Thanks for pointing this out Ranjeet. I wish my facilitators could talk it over with you. Now some ten weeks later, we have seen slight improvements such as scheduling subcommittees based on a quorum of committee members, not guests. But it still feels as if we need to jump gates to get to our goal. Even if RR can be better implemented, I still would like to see a radical change, one that is more heart centered.

I envision a skillfully facilitated circle in which each member is passed the mic, based on the “talking stick” model. That way all voices are heard. The facilitator would identify both issues and concerns and also ideas and solutions. The skillful part would be in synthesizing those disparate ideas and concerns into two or three proposals that would be discussed in the second round. Members would have opportunities to ask questions, make additions, or clarify points, but would be discouraged from negating or disparaging. I’ve seen this model used by educators, counselors, and workshop facilitators with great success. People from opposite ends of a dispute have been known to find empathy with folks on the other side. (I’ve also seen some people grow firmer in their alienation and more defensive in their position, so it’s not all rainbows.) But overall, it feels much more productive, creative, cooperative, and affirming than anything I’ve experienced in a government forum so far (either in person or watching congressional hearing online).