Public Meeting Communication Analysis of the Sustainable Madison Committee for the City of Madison
Course Assignment*
Committee: Sustainable Madison Committee (SMC) for the City of Madison
Date: Monday, July 17, 2017 4:30pm
Location: 210 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Room 351, Madison, WI
Agenda item: Adopting the High Point-Raymond Neighborhood Development Plan amendment as a supplement to the City of Madison Comprehensive Plan, to provide more detailed and contemporary planning recommendations for the planning area, as a result of land use, transportation and other important changes over time.
Purpose of memo: Examine communication techniques and strategies of committee members
Two other agenda items, establishing an urban forestry taskforce and approving the collaboration memorandum of understanding between the City of Madison and MG&E, were discussed at this meeting though the first motion was passed swiftly without much discussion and the second item was not resolved in this meeting. Consequently, I chose to focus on the High Point-Richmond Neighborhood development plan amendment as its discussion lasted over two hours and was resolved in this meeting.
Context:
The High Point-Raymond Neighborhood Development Plan (NDP) was originally adopted by the city of Madison in 1997 with a couple amendments added in the early 2000s. The topic of this SMC meeting was about the adoption of an additional amendment hereto referred to as the High Point-Raymond Neighborhood Development Plan amendment (NDPa). The NDPa largely builds from the previously adopted land use concept, with few major changes in land use. The density of all residential areas was evaluated and adjusted if appropriate, which resulted in a modest increase in overall residential density. The slight land use changes also triggered additional issues in utility and transportation planning. Building additional streets was the major point of contention at this meeting, specifically the extension of Jeffy Trail to Raymond Road (Figure 1). Although the original NDP passed in 1997 intended Jeffy Trail to connect to Raymond Road, the street currently dead ends and transitions into a bike path which runs through green space (and also transects with the Ice Age Trail).
The SMC reviewed the NDPa with an expert from the Planning Division of the City, heard testimony from neighborhood residents and Alder McKinney, then discussed their concerns with the plan. Near the end of the meeting, the SMC voted to recommend approval of the NDPa without the Jeffy Trail extension; eight SMC members voted for motion and three voted against it.
Interestingly, seemingly all members of the SMC had at least one issue with the NDPa; some wanted to exclude the Jeffy Trail extension from the NDPa and some SMC members felt the development plan was not meeting housing density goals for Madison. Thus, the main arguments for both factions could be viewed as strategies to promote conservation.
The first, and more numerous group aimed to conserve green space and limit development. This conservation strategy is a more traditional approach to saving any and all green space but is neglects other strategies and considerations which may promote conservation overall and sometimes feels very local and self-interested in scope. This reflects a few things about this group’s conservation thinking. For example,
There was no discussion of the value of ecosystem services this green space provides beyond human services (i.e. a parade route for the 4th of July, bike path, dog walking trail). Does the area include any sensitive ecosystems or native habitat or is it mainly invasive species? Would restoring this space to a native community be a more appealing alternative to development?
The group did not discuss where new residents to Madison would be displaced to if housing density in this area was not increased. Would limiting development along the Jeffy trail extension cause urban sprawl in other areas?
The continued discussion about property values also conveyed a conflict of interest between keeping conservation and sustainability in mind and competing economic factors.
The second group wanted to increase housing density in the NDPa to reflect the anticipated population growth in Madison. This strategy reflected a broader and more comprehensive understanding of the factors which threaten land conservation and sustainability.
Acknowledged the threat of urban sprawl facing Madison as a whole
Recognized that the Jeffy Trail extension has been in the city plans since 1997 and that smart planning creates a more connected and diverse city with a variety of resources in each neighborhood
Ultimately, in a subsequent meeting, the Madison Plan Commission voted to pass the NDPa including the Jeffy Trail extension and not addressing density issues, although this is not discussed further in this analysis.
Figure 1. A Google Maps view of the current neighborhood road and trail system between Jeffy Trail and Raymond Rd
An examination of communication techniques and strategies employed by key speakers on the Sustainable Madison Committee
A few notes about the committee in general:
Twelve of the 18 members of the committee were present which met quorum.
All of the SMC members present were alders. Only one member of the SMC is not an alder and he had an excused absence from the meeting.
L.G. was acting chair
SMC member J.R. made a potential conflict of interest disclosure at the beginning of the meeting that he is the President of Madison West Neighborhood Association, which includes the area encompassing Jeffy Trail and the Jeffy Trail bike path. He voted against the extension.
Many members SMC are on several committees for the City of Madison which may have influenced their decisions and talking points on the SMC.
Acting chair L.G. was an influential member of the SMC as he controlled the flow and cadence of the meeting. He initiated discussion about the High Point-Raymond NDPa with the following positive and encouraging communication strategies:
Open and animated body language
Gesturing to emphasize points
A shifting gaze which engaged several other members of the committee and public section
Attentive silence and good door openers such as, “does anyone have any comments on this topic?”
Frequently looked down to reference notes*
However, in this initial exchange, Chair L.G. struggled with the following:
L.G. was seated off to the left side and was hidden from many people in the public section (though he likely had good visibility to the rest of the committee).
L.G. was speaking in a somewhat projected voice, but because of his location, he was often difficult to hear or understand
Repeatedly had to remind committee members (and others guest speakers) to limit their comment to three minutes, often interrupting them and then giving them additional time as a consequence of them being unaware of the limit.
Frequently looked down to reference notes*
Overall, L.G. conveyed an excitement for the position as chair but also expressed a little uncertainty and inexperience. L.G. frequently referenced his notes conveying to those listening that they could trust that he was paraphrasing notes correctly but also conveying a bit of uncertainty in what he was discussing. L.G.’s slight over-excitement was triggered by each member’s engagement. Yet this excitement did not translate to a cool and controlled exterior, but instead gave away his potential inexperience in the role. Further experience in this role may have evened out his behavior a little bit and made the committee a little bit more relaxed as well.
This flaw was somewhat overcome with very neutral openers, “does anyone have any comments on this topic?” His openers and engagement with the committee could have easily been biased by changing one word in the opener to “does anyone have any concerns about this topic?” or “does anyone have any comments on this issue?” The words ‘concern’ and ‘issue’ impact the question by making it a much more biased question which would have likely led the committee to solely voice negative aspects of the NDPa.
On a more technical note, L.G. would also have benefited from preemptively mentioning the three-minute comment limit because it would have reduced confusion, kept him from having to interrupt guest speakers (who were likely not familiar with committee protocols and frequently became flustered when reminded of the three-minute rule), and kept the meeting running efficiently.
One of the next influential speakers was alder B.Mc. From the moment she walked to the presenter podium, it was obvious she was experienced in presenting to the committee. This was apparent in her posture, body language, tone and volume of her voice, as well as the organization of her comments. She began by thanking the committee for the opportunity to speak and then led with her ‘ask,’ “My ask is that you remove the Jeffy Trail extension from the High Point-Raymond Neighborhood Development Plan amendment.” This early inquiry which was clear and direct varied widely from an earlier commenter, M.St. M.St. was asked to clarify his request after submitting his three-minute comment. This led to the following interaction at the conclusion of M.St.’s statement.
Chair L.G.: “What are you asking us to do?”
M.St.: “Remove the Jeffy trail extension.”
In this instance, M.St. expected the SMC to extrapolate his stance on the NDPa based on his comments. This created confusion amongst the committee and public who had trouble tracking the information because they didn’t have a frame of reference to assign M.St.’s comments to M.St. definitely would have benefitted from leading with his ask like B.Mc. did.
After B.Mc. framed her ask, she referenced the following document which the SMC referenced when making statements if favor of the Jeffy trail extension.
The street connection is required by the City’s Land Subdivision ordinance:
MGO 16.23(8)(a)1 Land Subdivision Regulations: Design Standards – Streets and
Alleys. General: In any new subdivision the street layout shall conform to the
arrangement, width and location indicated on the official map, master plan or component
neighborhood unit development plan.
This document detailed the situations when cul-de-sac would be acceptable. Initially, I was reminded of the Aldo Leopold Foundation when we ‘brought a piece into the room’ by reading it out loud. However, in this case when B.Mc. read the governing documents, members of the SMC and public started whispering, shuffling papers, and acting distracted in general. This is likely because the document and its apparent contradiction is a little long, filled with jargon, and is complex in its nature.
However, at this point all members of the SMC had laptops open and were possibly referring to the document while she was speaking. It was also available in the agenda and was presumably meant to be read before the meeting.
Thus, reading this document out loud seemed to distract everyone but B.Mc. She would have benefited from paraphrasing the document and outlining it contradictions in her own words thus engaging the committee and public a little more effectively.
Although these were just a few examples of the ways people communicated at the meeting, each interaction was likely loaded with information and underlain by relationships, histories, and motives I was not privy to.
SMC Communication Strategy Conclusions
My initial impression was that the SMC meeting ran fairly well and served its purpose. However, after further examination, I think there were many areas for improvement.
Although the committee came to a vote and ended up passing the NDPa with the recommendation that the Madison Plan Commission exclude the Jeffry trail extension, the vote was not unanimous (8-2) and there was a sense of underlying tension at the meeting’s conclusion. I was only subconsciously aware of the discourse initially but after further analysis I could probably attribute a lot of this tension to poor communication skills on the part of the individual committee members and the committee as a whole. And although members of the public also have a responsibility to practice good communication and would certainly benefit from it, I put more expectation on the SMC members to communicate well because of their position in the government as representatives of their aldermanic districts and Madison as a whole.
The committee in general seemed disjointed with several different goals and conservation/sustainability strategies in mind. Yet, the disjointed meeting was out of sync with their seemingly unified sustainability goals. This begs the question, does the SMC ever meet without agenda items to vote on? It seems like they would benefit from a deeper understanding of their conservation/sustainability goals and strategies. Having a more cooperative understating of the SMC’s goals and which aspects of sustainability were priority versus which aspects could be negotiated first, might make the meetings a little bit more fluid and less stressful for its members and the public.