3.The number of signatures required should be DECREASED.

If the current signature requirement is INCREASED for initiatives, which approach would you prefer?

onsitu

tional

50%50%1. Increase the number of

signatures required for BOTH constitutional and statutory amendments by the same amount.

2. Increase the number of signatures, but require more signatures for constitutional amendments than for statutory amendments.

If the current signature requirement is DECREASED for initiatives, which approach would you prefer?

50%50%1. Decrease the number of

signatures required for BOTH constitutional and statutory amendments by the same amount.

2. Decrease the number of signatures but require more signatures for constitutional amendments than for statutory amendments.

The Issue: CO’s population is centered along the Front Range, yet there is a substantial population living in rural

areas. Most signatures for initiated measures are gathered in the more populous Front Range communities.

Arguments for:

Citizens from across the entire state will be able to give their opinions in the BEGINNING of the process and not just vote after the measure is on the ballot. Proponents for constitutional amendments that affect the entire state should have to reach out to the entire state.

Arguments against:

Creates an unnecessary barrier for groups wishing to access the ballot. There is no evidence that not including some regions of the state in the signature gathering process results in the passage of ballot measures which inherently discriminate or hurt those communities.

Geographic Signature Requirements

Should petitioners be required to collect signatures from various locations around the state?

50%50%1. No, the present approach is fine. Signatures may be collected from anywhere in the state.

2. Yes, require some signatures to be collected from different parts of the state.

If we REQUIRE that some signatures be gathered from different locations, which approach would you prefer?

All of 7

5 SSDs

All of 3

5 SSDs

A percentage of signatures must come from…

1. a MAJORITY of the 7 Congressional Districts

2. ALL of the 7 Congressional Districts

3. a MAJORITY of the 35 State Senate Districts

4. ALL of the 35 State Senate Districts

Should there be a minimum number on how many signatures can come from one area?

50%50%1. Yes, place a minimum amount.

2. No.

The Issue: The purpose of the constitution vs.

the purpose of statute

Arguments for:

Some initiative proponents believe it is more desirable to place policy language into the Constitution rather than in Statute (law) in order to protect the will of the people from legislative tampering.

Arguments against:

In the event that an initiative results in unintended consequences, then those consequences are much more difficult to remedy if they are in the constitution than if those same measures had been placed in statute.

Statutory vs. Constitutional Initiatives

Options: Statutory vs. Constitutional Initiatives

1. Do Nothing. If there are unfavorable policies within our constitution, then voters can use the existing ballot process to remove or amend these.

2. Prohibit the legislature from amending approved statutory initiatives for a period of time without 2/3rds support.

3. Require that any constitutional amendment must be passed in two consecutive elections.

4. Require that constitutional amendments secure a super-majority of vote.4a. If we require constitutional amendments to receive

a super-majority of votes, then allow anything that’s ALREADY in the constitution to be amended OUT with a simple majority vote.

TABLE DISCUSSION

Options regarding

Statutory vs. Constitutional Initiatives

Options: Statutory vs. Constitutional Initiatives

1. Do Nothing. If there are unfavorable policies within our constitution, then voters can use the existing ballot process to remove or amend these.

2. Prohibit the legislature from amending approved statutory initiatives for a period of time without 2/3rds support.

3. Require that any constitutional amendment must be passed in two consecutive elections.

4. Require that constitutional amendments secure a super-majority of votes.

4a. If we require constitutional amendments to receive a super-majority of votes, then allow anything that’s ALREADY in the constitution to be amended OUT with a simple majority vote.

1)Do Nothing. If there are unfavorable policies within our constitution, then voters can use the existing ballot process to remove or amend these.

1. Strongly Agree

2. Agree

3. Neutral

4. Disagree

2)Approved statutory initiatives should be protected for a period of time by restricting the legislature’s ability to amend them.

13%15%

1. Strongly Agree

2. Agree

3. Neutral

4. Disagree

25% 25%25%25%

2a) How many years should we restrict the legislature’s ability to amend approved statutory initiatives?

1. One year

2. Three years

3. Five years

4. More than five years

2b) How should we restrict the legislature from amending approved statutory initiatives during this time period?

50%50%1. Require a 2/3rds super-majority of the legislature to amend statutory initiatives during this time period.

2. Prohibit the legislature from amending statutory initiatives at all during this time period.

3)New constitutional amendments should be approved by voters in two consecutive elections.

ngly A

ngly D

1. Strongly Agree

2. Agree

3. Neutral

4. Disagree

4)New constitutional amendments should be required to secure a super-majority of votes.

1. Strongly Agree

2. Agree

3. Neutral

4. Disagree

4a) How should “super-majority” be defined?

33% 33%33%1. 60%

2. 66% (2/3rds)

4b) If constitutional amendments are required to receive a super-majority of votes, then allow anything that’s ALREADY in the constitution to be amended OUT with a simple majority vote.

ngly A

ngly D

1. Strongly Agree

2. Agree

3. Neutral

4. Disagree

The Issue: Should there be more and/or clearer information about the initiatives and their proponents?

Arguments for:

Ballot measures are often written in legal/complex language that is confusing to voters. Ballot measures should be written in in 8th grade English and easy for the MAJORITY of voters to understand.

Arguments against:

There are sufficient resources available to voters that explain the intent of each ballot measure including the tax-payer funded Blue Book and the League of Women Voters. Clearer language provisions could be more costly to taxpayers on both the state and local levels as there pages may need to be added to the ballot in order to make the language clearer.

Voter Information

Options: Voter Information

1. Do nothing; voters who desire to educate themselves about ballot measure can do so with resources like the Blue Book.

2. Require clearer ballot language (understandable at an 8th grade reading level).

3. Make the financial disclosure requirements for ballot initiative campaigns just as strict as the requirements for candidate campaigns.

1) Do nothing. Voters who desire to educate themselves about ballot measure can do so with resources like the Blue Book.

12% 13%

31%31%

1. Strongly Agree

2. Agree

3. Neutral

4. Disagree

2) Require clearer ballot language (understandable at an 8th grade reading level).

4%4%3%

1. Strongly Agree

2. Agree

3. Neutral

4. Disagree

3) Make the financial disclosure requirements for ballot initiative campaigns just as strict as the requirements for candidate campaigns.

2%3%3%

1. Strongly Agree

2. Agree

3. Neutral

4. Disagree

The Issue: Initiative proponents can introduce the same initiative year after year. Should we prohibit an identical or substantially similar measure from appearing on the

ballot for a period of time?

Arguments for:

Repeat measures clutter the ballot and can confuse voters.

Arguments against:

No change is necessary. If voters don’t like a measure, then they can reject it every time it appears on the ballot.

Repeated Ballot Measures

If an initiative measure is rejected by voters, then prohibit an identical or substantially similar measure from appearing on the ballot for a period of time.

1. Strongly Agree

2. Agree

3. Neutral

4. Disagree

TABLE DISCUSSION

Can you think of any new options related to initiatives which should

be considered?

The Issue: There is currently no formal process for periodically reviewing Colorado’s constitution to make appropriate recommendations to address

conflicts and other policy issues.

Constitutional Review & Overhaul

Arguments for: There are perceived conflicts within the constitution and other items that erode our representative form of government.

Arguments against: The constitution can be amended item by item or through a constitutional convention.

Options: Constitutional Review and Overhaul

1. Do Nothing. The state’s constitution is fine the way it is.

2. Establish a Constitutional Review Commission that meets periodically to review the constitution and recommend to changes to voters.

3. Convene a Constitutional Convention to amend and/or rewrite the entire constitution.

4. Amend the constitution to allow a constitutional convention to be limited in scope or by topic.

1)Do Nothing. The state’s constitution is fine the way it is.

1. Strongly Agree

2. Agree

3. Neutral

4. Disagree

The Issue: Establish a Constitutional Review Commission (CRC) that meets periodically to review the constitution and recommend to changes to voters. Over the past 40 years, at

least 27 states have created some type of CRC.

Arguments for:Provides regular periodic review and makes revisions without making wholesale changes to the constitution. Can identify conflicting, unnecessary, or inappropriate provisions within the constitution. Could possibly refer directly to the voters or legislature and by-pass single subject rule. Able to receive input from citizens.

Arguments against:Too much to a select, non-elected group of people. Difficult to implement a “fair” selection process. Voters or the legislature can change the constitution if they want to by referendum or citizen initiative.

Constitutional Review Commission

2)Establish a Constitutional Review Commission that meets periodically to review the constitution and recommend changes to voters.

5%6%6%

1. Strongly Agree

2. Agree

3. Neutral

4. Disagree

2a) If we provide for a Constitutional Review Commission, should we limit the scope of their review in any one review period?

25% 25%25%25%

1. No limits.

2. Limit changes to a maximum percentage (i.e. 1/3 of the constitution).

3. Limit the topic area.

4. Both 2 and 3.

2b) If we limit the topic, what do you think should be addressed first?

17% 17% 17%17%17%17%1. Natural resource issues

2. Campaign finance

3. Fiscal policy

4. Minimum wage

5. Allow the Commission to decide

6. Other

2c) If we provide for a Constitutional Review Commission, how often should they meet and make such recommendations to the voters?

20% 20% 20%20%20%

1. Never

2. Only once

3. Every 1-5 years

4. Every 6-10 years

5. Every 11-20 years

2d) How should the members be appointed?

Local C

25% 25%25%25%1. Appointed by elected officials.

2. Selected by citizens on a local basis.

3. A combination of both.

4. Other

2e) Should we require political balance among the members, regardless of whether they are appointed or selected?

Should

81%1. We SHOULD require

political balance.

2. We should NOT require political balance.

2f) Recommendations made by the Commission should be:

Direct

e Firs

red to

33% 33%33%1. Placed directly on the

ballot.

2. Treated as citizens’ initiatives and, after gathering the requisite number of signatures, be placed on the ballot.

3. Referred to the legislature to approve (or not approve) its placement on the ballot.

2g) If the Review Commission’s recommendations are referred to the legislature for approval then it should require:

33% 33%33%

1. 2/3rds majority

2. Simple majority

3. Other/No opinion

The Issue: Should we convene a Constitutional Convention to amend and/or rewrite the entire

constitution?

Arguments for:Constitutional conventions are the foundation of American

government and have served us well. The process for a convention is already defined.

Arguments against:Lengthy process – at least 3 elections. The entire constitution could

be amended and rewritten; currently there is no process that allows for a limited convention and legal scholars are unsure that current law allows for limiting a constitutional convention's scope.

Constitutional Convention

3)Convene a Constitutional Convention to amend and/or rewrite the entire constitution.

ngly A

ngly D

1. Strongly Agree

2. Agree

3. Neutral

4. Disagree

4)Amend the constitution to allow a constitutional convention to be limited in scope or by topic.

ngly A

ngly D

1. Strongly Agree

2. Agree

3. Neutral

4. Disagree

Creating new options polling questions- be right back!

Polling of New Options

Should the Supreme Court render an opinion on proposed constitutional amendments prior to the Secretary of State granting approval for petitions?

Yes No

No Opin

1. Yes

3. No Opinion

Developing a solution is only HALF the battle.

We also need to secure 50+% support for any solution or we’ve done nothing more today

than have a good discussion.

WHAT NOW?A STRATEGY FOR IMPLEMENTATION

Traditional Ballot Strategy

Define MY objective.

Develop message based on polling – this message isn’t intended to EDUCATE the public, but rather to MOTIVATE them to act, therefore

FEAR is more useful than FACTS.

Scale back objective to reflect political reality as identified by polling.

Poll uninformed electorate to assess public opinion.

Form a coalition of people who think like me.

Bombard the voters with the message.

Cross fingers and hope to win the battle of competing messages.

Consider this:

• It took 600,000 votes to pass Referendum C. (52%)

• It took 888,000 votes to elect Bill Ritter Governor. (57%)

QUESTION #2:

Is it possible to secure enough votes to implement consensus public policy solutions simply by leveraging personal relationships

within communities?

SUMMARY:

If you can get 800,000 voters to agree with you, then you can write public policy in Colorado.

200 Civic Leaders

… each request support from 20 friends…

Would you be willing to ask 20 of your friends to support this consensus solution for ballot reform…

… who each influences 5 friends.

… And ask those 20 individuals to make this same request of 5 of their friends?

200 Civic Leaders

… each request support from 20 friends…

50 Town Hall Meetings

x 3 Tiers of Outreach

= 1 million votes

This campaign strategy is FUNDAMENTALLY different than the traditional ballot strategy.

• We’re securing actual commitments to vote based on trusted personal relationships.

• We’re identifying the solutions that we NEED through informed dialogue among civic leaders rather than resigning ourselves to accepting what a poll tells us is possible.

Will a grassroots campaign like this really work?

• Regardless of the level of consensus, there is value in engaging civic leaders across the state in constructive dialogue about our most pressing public policy challenges.

• However, it’s uncertain if such a one-to-one campaign can actually result in victory at the ballot box.

… but this is the WRONG question…

The more appropriate question is…

What is our alternative strategy for developing non-partisan, collaborative solutions to

address our state’s most pressing public policy challenges?

• Politics as usual?

• Competing 30-second sound bytes?

“If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always be where you’ve always been.”

-Anthony Robbins

GROUP SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION

Would you support the summary recommendation from this group if it were on the ballot?

Yes, e

9%4%1%4%

1. Yes, I would vote FOR it and encourage others to support it.

2. I would probably vote FOR it.

3. I’m not sure.4. I would probably vote

AGAINST it.5. No, I would vote

AGAINST it and encourage others to oppose it.

CONGRATULATIONS on crafting a consensus

solution!

Would you be willing to leverage your credibility as a leader within our community to

help secure the support necessary to implement this solution?

How many of your friends would you be willing to ask to support this recommendation?

1-5 6-10

At leas

20%24%

1. None

2. 1-5

3. 6-10

4. 11-19

5. At least 20

• Our Role– Conduct additional community meetings.– Keep you updated on progress through emails and

website. (PLEASE REGISTER)– Core Group Leader meeting to finalize consensus

recommendation.– Work with legislature to refer a measure to voters in 2010

which embodies the consensus recommendation.– Maintain campaign support for community leaders and

develop other outreach and marketing strategies.– Integrate a formal campaign strategy.

• Your Role– Monitor progress of other communities.– Identify your own outreach targets.

NEXT STEPS

This meeting was worth my time and I would be willing to participate in similar civic engagement discussions in the future.

0%1%0%

1. Strongly Agree

2. Agree

3. Neutral

4. Disagree

Thank You for Coming Today!

Please leave your keypads on the table!

building a better colorado through civic engagement welcome! thanks for coming today! colorado...

Documents

giving you choice - honda p3... · civic civic 1.4 i-vtec...

2019 audition packet · university. will has performed in...

happy the buzz new year - honeywood apartment … snarky...

downtown downtown denver development denver€¦ · square...

from civic education to a civic learning ecosystem · from...

otley town council: civic centre working group civic

citizen academies: promoting civic education, civic

the civic 50 survey tool & recognition...the civic 50...

the power of civic engagement voting/ civic participation

october 31st , a.d. 2021 the kingship of christ/31st

pengaruh civic knowledge dan civic disposition...

experimental modes of civic engagement in civic tech

building civic engagement with a civic lab

civic coupe civic sedan civic si civic...

denver’s civic center...denver’s civic center park...

building skills, volunteerism and civic capacity: the...

giving you choice - honda.co.uk p3... · civic civic 1.4...

civic engagement for community change · • voter...

centennial institute centennial colorado christian ... ·...

civic prospects: civic engagement and the city