Consensus Group Labored Long to Find “A Way Forward”

“People in the community had to open their pockets to make sure I had a nice place to go to school when I was young. I owe it to my children and those that follow to return that gift that I was given.” Tom Tillman

Forty-three Orcas residents met in a large circle for 12 hours over four days to present “A Way Forward” by which the Orcas Island School District could address the failing school facilities. They issued a final consensus statement on April 11, 2011.( See preceding story)

The group, convened by Fred Klein, who established the ground rules for the circle group and facilitated its four meetings, honored their commitment to speak personally and respond whole-heartedly “to reach a consensus on a way forward to ensure that the facilities of the OISD are adequate to meet our collective responsibility for the education of our community’s children.”

Individually and repeatedly, each member of the group began his or her comment with the phrase, “My name is ….” The “rules” of the group produced an egalitarian, respectful forum where precise definition of words such as “adequate,”  “sufficient,” “unanimous” and “collective” were considered along with philosophical discussions of islanders’ commitment to education and the lack of a unifying political body on Orcas. Analysis of the difference between bonds and levies came out, as did the commitment of members of the group to continue as an advisory group to the community and the school district.

J. Marie Riche, principal of Ideal Communications, co-facilitated the group, and provided occasional direction by summing up what she had heard and suggesting possible directions the discussion might take. Frequently the group was reminded that consensus meant not total agreement, but rather a commitment to  not undermine the agreed-upon recommendations of the group. At critical times the circle was asked, “Is there anyone who can not support the group making this statement?”

The first four-hour session on Saturday, April 2 (which this reporter did not attend) acknowledged the need to build trust and commit to the 12-hour time limit when facing contentious issues.

Major themes in the discussion that the group returned to over the course of the meetings were:

• the likelihood of increasing interest rates;
• the “special needs” of the “1980s buildings” (the one-story library, cafeteria, middle school, woodshop and district office buildings which, according to the 2005 engineering report, would cost more to repair and retrofit than to rebuild entirely);
• the political realities of the public voting for a levy and/or bond issues.

With the goal of producing a consensus statement by 5 p.m. on Saturday, April 9, the group of businessmen/women, educators, parents, grandparents, retirees, architects, contractors, philosophers, administrators, artists fashioned their collective recommendations.

A starting point early in the discussions came from a contractor who said, “In making a decision, I gather the facts, consult with my resources and determine the best solution I can with the facts at the time.”

One person who had consulted several of those involved in the process of building the “1980s buildings” reported that the original bond in 1978 for $2.1 million failed by five votes. It was cut by 25 percent later that year and passed for $1.7 million. With that amount, the district determined to build a middle school facility, “as best as could be done at the time.” It was brought up that the price for construction of those buildings was $40 per square foot, “when the going rate was $65 per square foot.”

Discussion of the decision the current school board must make regarding a $900,000 energy retrofit grant from the Department of Commerce for the Elementary School led to the group issuing an early [intlink id=”11949″ type=”post”]consensus statement specific to that issue[/intlink]. (The OISD board will decide on that issue at the April 13 special meeting, scheduled for 5:30 p.m. in the School Library.)

The discussion led to a distinction between the immediate repairs that must be made to the school buildings, and the “elephant in the room” of the 1980s buildings which will cost significantly more to rebuild. At several junctures the issue of interest rate inflation was brought up. Following the meeting, Realtor and parent Wally Gudgell, who had consulted with a leading state bond consultant, reported that, although bond rates fluctuate on a daily basis, rates are likely to inflate by the end of the year, and significantly inflate within two years. “Current interest rates are less than they were the last time the bond came up for a vote, and increasing interest rates could cost as much as the project itself,”  Gudgell said.

Understanding the impact of interest rates, and making sure the community understands the difference between a levy, which requires a simple majority, and a bond, which may requires a 60 percent voter approval, led the group to air their thoughts on respect for the greater community, including the “naysayers”, and the goal of addressing the situation “out of vision rather than fear.”

More subjective issues, such as trust within the group and trust in the community at large, and clear communication were frequently brought up. One group member offered that communication is a two-way street: obligation to the community involves participation in “dull” meetings, and the sincere effort to understand historical context, legal requirements and political situations as well as personal situations.

Klein and Riche guided the group with a light hand; occasionally reminding particpants that the “circle process” involves speaking to the group rather than side conversations. Klein asked the group to do some “homework” along the lines of completing  the statement, “I would like our consensus statement to include….”

One statement was made that the consensus agreement needs to be ongoing, rather than a conclusive set of recommendations.  “We need to re-state the ‘sacredness’ of education in this community; it is the primary responsibility of the state, as written in the state constitution.”

On Saturday, April 9, the group worked to draft its consensus statement. The meeting was divided into one-hour segments to:

• State broad themes
• Refine the language to further define the thoughts
• Subdivide into eight groups to wordsmith the thematic statements
• Reconvene as a circle and review the results

Final refinements came through an email process on Sunday, April 10 and continued to Monday, April 11.

Following the meeting, parent and entrepreneur Morgan Meadows said, “From the beginning, as people relaxed into trusting each other, our voices did have equal weight, and we acknowledged that we can’t speak for all voices in the community. I hope we can hear the feedback we need to hear and continue the process as a community to arrive at a sequence of solutions.”

Parent, historian, school staff and businessman Tom Tillman said, “I felt really positive about the results. I work four jobs to survive on Orcas and have no desire to end up leaving a place that I have called home for 40 years if I have a few bad financial hits. I really feel the pain of others who are hurting. I have had to rekey for banks the houses of people I have known my whole life. These are people I have laughed with, cried with, swam with, and shared my life with in numerous ways.

“On the other hand people in the community had to open their pockets to make sure I had a nice place to go to school when I was young. I owe it to my children and those that follow to return that gift that I was given.

“I do not take lightly increasing taxes in this economy but I know in my heart that it is right to do whatever we can. Henry Jameson, whom I had the honor of serving on the Orcas Library Board of Trustees with years ago, used to say whenever we discussed expenditures, ‘Let’s make sure we give the taxpayers the most bang for the buck.’”