I'm not sure they are distinct groups. There is probably considerably overlap
between the two categories, and people may drift back and forth depending on
other demands on their time. Nonetheless, I'll take a stab at trying to
define these amorphous categories:
TARGET AUDIENCE
1. The "meeting impaired." Those who don't go to meetings of public agencies
because they live out of town, work in the evenings, or have obligations to
family or other groups. Also those who have had negative experiences with
public meetings in the past (have been treated in a condescending manner by
elected officials, etc.).
2. The "media deprived," especially the "newspaper deprived." There was a
time in the early 1980s when the Idahonian (precursor to the Daily News)
enjoyed wide readership among opinion leaders and the community at large.
People had a common knowledge base, and you could pretty well be assured that
something placed in the Idahonian would reach most people in town, or at least
those with an interest in local government. That's no longer true, for reasons
ranging from dissatisfaction with the Daily News to a general fragmentation
of the media mix (people who buy the New York Times daily at Bookpeople and
as a result no longer take a local paper). How many of your friends and
co-workers subscribe to the Daily News?
3. The "genuinely concerned but not sure how or where their participation
would be most effective." These folks may be either long-time residents or
newcomers to the community, but don't know which bodies make what decisions
"Aren't the county commissioners responsible for those new subdivisions east
of Mountainview Rd.?" I was asked last year). Or if they go to a public
hearing, they're not familiar enough with process to focus their testimony
in a way to influence the decision.
TARGET PARTICIPANTS
(in general, these are people in a position to help people in the first
three categories overcome the obstacles to participation)
1. The "process familiar" -- people who know, for example, that effective
testimony against a zone change request is often rooted in a specific
section of a comprehensive plan, and that the most effective way for a
neighborhood group to influence a public hearing is to divide up the turf
so that everyone makes a different point.
2. The "technical experts" -- people who have followed an issue for a long
time and have the institutional memory that elected leaders and our local
newspaper lack. (I think of Tom Townsend's diligent study of water issues
for the past decade.)
3. The "visionaries." I mean this in the original, generic sense and not in
any elitist way. These are the people who can make connections between
transportation and land use, for example, or who can look ahead to anticipate
the long-term consequences of short-term decisions. ("You mean if we approve
a subdivision with 100 lots that there will be 100 more houses consuming
x gallons of water a day?")
4. The "networkers" -- the people who can match talents to tasks, and put
people with similar interests in contact with each other, through
e-mail, meetings or otherwise.
Whew! sorry to go on at such length, but it's useful to articulate who we
are trying to reach. BTW, there are no "members" of Vision 2020, only
"participants" in various activities (such as subscribers to this list).
KENTON