preliminary report: prescott good governance … · to prescott college, and the institute for...

PRELIMINARY REPORT:

PRESCOTT GOOD GOVERNANCE COMMUNITY FORUMS

BY

Margaret R. Garvey

Carl Grimes

&

The Prescott Good Governance Committee

April 27, 2013

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

© 2013

No part of this report may be used, reproduced, stored, recorded, or transmitted in any form or

manner whatsoever without written permission from the copyright holder or her agent(s), except

in the case of brief quotations embodied in the papers, and in the case of brief

quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

Requests for such permission should be addressed to:

Margaret R. Garvey

1409 Paar Drive

Prescott, AZ 86305

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Simply put, this report was a collaborative effort. From creation to execution, many people

contributed to this report and our findings offered herein.

First, a thank you to the citizens who came and participated, who showed up and gave

two good hours of their lives to this crazy process. We hope you will find it was worth it and that

we treated your words with tender care.

A thank you to the members of the Good Governance Committee and to the committee’s

Chairman, Elisabeth Ruffner, for always working hard and never letting go of the vision.

To Prescott College, and the Institute for Sustainable Social Change, for opening your doors and

making available your space. We are truly lucky to have the college as a member of our

community.

To Gerry Garvey, who organized, prepared, and hauled supplies all over town making

sure the logistical support for this work was in place. We literally could not have done this work

without you putting in the hours and organizing the masses.

And last but surely not least, Carl Grimes the graduate student extraordinaire who

tabulated results, transcribed awful handwriting, and put in the work to make this report possible.

Carl exemplified a student activist in his role working with the Good Governance Committee,

taking his experience into the community and being of service to the cause.

iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This preliminary report explores the results of a series of consensus-based community

forums conducted in the community of Prescott AZ, between January 2013 and April 2013. The

forums, sponsored by a local Political Action Committee--The Prescott Good Governance

Committee, intended to explore and uncover a citizen driven narrative for the creation of a

political platform. These forums worked to strengthen the support of the Good Governance

Committee and to inspire civic action.

The 16 community forums, also referred to as “house parties,” conducted in the

community engaged an estimated 300 people with 188 participants selecting to make their

demographic information available. A central goal of the process was to seek maximum

engagement of participants, and to ensure that participation was occurring within a relatively

diverse group of community members. The report indicates that the participants of the forum

equally represent the share of limited diversity with the Prescott community (as measured by

census data), indicating that the goal of relative diversity was achieved.

The forums sought the answer to three main questions: (1) what is your vision for the City

of Prescott, (2) what qualities, abilities, and practices do you want in your elected leaders, and

finally (3) what actions would you like your elected officials to take? The forum also engaged

participants in an environmental analysis of the Prescott community asking them to define the

strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and strengths (SWOT analysis) of our current city.

v

The results of the forums indicate broad and sweeping agreement concerning a vision for

the City of Prescott. Similarly, participants agreed on the qualities they wish for in their elected

officials and they created a clear and articulate list of actions requested of upcoming elected

officials.

What this report describes is a community vision which is united, despite a participant

perception of alienation, and a community which shares a plan of action. Furthermore, the report

shows that by the very participation in the forum process, participants were moved to develop

feelings of hope and inclusion.

The question remaining at the conclusion of this report is--what will be done about it?

When it becomes clear, as it does in this report, that we agree on the right course of action, and

that we share a united vision for the city, the sole remaining barrier to success becomes clear:

lack of action. This report is a call to action.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................... iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. iv

INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................7

Aims .....................................................................................................................................7

Purpose Statement ................................................................................................................8

What is Good Governance? .................................................................................................9

Hypothesis..........................................................................................................................10

Methodology ......................................................................................................................11

Facilitators, Conveners, and Transcribers ..........................................................................16

DEMOGRAPHICS ..........................................................................................................18

Discussion ..........................................................................................................................23

RESULTS .........................................................................................................................25

Vision of the City of Prescott.............................................................................................25

The Leader We Want .........................................................................................................26

Results of the Environmental Analysis ..............................................................................28

Consensus Built Platform ..................................................................................................31

Evidence of Participant Change .........................................................................................38

DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................41

Overview of Results ...........................................................................................................41

Limitations/Weaknesses of the Report ..............................................................................45

Implications........................................................................................................................46

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................48

APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................50

A. Good Governance Brochure .........................................................................50

B. Demographic Form .......................................................................................52

C. Evaluation Form ...........................................................................................53

D. Additional Demographic Information ..........................................................54

E. Individual Forum Documentation .................................................................78

7

INTRODUCTION

“Civic discourse” and “civic dialogue” have become buzzwords in the community of

Prescott, Arizona. An agenda driven by high profile Arizona leaders, university groups, and civic

groups, the topics of teaching, practicing, and inspiring civic dialogue have garnered great

attention and respect. This report, and the work that went into it, hopes to add a bit of depth to

the ongoing conversation. We set out to explore the act of engagement, or conversation, while

also creating something useful for future conversations. The original thesis, if we had had one,

would have been, “Can we as citizens truly engage in civic dialogue in a way that seeks

consensus and builds diverse support for collective action?” What this report points to is that the

participants in the study were able to engage in civic dialogue and create a united plan of action.

As this report is being written, organizing efforts are underway turning this report into the

stepping stones of direct civic action in the form of running and electing candidates to local

political office.

Aims

A valuable part of an introduction is to introduce the “Aims”. As part of the procedure of

each of the forums, the facilitator shared with the participants the goals of the forum process.

These aims included a “Rational Aim,” or what we hoped to accomplish together, and an

“Experiential Aim,” or how we hoped the process would feel.

Rational Aim:

To uncover our united hopes, dreams

and desires for the City of Prescott and

its leadership for the next four years and

to let that consensus shape the platform

and the candidates we support.

Experiential Aim:

To ignite and expose our shared

passions for Good Governance and our

investment in electing officials who

support our united hopes, dreams and

desires for the City.

8

Purpose Statement

The purpose for this report, and the reasons participants engaged in the development of

these findings, are identical. This work was born of a deep desire to engage with and support a

community with which the participants, authors of this report, and members of the Good

Governance Committee feel deeply connected.

In fact, as evidenced by the Prescott We Want report (extrapolated from the Arizona We

Want report) the people of Prescott feel unusually proud of their community. 69% of the

participants surveyed said they agree or strongly agree with the statement, “I am proud to say I

live in Prescott”. Getting 300 people to give two hours of their lives in the pursuit of helping to

create a vision for their city was easier than one might expect.

One factor that contributed to the participants’ desire to participate is a wide spread

feeling of general dissatisfaction with the status quo. Not only did we see reoccurring themes in

the sessions about these feelings of dissatisfaction, but this sentiment too was captured by the

researchers at Arizona We Want, proving that only 10% of Arizonans feel like their elected

officials represent them, and more shocking, is only 3% of the people polled said they thought

their local elected officials were doing a “Very good” job in office and 51% thought they were

doing a “very bad” or “somewhat bad” job. More to this point, when Prescottonians were asked

if they think their elected officials represent them, only 11 people (3%), surveyed felt their

interests were strongly being represented, and 56% disagreed.

9

What is Good Governance?

It is with the understanding that we should expect to be governed by the government we

earn, that the Prescott Good Governance Committee was formed. United in the belief that civic

action has the power to change local governance, and that it is the right and responsibility of each

citizen to engage in local governance, Prescott Good Governance has three main goals: educate

citizens, engage citizens in dialogue, and inspire civic action. The committee has a long history

of engagement, although the telling of the history of the committee changes based on the teller. It

is widely agreed upon that the committee has had success in the past electing members of the

community to city council, school board and to the governing board of the local community

college. In the words of the Prescott Good Governance Committee taken from a widely

circulated brochure:

Who are we? A group of concerned citizens committed to expanding the

numbers of individuals engaged in local government.

What is our purpose? To create opportunities for citizens to learn about the

nature and function of Prescott’s city government.

· To facilitate discussions of issues

identified by various planning

committees.

· To identify issues that would make a

compelling platform for local candidates.

· To inspire citizens to accept the

10

challenge of running for local office.

· To develop and support those

candidates.

· To work to increase participant turnout.

· To remain engaged in the process of

governing to ensure an effective,

sustainable city government that works with citizens and is responsive to the

changing needs of our diverse

community. (Appendix A, p. 50)

Hypothesis

It is important to make clear that this work did not begin with a hypothesis, instead it was

generated out of the authors’ sincere desire to help make the community we live in a better place.

From an academic prospective, this kind of questioning could be described as insider

ethnography, but we choose to think of it more as modeling the kind of behavior we hope to

inspire.

However a central question, raised by the members of the Good Governance Committee,

inspired this process. That question was: “Can we as citizens truly engage in civic dialogue in a

way that seeks consensus and builds diverse support for collective action?”

11

We designed a few questions to help us measure a change effect, if one existed, in our

participants. Specifically, we wondered if the simple act of participating in the forum process

would create a difference in the way the participants felt about local governance. We asked them

to tell us how hopeful they felt before and after the process, and how included they felt before

and after the process. What we discovered was, that some participants who asked to articulate a

vision, and plan for the execution of that vision, did in fact experience more hopeful feelings and

feel more included following the forum process.

Methodology

The purpose of this study is to observe and distill through qualitative means a participant

generated consensus concerning a desired direction for the City of Prescott . This section seeks to

explain the methodology used in the gathering of this data, in other words, the process we used

to collect this information. It is broken down into sections, including: (1) Setting, (2)

Participants, (3) Procedures (4) Instrumentation, and finally (5) Data Analysis.

(1) Setting. This study occurred between the dates of January 12, 2013, and April 23,

2013, in Prescott, Arizona. Forums or “house parties” were conducted over little more than a 3

month period, however the process of building relationships with these community members

under the auspices of the Good Governance Committee has been years in the making.

Forums or “house parties” were conducted throughout the City of Prescott with

participants in diverse groups and settings. Specifically, 9 forums were conducted in participants’

homes, one forum was conducted in an assisted living facility for the elderly, one forum was

conducted in a local restaurant, one forum was hosted by a local business, two forums were

12

conducted in a classroom on the campus of Prescott College, one forum was conduced in an area

homeless shelter, and one forum was conducted in a public park.

The location of the forums and the number of participants engaged were byproducts of

the organizing strategy of Good Governance, utilizing existing members of the committee and

their networks to generate a convenience sample of willing participants around the area.

Considerable effort was made by the conveners of the forums to collect a range of participants.

This convenience sample produced trends in participant demographics along the lines of political

identity, despite conveners attempts to seek diversity in their invitations to participate.

(2) Participants. 188 participants made demographic information available. The

participants ranged in age from 18- 66+ years old. Although their exact age was not recorded, the

majority of participants were 41-65 years old. 70 males and 117 females participated in the

study, which reflects the census data for the city that indicates that 49.2% of the Prescott

population is male and 58.8% is female. Participants represented limited diversity. Efforts made

to reach diverse population yielded results of participants matching the limited diversity in the

community.

Participants also reflected the highly engaged population in civic life. 84.14% voted in

the last election and 52.87% said they would consider themselves “somewhat politically

engaged.” 33.33% of participants reported that they felt they were not politically engaged.

(3) Procedures. Forums were conducted using a semi-structured agenda and process.

The forum followed a structure developed by the Institute for Cultural Affairs. The forums were

designed to build maximum participation and seek group consensus. The agenda for the forums

was as follows:

13

Following introductions and agreement on the ground rules, the group began answering

one of the three central questions of the forum process: defining victory. In this section, the

participants answered three questions in brainstorm fashion, taking one question at a time. The

questions were asked to all participants and answers were generated by the participants and

simultaneously transcribed both on a flip chart in front of the room and by a note taker silently

participating in the back of each forum. The facilitator used coaching questions to generate

additional answers to the questions including: what else might you want; what else; how would

you know; etc.

The three sections of the process conducted in this fashion included: defining the ideal

“dream city,” articulating an “ideal leader” and the generation of an environmental analysis that

considered the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and strengths (SWOT) of the Prescott

Agenda:

1) Introductions

- demographic forms

2) Ground Rules

3) Victory

4) Current Reality

5) Building Consensus

6) Resolve

7) Thank you!

- Evaluations

14

community. The environmental analysis was included in part of the agenda as “assessing our

current reality.”

At this point in the forum, the participants were engaged and ready to answer the focus

question of the forum: “What actions do our upcoming elected officials need to take in order to

strengthen and build upon the City of Prescott leading it to become the best city in the US?” It

was made clear to the participants that if the part of the question that read, “…leading it to

become the best city in the US…” was distracting then, they should refer to the city they

described earlier when defining the “ideal City of Prescott” (or victory section of the agenda).

Participants were then given a short period of time to generate individual answers and to write

down those answers to the focus question silently.

When 10-15 minutes of individual work had ended, participants were then given an

opportunity to discuss their answers in small groups of 3-6 people. They were asked as a group

to create a limited number of half sheet “cards” per group, usually between 5-7 ideas. They were

given markers and half sheets of paper to capture their groups’ actions. Groups completed this

task in 15-20 minutes.

The final stage of the forum utilized the half sheets of paper and a “sticky wall” (fabric

mounted on a wall that is sprayed with repositionable double sided adhesive). The facilitator

guided the group in a process of adding action cards to the board and pairing action cards by

“similar intent.” The appropriate role of a facilitator is observed during this phase of the process,

meaning that the facilitator offers no opinions during the process. Over the course of about 20

minutes, the participants were able to take 30-40 diverse action cards and create between 5-8

15

(depending on the forum) answers to the focus question. They then worked to name the clusters

of cards, creating the mutually agreed upon answers to the focus question.

(4) Instrumentation. As this was a semi-structured forum process, each forum followed

the same agenda and participants were asked the same questions, but additional questions were

added to the conversation as they seemed appropriate to the interaction, or if the group needed

encouragement to participate.

Notes were taken during the forums by a silent observer of the forums and was also not

the facilitator. Notes were not captured during informal conversation outside of the

brainstorming activities. Only those responses written on the flip chart paper and recorded in

front of the group were noted by the silent observer and captured in the results of the forum. In

this way, we made sure that we truly captured only what the group intended to co-create.

Notes from the forums included the time of the forum, date, place, facilitator, and the

length of the forum once it was completed. Because participants in the forum were not asked to

provide their names, participation was anonymous outside of the forum group.

(5) Data Analysis. Thorough ongoing data analysis took place throughout the forum

process. Initial analysis took place during the forums as notes were taken, and directly following

the forum as brief conversations about each forum were had by members of the facilitating,

convening and recording team.

Following the lengthy process of transcription, each forum was read over and notes

were made about the participants’ main points in each section. These distillations were then

compared across forums, and using a system of linking like ideas (visual mapping), major

16

themes of the participants’ responses were identified. These major and lesser themes were each

confirmed by using an online “word it out” program.

All of the transcribed forums were then organized into easily compared word documents:

allowing the frequency and location of reference to each of the themes to be easily referenced

and captured. Visual mapping of these conversations was included in this process in keeping

with the instrumentation model of the forums. The synergy between these two methods served to

deepen the understanding and analysis of the participants’ content. This method is congruent

with the grounded theory techniques of open, axial and selective coding.

Facilitators, Conveners, and Transcribers

The authors of this report are also the facilitators of the forums and the transcriptionist of

the forum process. They are both members of the Good Governance Committee. Intentionally,

this work is being descried as a “preliminary report,” and we are not assuming the position of

researchers in this process--although these findings warrant further academic study and rigor.

Three main actors participated in the collection of this data: Margaret Garvey, co-author

of this report and facilitator of the forums; Carl Grimes, co- author, graduate student intern and

the transcriptionist of the forum process; and Gerry Garvey who worked to handle the convening

and logistics for the forums and house parties.

A list of conveners helped to bring participants to the table. As members of the Good

Governance Committee or members of the network of the Committee, these conveners invited

their friends and families to their homes, or other locations, and made the forums possible. Some

of these conveners included: Elisabeth Ruffner, Dennis and Gerry Garvey, Barbara Jacobson,

17

Jean Painter, June Ruth, Mary Kay O’Neil, Daniel Mattson, Sue and Dan Boyce, Rojean

Madson, Barbara and Dan Garvey, and Chelly Herren.

18

DEMOGRAPHICS

Prescott is a retirement community located in central Arizona. The city’s economic driver

is based on an active system of tourism. Taken for the “community profile” listed on the City of

Prescott website:

People are drawn to Prescott not only by its surroundings, but also by its

small town atmosphere. “Everybody’s Hometown” is an easygoing place where

making friends comes naturally. The friendly atmosphere demonstrates the

legacy of its pioneer past, when words were few and actions mattered.

Prescottonians cherish their history. With a population of about 40,000 there are

637 buildings and more than 60 objects in Prescott listed in the National

Register of Historic Places, more than any other community its size in Arizona.

(http://www.cityofprescott.net/business/profile.php)

Demographic surveys of participants were handed out at the beginning of each forum

(Appendix B p. 52). Completion of the demographic questionnaire was not mandatory. The goal

of the forums was to seek maximum involvement and mandating the form would have prevented

some participants from engaging. Of the total estimated participants, 188 chose to complete the

form and hand it in, the remainder declined even though participation was anonymous.

Each of the sections below use a graph to visually explain the data, proceeded by a brief

interpretation of the findings. When applicable, we compared the data to the 2010 U.S Census.

19

Age

The age ranges of participants were diverse and correlated well with U.S Census. Of the

participants surveyed, 7.49% were ages 18-25, 15.51% were 26-40, 47.59% were 41-65, and

29.41% were those aged 66 and over.

Gender

The gender of the participants was female, 62.37% and male, 37.63%. While these

findings are close to U.S Census data, they are not exact. The actual gender composition of

Prescott according to the Census is 50.8% female and 49.2% male.

0

10

20

30

40

50

18-25 26-40 41-65 66+

Census 2010 Good Governance

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Female Male

Census Good Governance

20

Marital Status

The marital statuses of participants were as follows: Single 32.62%, Married 39.04%,

Partnered 5.88%, Divorced 13.37%, and Widowed 9.09%. This data correlates with the U.S

Census, with those numbers being: 29.5%, 51.2%, 2.4%, 14.3%, and 3.6% respectively.

Ethnicity

The ethnicities of the participants were as follows: Not Hispanic or Latino at 97.27% and

Hispanic or Latino at 2.73%. This correlates well with U.S census data that found those numbers

to be 91.4% and 8.6%, respectively. It is recognized that this national data is flawed.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Ethnicity

Not Hispanic or Latino Hispanic or Latino

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Single

Married

Partnered

Divorced

Widowed


21

Race

The racial compositions of the participants were as follows: American Indian 4.42%,

Asian 1.1%, Black 1.1%, Native Hawaiian 0.55%, and White at 92.82%. This data correlates

with the findings of the U.S Census, with those numbers being 1.1%, 1.2%, .7%, .1%, and 92.1%

respectively.

Education

The educational compositions of participants were as follows: High School

Incomplete/GED 4.79%, High School Diploma 5.85%, College No Degree 19.68%,

Undergraduate Degree 35.5%, Graduate Degree 34.04%, and Other 2.13%.

0 20 40 60 80 100

American Indian

Asian

Black

Native Hawaiian

White


5% 6%

20%

33%

34%

2%

High School Incomplete/GED High School Diploma College/No Degree

Undergraduate Degree Graduate Other

22

Voting Habits

The voting habits of participants for the two most recent elections were as follows:

pertaining to the primary election, 70.59% voted, and 29.41% did not; pertaining to the general

election, 84.41% voted, and 15.59% did not.

Ideological Association

The ideological compositions of participants were as follows: Socially Liberal 60.92%,

Socially Moderate 28.74%, Socially Conservative 7.47%, Fiscally Liberal 22.41%, Fiscally

Moderate 47.7%, and Fiscally Conservative 18.97%.

33%

15% 4%

12%

26%

10%

Socially Liberal Socially Moderate Socially Conservative

Fiscally Liberal Fiscally Moderate Fiscally Conservative

0 20 40 60 80 100

Primary 2012

General 2012

Yes No

23

Political Activity

The declared political activity of participants was as follows: Not Politically Active

33.33%, Somewhat Politically Active 52.87%, and Very Politically Active 13.79%.

Declared Economic Status

The declared economic statuses of participants were as follows: Unemployed

11.66%,Working Poor 7.98%, Lower Middle Class 15.95%, Middle Class 37.42%, Upper

middle class 24.54%, Wealthy High Net Worth 2.45%.

12%

10%

17%

35%

24%

2%

Unemployed Working Poor Lower Middle Class

Middle Class Upper Middle Class Wealthy/High Net Worth

33%

53%

14%

Not Politically Active Somewhat Politically Active Very politically active

24

Discussion

In order to ensure an accurate representation of the city’s population, participants were

asked to fill out a simple demographic form covering topics such as age range, gender, ethnicity,

and economic status, among other indicators.

Our results were strikingly similar to the findings of the 2010 U.S Census, further

validating our results. A majority of participants identified as follows: 47.59% were aged 41-65,

62.37% were female, 97.27% were not Hispanic or Latino, 92.82% were white, 39.04% were

married, 35.5% had attained an undergraduate degree, and 37.42% identified as middle class. We

did not compare the declared economic section to the findings of the census, as that section is

highly subjective and can be interpreted in many ways.

We found that our participant groups were highly engaged in voting, 70.59% voted in the

primary, and 84.41% voted in the general election. The political ideology of participants varied

but trended towards “progressive.” 60.92% of participants identified as socially liberal, 47.7%

identified as fiscally moderate, and 52.87% identified as somewhat politically active.

25

RESULTS

The purpose of this section is to report the qualitative findings of this process. This

qualitative work sought to describe common themes as experienced and explained by

participants as a collective. Approaching this work, the authors created a few guiding questions

that proved yielding of deep participant insights. Through group facilitation, participants came to

consensus concerning the “ideal elected official,” a “vision for the city of Prescott,” and looked

at our current reality by describing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the

City of Prescott. This section is divided into five sections: (1) The Vision of the City of Prescott,

(2) The Leader We Want, (3) Results of the Environmental Analysis, (4) Consensus Built

Platform, and (5) Evidence of Participant Change.

(1) Vision of the City of Prescott

Participants were asked to describe what they felt the ideal Prescott would look and feel like.

Based upon word occurrence, concepts, and comparisons of sixteen forums, we extrapolated and

identified an overarching theme. That theme is “More”.

More

1. Public Transportation Prevalence: 1/19, 1/20, 1/24, 2/2, 2/9, 3/1, 3/2, 3/6, 3/25, 4/10, 4/18, 4/23

Prevalence Percentage: 75%

2. Jobs and Business Prevalence: 1/19, 1/20, 1/24, 1/31, 2/2, 2/9, 3/2, 3/6, 3/25, 3/25, 4/10, 4/18, 4/23

Prevalence Percentage: 81.25%

3. Schools and Funding Prevalence: 1/19, 1/20, 1/24, 1/31, 2/2, 2/9, 3/2, 3/6, 3/25, 3/25, 4/10, 4/18


4. Water and Environment Conservation and Protection

26

Prevalence: 1/19, 1/20, 1/24, 1/31, 2/2, 2/9, 3/1, 3/2, 3/6, 3/25, 4/10, 4/18, 4/23


5. Diversity Prevalence: 1/20, 1/24, 1/31, 3/1, 3/6, 3/25, 3/25, 4/18, 4/23


(2) The Leader We Want

Based upon word occurrence, concepts, and comparisons of the sixteen forums, we

extrapolated and identified six specific indicators of skills and abilities. They are listed below,

including their individual forum prevalence, meaning that these qualities appeared in the group

consensus of the forums of the dates indicated.

Skills and Abilities

1. Intelligence

Prevalence: 1/12, 1/19, 1/20, 1/24, 1/28, 1/31, 2/2, 2/9, 3/2, 3/6, 3/25, 4/10, 4/18,

4/23


2. Leadership

Prevalence: 1/19, 1/20, 1/24, 1/28, 2/2, 3/3, 3/6, 4/10, 4/18, 4/23


3. Communicator

Prevalence: 1/12, 1/19, 1/24, 1/28, 3/1, 3/2, 3/6, 3/25, 3/25, 4/10, 4/18, 4/23


4. Collaborative

Prevalence: 1/12, 1/19, 1/24, 1/31, 2/2, 3/2, 3/25, 4/18, 4/23


5. Planner

Prevalence: 1/12, 1/19, 1/20, 1/24, 1/28, 1/31, 2/9, 3/2, 3/6, 3/25, 4/18


27

6. Listener

Prevalence: 1/19, 1/20, 1/24, 1/28, 2/2, 2/9, 3/2, 3/6, 4/10, 4/18, 4/23


Characteristic Themes


extrapolated and identified six specific indicators of characteristic themes. They are listed below

including their individual forum prevalence.

1. Compassionate

Prevalence: 1/12, 1/19, 1/20, 1/24, 1/31, 2/9, 3/1, 3/2, 3/6, 3/25, 3/25, 4/10, 4/18


2. Open-Minded

Prevalence: 1/12, 1/24, 1/28, 2/2, 2/9, 3/1, 3/2, 2/6, 4/10, 4/18, 4/23


3. Honesty

Prevalence: 1/20, 1/24, 1/31, 2/2, 2/9, 3/2, 3/6, 3/25, 4/10, 4/18, 4/23


4. Integrity

Prevalence: 1/19, 1/20, 1/31, 2/9, 3/1, 3/25, 3/25, 4/18, 4/23


5. Diversity

Prevalence: 1/12, 1/19, 1/24, 1/28, 1/31, 2/9, 3/1, 3/2, 4/18, 4/23


6. Accessibility

Prevalence: 1/12, 1/19, 1/20, 1/24, 1/28, 1/31, 2/2, 2/9, 3/1, 3/2, 3/6, 3/25, 3/25,

4/10, 4/18, 4/23


28

(3) Results of the Environmental Analysis


extrapolated and identified six specific strengths of Prescott. They are listed below including

their individual forum prevalence.

Strengths

1. Community

Prevalence: 1/12, 1/19, 1/20, 1/24, 1/28, 1/31, 2/2, 2/9, 3/1, 3/6, 3/25, 4/18, 4/23


2. Colleges

Prevalence:1/12, 1/19, 1/20, 1/24, 1/28, 1/31, 2/2, 2/9, 3/1, 3/6, 3/25, 4/10, 4/18,

4/23


3. Volunteerism

Prevalence: 1/12, 1/19, 1/20, 1/24, 1/28, 1/31, 2/2, 3/2, 3/6, 4/10, 4/18, 4/23


4. Climate

Prevalence: 1/12, 1/19, 1/20, 1/24, 1/28, 1/31, 2/2, 2/9, 3/2, 3/6, 4/10, 4/18, 4/23


5. Friendly

Prevalence: 1/20, 1/24, 1/31, 2/2, 2/9, 3/2, 3/6, 3/25, 3/25, 4/18, 4/23


6. History

Prevalence: 1/12, 1/19, 1/20, 1/24, 1/31, 2/2, 3/2, 3/6, 4/18


29

Weaknesses


extrapolated and identified six specific weaknesses of Prescott. They are listed below including

their individual forum prevalence. Assume that each of these sections are preceded by phrase

“lack of...” with the exception of the section titled “Poverty.”

1. Water

Prevalence: 1/12, 1/20, 1/28, 1/31, 2/2, 3/2, 3/6, 4/10, 4/18, 4/23


2. Jobs

Prevalence: 1/12, 1/20, 1/24, 1/31, 2/2, 3/2, 3/25, 3/25, 4/23


3. Education

Prevalence: 1/20, 1/28, 1/31, 2/2, 2/9, 3/1, 3/2, 3/6, 4/18


4. Diversity

Prevalence: 1/12, 1/19, 1/20, 1/31, 2/2, 2/9, 3/1, 3/6, 4/10, 4/18, 4/23


5. Public Transportation

Prevalence: 1/12, 1/20, 1/24, 1/31, 2/9, 3/2, 3/25, 3/25, 4/18, 4/23


6. Poverty

Prevalence: 1/12, 1/20, 2/2, 2/9, 3/6, 3/25, 4/18, 4/23


Threats


extrapolated and identified six specific threats to creating the vision for Prescott. They are listed

below including their individual forum prevalence.

30

1. Water

Prevalence: 1/12, 1/19, 1/20, 1/24, 1/28, 1/31, 2/2, 2/9, 3/1, 3/6, 3/25, 4/10, 4/18


2. Apathy

Prevalence: 1/12, 1/19, 1/20,1/31, 3/2, 3/6, 3/25, 3/25, 4/10, 4/23


3. Growth

Prevalence: 1/12, 1/19, 1/20, 1/24, 1/28, 1/31, 2/2, 2/9, 3/25, 4/10


4. Funding

Prevalence: 1/12, 1/19, 1/20, 1/24, 1/31, 3/6, 3/25, 4/10, 4/18


5. Fear

Prevalence: 1/12, 1/19, 1/24, 1/31,2/2, 2/9, 3/1, 3/2, 3/25, 3/25, 4/10, 4/18, 4/23


6. Jobs

Prevalence: 1/19, 1/24, 1/28, 1/31, 2/2, 3/6, 3/25, 4/10, 4/18


Opportunities


extrapolated and identified six specific opportunities that will assist with the creation of the

vision for Prescott. They are listed below including their individual forum prevalence.

1. Volunteerism

Prevalence: 1/20, 1/24, 1/28, 1/31, 2/2, 3/6, 3/25, 4/18, 4/23

31


2. Alternative Energy

Prevalence: 1/19, 1/20, 1/24, 1/28, 1/31,2/2, 3/2, 3/25, 4/10


3. Collaboration

Prevalence: 1/12, 1/19, 1/20, 1/24, 1/28, 2/2, 2/9, 3/2, 4/18


4. People

Prevalence: 1/12, 1/19, 1/20, 1/24, 1/28, 1/31, 2/2, 2/9, 3/1, 3/6, 3/25, 3/25, 4/10,

4/18, 4/23


5. Education

Prevalence: 1/12, 1/19, 1/20, 1/31, 2/9, 3/1, 3/2, 3/25, 4/10, 4/23


6. Change

Prevalence:1/12, 1/19, 1/20, 1/24, 1/28, 1/31, 2/2, 2/9, 3/1, 3/2, 3/6, 3/25, 3/25,

4/10, 4/18, 4/23


32

(4) Consensus Built Platform

This platform is the result of the work of 300 participants answering the question, “What

actions do our upcoming elected officials need to take..?” What was created was a seven action

request generated by consensus. The actions are not listed in any particular order.

Action I. Protect the Integrity of Prescott

The first action of the platform requests that the candidates and elected officials protect

the integrity of Prescott through several actions. The participants request that sustainable living

in Prescott be improved, that the stability of Prescott is actively promoted, and that the city’s

resources be adequately managed. The participants request that the city upgrade livability

without compromising environmental stability by formulating a policy to meet safe yield and

aggressively addressing all issues of environmental sustainability.

This action is based off the following “desired actions” generated by forums. The dates

of the forums at which these actions were created are listed next to the action:

Improve sustainable living (1/19)

Promote General Stability (1/24)

Protect Integrity of Prescott (1/20)

Resource Management (3/6)

Be Good Stewards (1/24)

Maintain and Upgrade livability (1/24)

33

Set Goals and priorities for growth based on values (1/20)

Value based budgeting and taxing (1/31)

Formulate Policy to meet safe yield (1/19)

Protect water resources (1/28)

Conserve and sustain natural resources (4/18)

Make environmental preservation a top priority (1/28)

Aggressively address environmental sustainability(1/12)

Action II. Commit to a Long-Term Vision

The second action of the platform requests that candidates and elected officials commit to

a long-term vision. The participants request that candidates and elected officials always remain

professional and research best practices while remaining productive during the entirety of their

term.

This action is based off the following “desired actions.” The dates of the forums at

which these actions were created are listed next to the action:

•Research Best Practices (1/19)

•Commit to a long-term vision (1/12)

•Be productive (4/10)

34

Action III. Create a Culture of Inclusion and Compassion

The third action of the platform requests that candidates and elected officials create a culture of

inclusion and compassion. First, the participants request that local participation in government is

expanded by engaging and educating the electorate through transparent, respectful

communication and open forums. Second, the participants request that candidates and elected

officials engage in collaborative efforts with community leaders, non-profit organizations,

volunteers, our senior community, and citizens as a whole. Third, the participants request their

candidates and elected officials to always be accountable for their actions, and to behaviorally

affirm the platform the participants have developed. Fourth, the participants request the

candidates and elected officials remain open-minded to diverse thinking, and cultures and that

they be courageous, vocalizing unpopular opinions on issues when necessary. Finally, the

participants request their candidates and elected officials look for creative ways to fund

transitions out of poverty, and to create and respect diversity in all aspects of Prescott.



Broaden Local Participation (1/31)

Build and Activate Citizen Support and Connection (1/19)

Establish Good Governance Training Program (1/19)

Engage and Listen to Non Profit Organizations, Volunteers, and Seniors (4/18)

Engage the Electorate through Open Forums (3/6)

Engage with Entire Community (4/23)

Model Community Engagement (4/23)

35

Constantly Educate our citizens (1/28)

Lead Through Democracy (3/2)

Implement Diverse Public Engagement (1/12)

Deliberate Community Engagement(1/20)

Connected leadership (1/24)

Open Communication with community (3/5)

Communicate Effectively through surveys, polls and dialogue (4/10)

Advocate and Fund Arts (4/23)

Promote Diversity (4/23)

Be accountable (3/25P)

Change the Culture arts music, dream act (3/1)

Be open minded (4/10)

Walk the talk by vocalizing unpopular issues and behaviorally affirm the platform

(1/19)

Change city government through diversity, etc. (3/25)

Compassionate activism (3/25P)

Respect the electorate (3/6)

Embrace Diversity in Community LGBTQ (4/18)

Provide Outlets for self-care such as affordable housing (3/25P)

Implement affordable healthcare (3/25)

Fund transitions out of poverty (3/25)

Promote social responsibility (1/24)

36

Action IV. Invest in our Future

The fourth action of the platform requests that candidates and elected officials invest in

our future. The participants request that there is a demonstrated commitment to education by

raising standards and improving schools. The participants request the city fully invests in the

wellbeing of its youth by providing activities and mentorship to youth. Finally, participants ask

that their leaders function independently from the state concerning education.



Demonstrate a commitment to education (1/19)

Invest in our future by raising educational standards and improving schools (3/6)

Invest in youth (4/18)

Invest in our future, our schools, and act independent of state (1/12)

Action V. Improve Services and Infrastructure

The fifth action requests that candidates and elected officials work to improve the

services and infrastructure of Prescott. First, the participants request that elected officials and

candidates improve public transportation by establishing a regional transit system. Second, the

participants request the creation of new bike lanes, which are safe for both bikers and drivers.

Third, the participants request that any new infrastructure and improvements to infrastructure be

green by promoting healthy air quality and water conservation.



37

Improve transportation through new bike paths (3/25)

Develop and implement transit plans (1/19)

Establish regional transportation system (1/28)

Improve public transportation (1/12)

Create green infrastructure--health air quality, public transportation, bike trails (4/18)

Go Green (4/23)

Improve services and infrastructure (public transportation) (3/1)

Resource management public transit and water (3/6)

Promote regional infrastructure through water conservation and public transportation

(1/31)

Action VI. Diversify Economy

The sixth action of the platform requests candidates and elected officials work to

diversify the economy. First, the participants request that the city develop an economic niche,

with an emphasis on green economics and ecotourism. Second, the participants request that

elected officials collaborate in the region to improve airports and healthcare facilities. Finally,

the participants request that elected officials and candidates work toward creating a living wage,

and provide tax incentives for local business.



Develop economic Niche (green economy, destination city) (1/20)

38

Develop economic niche (3/2)

Study local green energy (3/25)

Promote Economic Opportunity and Higher Quality of Life (4/23)

Develop green (3/2)

Hire local people in jobs (3/25)

Create jobs (3/25)

Create economic opportunity (1/12)

Diversify economy through tax incentives and living wage (4/18)

Economic development plant (ecotourism) (1/31)

Economic development (3/6)

Advocate for regional collaboration and cooperation over issues such as medical,

airport (3/2)

Economic development industry etc (3/1)

Action VII. Advocate for Prescott

The seventh and final action of the platform requests that candidates and elected

officials advocate for the City of Prescott by working to influence state government and federal

policy.



Influence state Government (4/10)

39

Advocate for Prescott on all levels of government (4/18)

(5) Evidence of Participant Change

On the demographic survey form, participants were asked to either agree or disagree with

the following two statements:

1.) I am hopeful about the upcoming city election and I feel there is a good

chance for the candidate I support to be elected.

2.) I feel that I have been invited to participate in the electoral process.

The participants’ pre-forum responses are below in graph form:

56.08% of participants agreed that they feel hopeful about the upcoming election, while 43.92%

disagreed. 78.75% of participants agreed that they felt they had been invited to participate in the

electoral process, and 21.25% disagreed.

At the end of each community forum we distributed evaluation forms which asked the

same two questions. The participants’ post-forum responses are below in graph form:

0 20 40 60 80 100

Agree

Disagree

Question 1 Question 2

40

Following the forum, 75% of participants agreed that they feel hopeful about the

upcoming election, 15% disagreed, and 10% gave no answer. This represents an increase in

about 19% of participants.

Following the forum, 95% of participants agreed with the statement that they feel like

they have been invited to participate in the electoral process. Only 5% of participants continued

to feel excluded. This represents an increase of approximately 16% of participants.

These results indicate that some participants developed a feeling of hope and felt more

included in the electoral process simply by engaging in the forum process.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Agree

Disagree

Question 1 Question 2

41

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the results of the report. The discussion will be

broken down into three sections: (1) Overview of Results, (2) Limitations/ Weaknesses of the

Report, and (3) Implications.

(1) Overview of Results

The participants at the community forum were asked to define and describe their vision

for Prescott. After analyzing and interpreting the data from sixteen community forums, an

overarching theme was identified. That theme is “More.” We discovered five themes under the

category “more”: Public Transportation, Jobs and Business, Schools and Funding, Water and

Environment, and Diversity.

The Public Transportation category covered bus systems, regional collaborations for

public transportation, and other means of public transit, including sidewalks and bike lanes. 75%

of the forums agreed that more and better systems of public transportation are part of their vision

for Prescott.

The Jobs and Business category including bringing in business, tax incentives for local

businesses, technology industry, and a desire for more jobs in general, specifically high wage

jobs. 81.25% of the forums agreed that more jobs and businesses are part of their vision for

Prescott.

The Schools and Funding category covered additional funding for schools and childcare

centers, world class education standards, and extracurricular activities for students of all ages.

42

75% of the forums agreed that more funding for schools and higher educational standards are

part of their vision for Prescott.

The Water and Environment category addressed the current water crisis, conservation of

open space and resources, and the creation of green infrastructure. 81.25% of the forums agreed

that solving the water crisis, while practicing good stewardship of the city’s resources, are parts

of their vision for Prescott.

Diversity, the final category, addressed issues of inclusiveness, and the development of a

welcoming environment for all people regardless of race, gender, and sexual orientation. 56.25%

of the forums agreed that an inclusive and diverse community is part of their vision for Prescott.

By compiling this information, it is clear that the participants are deeply committed to

Prescott and its future. The participants believe in Prescott and believe that it can become one of

the greatest cities in the nation if the current opportunities are used to their full potential. From

volunteers, students, and seniors, it is clear that the participants deeply value their community

and are ready to work hard to make their ideal city a reality.

We asked participants at the community forums to define and describe their desires for

their elected officials. After analyzing and interpreting the collective data of sixteen community

forums two categories were developed to describe that elected official. The first category covers

the skills and abilities participants ask their elected officials to possess. 93.75% of the forums

agreed that their candidate must be intelligent and well educated. 62.5% of the forums agreed

that the official must poses leadership skills and experience. 75% of the forums agreed that this

person must seek out collaborative efforts. 68.75% of forums agreed that this person must be a

planner who actively pursues goals that will lead to a better future for Prescott. And finally,

68.75% of the participants ask that this person be a listener, even when they are in disagreement.

43

The second category covers specific characteristics participants ask their elected officials

to possess. 81.25% of the forums agreed that compassion is a necessary characteristic. 68.75%

ask that this person be open minded. 68.75% ask that this person always remain honest. 56.25%

ask for integrity. 62.5% of the forums ask that this person be a representative of diversity. And,

finally 100% of the forums agreed that this person must be accessible.

We asked participants of the community forums to define the “current reality” of Prescott

through the use of a SWOT analysis. In the first step of the process we asked participants to

describe the strengths of the city, what emerged were six distinct characteristics. First, the word

community occurred in 81.25% of the forums, exemplifying the city’s dedication to the

importance of its community. Second, 87.5% of the forums included discussion on the

importance of the city’s four colleges: Yavapai Community College, Prescott College, Embry-

Riddle Aeronautical University, and Northern Arizona University. This shows how the

participants view the importance of higher education, and its role in the Prescott economy. Third,

volunteerism was mentioned in 75% of the forums. Prescott is home to many Non Profit

Organizations that rely heavily on the support of volunteers, the participants recognize this

importance, and value volunteers as one of this city’s many strengths. The mild climate of

Prescott was often mentioned in these forums with 81.25% agreeing that climate is one of the

city’s strengths. 68.75% of the forums also agreed that Prescott is a friendly town. 56.25% of the

forums indicated that Prescott’s rich and diverse history is also a strength.

In the second step of the process we asked participants to identify current weaknesses in

the city of Prescott. 62.5% of the forums suggested that our current water crisis is a weakness.

56.25% of the forums stated that the lack of jobs is a current weakness. 56.25% of the forums

44

agreed that our education system, specifically our public schools, and low educational standards

are a weakness. 68.75% of the forums agreed that Prescott lacks diversity, both culturally and

ethnically. 56.25% of the forums agreed that the poverty in Prescott is one of this city’s

weaknesses.

In the third step of the process we asked participants to identify current opportunities that

the city has that can be utilized to bring them closer to their vision for Prescott. 56.25 %

identified volunteerism as an opportunity. 56.25% identified alternative energy as an

opportunity. 56.25% identified collaboration as an opportunity. 93.75% identified the people of

Prescott as an opportunity. 62.5% identified education as an opportunity. What was unique about

this section is the overarching theme of “Change.” 100% of the forums in some way stated that

Prescott possesses the abilities and opportunities to change for the better.

In the last step, we asked participants to identify threats to creating the vision for

Prescott. 81.25% of the forums agreed that the current water crisis is a threat to realizing the

vision for Prescott. 62.5% of the forums stated that apathy is a threat. 62.5% stated that growth is

a threat. 56.25% stated that funding, specifically the lack of properly allocating funds, and the

lack of funding of services such as schools and public transportation is a threat. 81.25%

identified fear as a threat, specifically racism, and resistance to change. 56.25% identified the

current job market as a threat.

All of these questions lead up to the focus question of the forum process. We directed

participants to answer the question, “What actions do our upcoming elected officials need to

take…” What we found is broad and unanimous consensus. Participants want the same thing for

their city and they want the same things for each other.

45

Participants articulated a platform with 7 desired actions, they request that their elected

officials: (1) Protect the Integrity of Prescott, (2) Commit to a Long-Term Vision, (3) Cultivate a

Culture of Inclusion and Compassion, (4) Invest in our Future, (5) Improve Services and

Infrastructure, (6) Diversify Economy, and (7) Advocate for Prescott.

Furthermore, through the collection of this data we discovered that some participants

actually changed how they felt about local governance by the simple act of engaging in the

forum process. We asked two pre and post forum questions to gauge the participants’ levels of

“hope” associated with the upcoming election and the level that they felt invited into the local

political process. What was found was an equal correlation of about 20% of participants in the

forum process left the forum feeling more hopeful and more included in local governance.

(2) Limitations/Weaknesses of the Report

The following is an acknowledgment of the factors contributing to the limitations and

weaknesses of the report: (A) Lack of Diversity, (B) Lack of Demographic Forms for all

Participants, (C) Limited Participants.

(A) Lack of diversity. Despite efforts to ensure diversity the report shows a lack of

diversity in a few key areas. Outreach to the Hispanic community would have improved the

results and incorporating the views and opinions of more self reported “conservatives” would

also have helped to strengthen the findings. The conveners of the forum worked hard to seek out

diversity and the forums were open to the public having also been published in the local

46

newspaper and advertised through social networking sites. It is possible that the very nature of

this kind of dialogue is more attractive to “progressively” oriented people.

(B) Lack of demographic forms for all participants. Missing demographic

information for almost 1/3 of the estimated participants does cause concern. It was decided that

mandating the collection of demographic forms would create an unnecessary barrier to

participation. For this reason, we acknowledge the weakness of the missing demographic forms

and continue to feel that our intention of creating a consensus based platform was maintained.

(C) Limited Participants. This group is not a statistically relevant sample of any group

of people. This is a convenience sample of willing participants. More voices weighing into the

research questions would have changed the results, and arguably, make them stronger.

(3) Implications

The implications of this report are important to the organizers of the current Prescott

Good Governance Committee and will help inform local leaders as to the hopes and desires of

the participants of this study. This new knowledge is working to support and challenge some of

the previously known information about the community of Prescott. Furthermore, the study has

enabled new insight and provided a basis for further exploration of participatory democracy and

local governance in the Prescott area.

The implications of this study seem to reinforce a few key themes. First, that the citizens

of Prescott agree more than they disagree. Second, that participants are not only voicing a clear

agenda for the future of their city but also requesting a new values-rooted form of governance

that seeks engagement and is compassionate along the way.

47

The final implication of this study seems to clearly point to the fact that the citizens of

Prescott are ready to begin moving civic dialogue towards civic action.

48

CONCLUSION

The participants of this study have come to an agreement. They agree that the City of

Prescott needs, “more.” The city needs more public infrastructure, more jobs, more

environmental protection and more inclusion and compassion. It is an interesting word, “more.”

It implies that we already have some, in other words, we already have a good start--we just need

more of it.

What has become abundantly clear to the team of people who worked to put together this

report is that we have to start talking to each other more often. We are surrounded by a political

narrative which says we are divided, isolated, intolerant, and at a crossroads. Our national

political leaders model ineffectiveness daily and we have come to believe them when they say

that the gridlock is what prevents positive action.

What we have discovered here is that in our local community, the gridlock is not real.

When we ask people what they want and need in their local community they all say the same

thing: We want it to be safe, to be a good place to raise kids, to be a place which prepares for our

future, and to be a place able to employ our families. We want leaders who are accessible, who

are compassionate, and hard working. We want to know that our city is being taken care of by

leaders who think about diverse needs and perspectives, leaders who look into the future and see

more for Prescott, not just the same thing we have always had.

There is just one thing standing in the way. And, it is what stands in the way of all new

things. Inaction. This report is one of many demonstrating that we really all do want the same

things. So why aren’t we there yet?

49

As the last sentence of this report is written, what remains is a need for action: a call to

action which unifies people and inspires a brave new initiative daring enough to ask for “more”

and willing to work hard to make sure we get the “more” we deserve.

50

APPENDIX A:

GOOD GOVERNANCE BROCHURE

52

APPENDIX B:

DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE

53

APPENDIX C:

EVALUATION FORM

preliminary report: prescott good governance … · to prescott college, and the institute for...

Documents