> Dear Greg
> On this, you are quite wrong, in my view. Had you attended, you would have
> witnessed Priscilla Salant, almost single handedly, presented a clear
> and articulate alternative perspecitive on the need for citizen participation.
> I thought she handled herself brilliantly. I wish you were there to
> see it.
From all accounts, Priscilla did present an alternative perspective
and is to be thanked for such. But what if Priscilla hadn't been
there?
We need to separate process from outcome. Yes...that public forum
turned out okay but it was by chance. Should I teach my
public involvement class that when they are organizing a public
forum, they don't need to worry about getting multiple perspectives
at the table? That someone will just show up to represent the
alternative perspective? IMO, we have an obligation to ensure
that legitimate collective concerns are given a place *at the
table* in a public forum. And in this case, there are very real
collective concerns that are not finding their place at the table.
Recent public forums organized at the UI by the Wilderness
Issues Colloquium are very good examples of how to organize a public
forum.
Having said that, I'm not sure how the Chamber/EDC meeting is
being billed. Steve did not use the term "forum." If the
meeting is being billed as a "presentation," then I see nothing
wrong with meeting title/agenda. If I were involved with the
EDC/Chamber, I'd do the same thing by controlling the process.
That's the smart thing to do. Control the process and you can
likely control the outcome.
But if the meeting is being billed as a public "forum," I stand
by my assertion that such a "forum" is a sham.
-- Greg Brown (gregb@uidaho.edu) Assistant Professor, Dept. of Forestry, Southern Illinois University Adjunct Assistant Professor, College of Forestry,Wildlife,& Range Sciences University of Idaho