Identifying Present Strengths and Assets

What do participants (The WE that Could Be) share in step 2 of The Steps?

They share the greatness of the community by sharing their personal experiences. They describe times in Salmon Arm when they became aware of the strengths and assets of the people or of the place. They may have felt a sense of discovery, pride, joy, valued and accepted, safe, included, or inspired. They share their experiences in response to, "Tell me of a time in Salmon Arm when you recognized the strengths or the assets of our people, of our place. What was the situation? Who was involved? How did it affect you?"

The whole group then identifies themes that run through the stories; the characteristics of the people and place that led to those experiences. These characteristics meet the needs of residents in very deep and personal ways or offer possibilities for future economic and social development or both. Collectively, they describe our strengths and assets. Possibilities might include: safe neighbourhoods, organized sports available for all, huge tourism potential, beautiful surroundings, regional shopping centre.

Whatever the strengths and assets, they exist NOW. They are what make ours a great community today and offer opportunities for an even greater community in the future.

What are some of your experiences of the strengths and assets of Salmon Arm?

The WE that Could Be

Who are the WE that could be, the WE who share, learn and choose in the post on The Steps?

They are those with hopes and dreams for themselves, their children and their community. They want satisfying work and decent pay as employee or owner. They want safe neighbourhoods, good schools, homes that comfort and enrich. They want good health, beautiful surroundings, and opportunities to play and grow. All these, and more both now and in the future. Furthermore, they want the freedom to choose what is fulfilling for them and no two definitions of fulfillment are exactly alike; one wants to play hockey and be a business person another wants to play the organ and be a trades person. The variations are as numerous as the population.

People need others. The hockey player needs team mates, a rink, business persons and trades persons to build and maintain it, and an organist. These, in turn, need the hockey player. All are interdependent. Their combined needs form a network of interdependence that defines a community, in our case Salmon Arm.

Communities make choices about roads, recreation, land use, codes of conduct, education, and on and on. Before such choices are considered, a community decides who gets to participate in those choices. Sometimes, it is those with the most power (political, economic, or physical), which often leads to exhausting power struggles. When one side gains enough power to dictate the decision, say, 51% of the votes, the result is 51% of the people win and 49% lose. In panel 3 of the graphic nobody wins, it's a lose-lose situation. The WE that could be chooses win-win collaboration, as in panels 5 and 6.

Win-win is the most complete expression of Lincoln's democracy: government of the people, by the people, for the people. Majority rule, particularly by a bare majority, is the most impoverished. Better, for sure, than rule by a dictatorship or a privileged few, but still lacking in the ideal: by the people. As James Bovard said, "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

What are some examples in your community of a WE that could be? How did that WE develop?

The Steps

How can we effectively and efficiently carry out steps a-d of creating an informed consensus listed at the end of the blog Getting to Yes? What follows is an overview. Each step will be looked at in greater detail in subsequent posts.

The order of the steps is important. We must be willing, step 1, to listen and to hear (understand) one another or else attempts to develop visions, policies, and procedures will fall on deaf ears. As that willingness develops there is a corresponding shift away from demands, categorical statements, and attempts to "educate" others toward a mutual sharing of ideas, experiences, hopes, and dreams. The shift is from "us and them" to "We".

The We is not an insipid sameness. Nor the result of compromises in which everyone gives up something in order to get along. The We is made up of powerful and unique individuals who recognize that in their diverse experiences, talents, and insights lie opportunities for greatness and the betterment of all.

The sharing, step 2, that comes from such willingness also begins step 3; the process of learning. It is through learning from one another about one another and about the world that various meaningful visions, policies, and procedures can be both proposed and heard. The learning continues with mutual efforts to better understand the "facts". Then, and only then, can the alternative visions, policies, and procedures be distilled, step 4, into an official community plan supported, or at least accepted without reservation, by almost everyone.

What are some examples in your life of: We share, learn, and choose?

Getting to Yes

How can we meet all our goals for Salmon Arm?

Considered individually, I believe almost all citizens would support almost all the social, economic, and environmental goals stated or implied at the public hearing on the Smart!Centres development proposal. If so, how might that support be translated into specific development proposals to which the entire community responds with a resounding YES? It is by creating and adhering to an Official Community Plan that meets all goals to the greatest possible extent. It is only through such design and discipline that Salmon Arm will consistently obtain development meeting both the goals of community members and developers.

How to create and adhere to such an OCP? By having community members: a) listen to and hear one another, b) suggest alternative visions, policies, and procedures, c) develop mutual understanding of the facts, and d) evolve an OCP supported, or at least accepted without reservation, by everyone. the result will be an informed, community consensus on Salmon Arm's future and how to get there.

What would it take for you to be willing to listen to your neighbours in order to meet your goals and theirs?

Salmon Arm Citizen Goals

What goals lay behind the passionate presentations, pro and con, at the public hearing on the Smart!Centres development proposal (Context)?

I distilled the following 31 goals. Some were stated both positively and negatively, e.g., maintain compact retail area and avoid sprawl. Being duplicates, only one appears below. Some were stated explicitly, others were implied.

Environmental goals

1. Good Salmon River fish habitat
2. Good Shuswap Lake fish and wildlife habitat
3. Aesthetically appealing Shuswap Lake
4. Good Shuswap Lake water quality for human use
5. Improve Hobbs Creek chemical quality
6. Good flood plain water quality
7. Good wetlands water quality
8. Good air quality through low auto use
9. Good landfill chemical quality

Social goals

1. Vibrant downtown; diverse types and times of use with a sense of community
2. Compact retail area
3. Easy pedestrian movement in retail area
4. Easy automobile access to retail
5. Safe movement across highways
6. Grow Salmon Arm
7. Orderly and cost effective Salmon Arm growth
8. Open and transparent government
9. Treat the OCP as a social contract
10. Aesthetically appealing developments
11. Open space and greenways
12. Community unity on Salmon Arm future
13. Consult with public on ARL land removal

Economic goals

1. Lower prices
2. Income from tourism
3. Fair price competition
4. Increase shopping opportunities
5. Increase construction income
6. increase regional shopping income
7. Increase employment opportunities
8. Maintain agricultural land
9. Low taxes through high density development

What are your goals for the future of Salmon Arm? Share them in the Comments.

Developing Community Unity

The following was originally submitted as a letter to the editor of the SA Observer on December 1, 2008.

There are two abilities absolutely essential to the creation of community unity on the Smart!Centres proposal. First, is the ability to hear one another. We've all had the experience of being listened to, but not heard, having our ideas dismissed. Hearing one another means actively seeking to understand, though not necessarily endorse, what others say. In searching for the widest possible understanding community members avoid the traps of shallow hearing and only hearing a select few.

Second, is the ability to create an informed consensus. Informed consensus begins by viewing the differing perspectives of community members, or at least the goals behind them, as valid insights into a more holistic perspective that almost everyone can support or at least accept without reservation. this is not about compromise; it is about finding new alternatives that are better than any of those initially proposed.

When employing this ability, community members advocate for:

• The use of inclusive and participative techniques that draw on the wisdom and experience of all who choose to participate.
  
• The gathering and analysis of such information as the participants feel is appropriate.
• The development of mutual trust and respect so that all participants listen to and hear one another as they create their new and more holistic perspective. this new and more holistic perspective is supported by a new and larger majority of the community.

In general, as issues involve more people, more diverse perspectives, long term or difficult to modify consequences, and greater complexity and interdependence, the greater is the value and necessity for developing an informed consensus. the Smart!Centres proposal involves all these elements and unity will not be found until an informed consensus is developed. The OCP review could be the means to such a consensus, but only if conducted as described above.

I would be happy to discuss these ideas and examples of consensus-building among large groups in greater depth with any one interested.

Neils Christiansen

How could you improve your ability to contribute to informed consensus?

Open Letter to All Who Ran for Mayor or Council

The following letter was sent to all candidates on November, 11, 2008.

I thank and congratulate all of you for running for Mayor or Council, for you responded to the need for leadership in our community. Whether elected or not, you helped meet that need by sharing your visions and specific suggestions for improving life in Salmon Arm. In that sharing, you gave the electorate a range of possibilities to review, discuss and choose among. You also made yourselves vulnerable to examination, possible criticism, and rejection. In fact, all of you share both acceptance and rejection; everyone got a sizable number of votes and none got all the votes possible. Such vulnerability is not for the faint of heart!

All your contributions will echo in future discussions within Council and the community at large. I hope all of you will continue providing leadership by vigorously participating both as listeners and as speakers.

With that hope in mind, I wish to share some thoughts about leadership. I believe there are four absolutely essential abilities to good leadership, particularly in a democracy.

1. The ability to listen and hear. We’ve all had the experience of being listened to, but not heard; having our ideas dismissed. No one who is heard is ever dismissed. A leader hears all the various perspectives, particularly those new or foreign to his or her usual way of thinking. That doesn’t mean leaders endorse what they hear. It means they actively seek to understand what has been said. That’s a tall order for there are only so many hours in a day. Consequently, this ability is seldom mastered. However, that does not lessen the need; it increases the requirement for continual refinement in the leader’s efficiency in listening and in hearing. In searching for that efficiency, effective leaders avoid the traps of hearing at only a shallow depth and hearing only a select few.

The other three abilities have to do with the way leaders respond to what they have heard.

2. The ability to sense, formally or informally, the majority perspective and to act on that perspective. This ability has assumed greater and greater importance since King John lost the battle for London in 1215, which led to the Magna Carta. It is often thought to be the hallmark of the democratic leader. However, while important, it is no more important than the other two ways of responding.

3. The ability to synthesize, from all that has been heard, what is best for everyone and to act on that synthesis even if not supported by the majority. This is tricky ground for it is easy to consider one’s synthesis as best for everyone when, in fact, it simply reflects a personal bias.

4. The ability to create informed consensus. Informed consensus begins by viewing the initial and differing perspectives, or at least the goals behind them, as valid insights into a more holistic perspective that almost everyone can support or at least accept. This is not about compromise; it is about finding new alternatives that are better than any of those initially proposed. When employing this ability the leader advocates for:

• The use of inclusive and participative techniques that draw on the wisdom and experience of everyone who chooses to participate.
• The gathering and analysis of such information as the participants feel is appropriate.
• The development of mutual trust and respect so that all participants listen to and hear one another as they create their new and more holistic perspective.

The use of this ability tends to create both a new, larger, and supportive majority and a synthesis of the initial perspectives into what is, in fact, best for everyone.

All three of the last three abilities need to be part of a leader’s skill set, for each is appropriate under certain circumstances. In general, as issues involve more people, greater diversity of perspectives, long term or difficult-to-reverse consequences, and greater complexity and interdependence, the greater is the value of moving down the list of abilities from 2 to 4.

For example, the issue of whether or not to amend the OCP and zoning as proposed by Smart!Centres clearly engages a huge segment of Salmon Arm residents of all ages. The perspectives expressed and the goals implied at the hearing were many, varied and passionate. The possible consequences for the future of Salmon Arm, whether the proposal is accepted or rejected, will be both long term and difficult to reverse. The proposal raises all sorts of complex and interdependent social, economic, and environmental questions. The election did not resolve the issue because candidates who spoke forcefully for and against the proposal were elected.

Clearly, the circumstances are such that a plebiscite should be deferred until after we develop an informed consensus. The OCP review, which seems to be needed in any event, can be the means to that consensus, but only if it is conducted as described above.

I would be happy to discuss these ideas in greater depth with anyone interested.

Neils Christiansen

What are your thoughts on the value of developing informed consensus in municipal governance?