thanks for this clarification. Sounds great. I’m very glad to to hear that capital works recommendations from ALL the strategies (biodiversity, bike, waste, sporting, water, climate, vibrancy etc. etc.) have ALL been incorporated into this process.

If what you say is true, then I definitely had misunderstood. The misunderstanding is perhaps part just not understanding what’s been communicated directly, but also on recent conversations with CGG staff or projects where action could / should have been aligned with strategies, but was being done without any apparent knowledge of them (the strategies). It seems many others who CGG would probably count as amongst the ‘most engaged’ in this whole 2029 and Beyond process, had also misunderstood. Perhaps that misunderstanding is some feedback for how this process is being explained and communicated?

I’ll share what you’ve clarified with our members, readers and anyone who asks.

Thanks for your ongoing open-ness and willingness to engage and explain, and willingness to learn together in this.

I’m always open to any invitation to support what you’re working on, and could safely say the same of many Pollinators members and readers.

Thankyou,

Andrew

I appreciate your response and explanation of the theory and practice of what you are doing. It’s articulate, insightful, coherent and valuable. What you’re doing, broadly, is remarkable, deservingly-awarded, complex and sounds like it is very-likely going to work.

A couple of things in response (from Andrew, as I can no longer say this response is on behalf of our members)

1. What you’ve explained here hasn’t been explained that well publicly in other forums, not in any follow-up to those that were previously (and still are) engaged in 2029 and Beyond. Sounds like you are starting to do more of that communication and explanation now, so look forward to receiving more information and updates we can share with our members and readers. [For those reading this who aren’t familiar, there’s a pretty good explanation of what’s happening and why, here: http://www.cgg.wa.gov.au/news/city-rings-changes and explained in detail here: http://www.cgg.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/%23ChangesCGG_0.pdf ]

2. You seem to doubt the level of engagement you already have, and doubt legitimacy of the strategies you already have and say it’s less than ideal that they were developed in isolation. That may be true, but they are 90% good, were developed with participation of 90% of those who really have a stake or interest in their implementation, and yet remain 90% unimplemented and seem to remain unknown to 90% of Council staff (and Geraldton citizens). My concern (personally) is that where the #cggchangescommunity or 2029 and Beyond ‘theory of change’ will fail is not in the doing of democracy and development of strategies, rather 1) systematic implementation and critical reflection on the learnings through implementation, 2) engagement with partner organisations who are engaged and who could/would take the lead on the $487 million of projects that Council will/can not.

Those concerns are based on observation and experience of the implementation of strategies since 2011 and communication from and with Council that suggests the loop (or cycle) between planning, doing, and learning is not being completed nor being done in partnership because your attention is on public perception and deliberative processes rather than on reflection on our doing together. Continued resourcing and attention on ‘perfection of public participation and PR’ or ‘episodic demonstration of deliberative democracy’ may come at the cost of ‘practical action and practicing learning, in partnership’.

To rephrase your closing comment using these distinctions, as a way to try and translate my framing into yours:

“The City wants to continue to throw rocks into the pond of deliberative democracy and make the ripples of deliberation continue to expand the knowledge and interest of Geraldton’s residents.”

vs

“The city is leading its partners and community in deliberating, act and learn together and make ripples of their success will continue to expand to future generations though creating a creative city-region with a prosperous, diverse and sustainable community.”

Not a perfect re-write, but I’m trying to suggest that the City needn’t think of itself separate to its citizens (we’re both the ‘subject’ in this sentence, and you already had thousands of us ‘with you’ if only you’d keep us informed), we’re growing something ground up locally together (not throwing rocks at something separate to us, from afar), and the object of attention and purpose is the community vision (not deliberative process itself).

Ok, let’s take the learnings from this exchange, continue the dialogue and get back to work!

Sincerely,

Andrew