2015-08-18 Planning and Organisation Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                  18 AUGUST 2015


Feedback from the facilitator

The facilitator employed for Noosa’s first Community Jury, from the second meeting forward,
was an independent innovation and change specialist with a focus on partnerships and
engagement. Her feedback was:

“When I first met the Noosa Community Jury I was delighted to see that it was indeed a
diverse group of people with different views. Over time the Jury learned how to disagree
respectfully and take time to understand their different points of view. They also grew into
their role as community members considering a complex issue and stopped thinking they
had to be experts, or that experts had all the answers. New Democracy and Council staff did
a great job of sourcing ‘experts’ the Jury sought to hear from to inform its deliberations and
then stepping back to give the Jury the space to consider what it had heard. Jurors
expressed excitement (and I think some surprise) at having reached agreement about the
priority areas for recommendations.”

Feedback from newDemocracy Foundation

The Executive Director of newDemocrcay Foundation attended almost all Jury meetings and
co-facilitated when required. He said that the final measure of success was the report and he
was impressed by the willingness of participants to share both the good and bad of the
decision they were asking Council to take and said that citizens felt a high level of ownership
around their decision.

In addition, he commented:

“The fundamentals were right: we secured a diverse group from the local community,
empowered them with detailed information and a gently facilitated space for discussion and
sharing of views. We had people from all walks of life, all ages and from different parts of the
area, weighing tradeoffs rather than simply approaching Council with a wish list.”

Additional feedback included:
    Jurors freely shared differences of opinion in a constructive way and thinking long term
      for the community.
    The Jury formed a strong consensus on recommendations.
    The Jury was given an appropriate amount of time by Council to deliberate on this
      complex issue.
    It was important that there was no decision made by Council about organic waste
      management prior to the Jury commencing its deliberations.
    That Council has begun to establish a group of facilitators who understand the specific
      conditions of Community Jury facilitation for future community juries.

Feedback from Council Staff Involved

The newDemocracy model seeks to maintain the integrity of each community jury by
protecting the jurors from being steered or influenced. This includes being influenced or
steered by Council. The model also protects Council from being accused by the community
of trying to steer or influence the jury. It is up to the jury to request further information and
call for speakers.

In practice, this model can be challenging to work with. This was particularly true in the first
two meetings while the Jury was in the information-gathering phase and digesting a large
volume of information about a complex topic. The feedback received from departments




                                                                                    Page 110 of 139