Conversation in Negotiations Difficult conversations are a form .docx
Dialogue and Decision Making
1. Dialogue and Decision 1
GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY
Dialogue and decision-making:
Understanding dialogue and factors measurably influencing City decision-making processes
By Colin G. Gallagher, RPCV
EMPA 396 – Cohort No. 5
September 2, 2009
Instructor: Dr. Mick McGee
2. Dialogue and Decision 2
Table of Contents
Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................3
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................3
Definitions.....................................................................................................................................4
Hypothesis, Variables, Sub-Hypotheses, and Delimitation of the Study .....................................7
Assumptions of the Researcher .....................................................................................................8
Potential for Resultant Actions .....................................................................................................9
Literature Review ..........................................................................................................................9
Dialogue and Decision-Making ....................................................................................................9
Social Capital as a Resource: Community Well-Being and Development .................................10
Resource Utilization and Network Development: Precursors to Dialogue Opportunity ............11
Methodology .................................................................................................................................14
Data Collection ...........................................................................................................................14
Anticipated Issues .......................................................................................................................16
Areas of Measurement for Internal and External Utilization......................................................17
Results and Findings ....................................................................................................................18
Results of Data Analysis .............................................................................................................18
Findings.......................................................................................................................................25
Conclusions and Policy Recommendations ...............................................................................27
Conclusions .................................................................................................................................27
Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................27
Policy Recommendation I: Conduct Dialogues Regularly with Enhanced Facilitation ............27
Policy Recommendation II: Establish Presentation Opportunity for Participants .....................28
Policy Recommendation III: Enhance and Redirect Participation to Civic Centers .................29
Areas for Further Research ........................................................................................................30
References .....................................................................................................................................31
Appendices ....................................................................................................................................36
Appendix A (Dialogue Worksheet Questions Utilized by Dialogue Participants) .....................36
3. Dialogue and Decision 3
Abstract
Dialogue opportunities can be utilized as a specialized form of civic engagement, and in
this context dialogue is distinct from decision-making. Organizations that implement a program
of dialogue opportunities can utilize dialogues to influence decision-making. This study
describes the City of Salinas experience in 2009 with dialogue opportunities, and presents
research on whether the 2009 dialogues influenced decision-making processes at the City
Council level in a measurable way. The research analyzes data which aids in the understanding
of whether such dialogues utilized in similar circumstances would influence decision-making,
and reveals determining factors. A set of recommendations is added to make this research
accessible to leaders in any organization facing challenges of developing productive dialogue
while keeping organizational activities efficient.
Introduction
As is the case with many local governments across the country, the City of Salinas
experienced a reduction in revenue through 2008 which resulted in plans being developed by
management and elected officials to significantly alter previous budgetary plans. As part of this
process, the City Council authorized the submittal of a grant concept to Common Sense
California, a nonprofit organization which provides grants for civic engagement purposes to
local governments. The grant concept was co-authored by the researcher (in the researcher‟s
capacity as an employee of the City) and a Deputy City Manager of the City of Salinas. The
grant concept submitted to Common Sense California was intended to result in funding of four
independently facilitated dialogues on the theme of service levels and choices, with the
informational results of City residents‟ participation in the dialogues intended to be documented,
summarized, and delivered to the City Council prior to its action in the budget hearings for the
4. Dialogue and Decision 4
Fiscal Year 2009-2010. The City was successful in obtaining the grant, and the dialogues were
implemented on February 26th, 2009, March 16th, 2009, April 1st, 2009, and April 23rd, 2009.
Each of the four dialogues was independently facilitated by Viewpoint Learning, Inc.,
and the researcher aided in reservation of facilities, advertisement, food preparation, and other
similar administrative tasks for the dialogues. For one of the dialogues, at the request of
management, the researcher served as a bilingual English-Spanish translator. The question that
evolved from the researcher‟s observations of and reflections upon the dialogue processes was
whether these dialogues, and the informational result, had any impact or influence on the City
Council decision-making process for the adoption of a budget for fiscal year 2009-2010. After
the conclusion of the dialogues, the researcher made a final decision and commitment to examine
this question further through research which would involve data analysis, and to establish a
hypothesis for the final graduate (capstone) course for the Golden Gate University Executive
Master of Public Administration program that would address the dialogue question.
Development of an understanding of dialogue opportunities should begin with a clear
understanding of some of the basic definitions that have been used by organizations that have
programmed civic engagement activities into their work plans. Many organizations have found
as a routine part of their operations that a carefully programmed set of public outreach activities
is necessary to help further the goals of the organization. At the same time, many organizational
members are taking part in activities consistent with the Wojcicki (2001) definition of “civic
engagement” (p. 10) which is best defined as the “process of people‟s involvement” (E.
Wojcicki, personal communication, August 14, 2008) in “the specific organized and informal
activities through which individuals get drawn into community and political affairs” (Wojcicki,
5. Dialogue and Decision 5
2001, p. 10). This definition has been provided by Ed Wojcicki, currently Associate Chancellor
for Constituent Relations at the University of Illinois at Springfield.
In personal discussions during the first half of 2009, the researcher, along with a group of
established civic engagement practitioners, discussed the meaning of civic engagement in the
United States today through an online message board established by the researcher using
LinkedIn. Access to and moderation of the message board, titled „Civic Engagement and
Dialogue Practitioners,‟ was provided by the researcher. These discussions helped the researcher
gain insight into how various practitioners‟ perspectives on civic engagement have evolved.
A specialized kind of civic engagement emerges when „dialogue‟ opportunities are
presented. For the purposes of this study, „dialogue‟ shall be understood to be defined as per the
ViewPoint Learning (2009a) definition of "a special kind of discourse employing distinctive
skills to achieve mutual understanding and mutual trust and respect" (ViewPoint Learning, Inc.,
2009a) which is guided by "ground rules of dialogue" (ViewPoint Learning, Inc., 2009b). When
people participate in such a dialogue, they can become part of a „collaborative network.‟ The
definition of „collaborative networks‟ used for this paper is consistent with a portion of the Gloor
(2006) definition of collaborative innovation networks:
The individuals in COINs are highly motivated, working together toward a common goal
– not because of orders from their superiors (although they may be brought together in
that way), but because they share the same goal and are convinced of their common cause
(…) usually assembl(ing) around a new idea outside of organizational boundaries and
across conventional hierarchies. (Gloor, 2006, p. 11)
For the purposes of this study, in „collaborative networks,‟ one can observe a cooperation
which does not require the direct orders (nor direct and indirect permissions) which are
6. Dialogue and Decision 6
characteristic of the activities of an organization‟s formal hierarchy. This cooperation
nonetheless can continue to advance organizational interests through the increase of “civic
engagement” (Wojcicki, 2001, p. 10) in circumstances resulting from the participants‟ work on a
concept or issue for which Katz and Kahn‟s (2005)“feedback” (p. 485) is needed at some level
by an organization. In certain cases, the activities of such a collaborative network will influence
decision-making processes – however, whether the extent and level of influence is measurable
will depend on a variety of factors, including the proximity of the network‟s activity in time to
the decision-making processes which are closely tied to the concerns of members of the network.
The term „decision-making processes‟ shall here be defined as those processes by which
appointed or elected officials make decisions by voting in a public hearing setting, including that
aspect of the processes which involves the determination by the officials of what factors those
officials will use to evaluate information associated with the decision as the point of voting
approaches. Decision-making processes involve months or years of time prior to a decision.
For the purposes of this study, "the ground rules of dialogue" shall be understood to be
defined as they are described according to ViewPoint Learning (2009b):
1. The purpose of dialogue is to understand and learn from one another. (You cannot
"win" a dialogue.)
2. All dialogue participants speak for themselves, not as representatives of groups or
special interests.
3. Treat everyone in a dialogue as an equal: leave role, status and stereotypes at the door.
4. Be open and listen to others even when you disagree, and suspend judgment. (Try not
to rush to judgment).
5. Search for assumptions (especially your own).
7. Dialogue and Decision 7
6. Listen with empathy to the views of others: acknowledge you have heard the other
especially when you disagree.
7. Look for common ground.
8. Express disagreement in terms of ideas, not personality or motives.
9. Keep dialogue and decision-making as separate activities. (Dialogue should always
come before decision-making.)
10. All points of view deserve respect and all will be recorded (without attribution).
(ViewPoint Learning, Inc., 2009b)
I. HYPOTHESIS AND VARIABLES
The research described in this paper begins with the hypothesis:
Engagement opportunities provided through dialogues on service levels can influence
decision-making processes in a measurable way.
The dependent variable is: Influence decision-making processes.
The independent variable is: Engagement opportunities provided through dialogues.
II. SUB-HYPOTHESES
a. Dialogues influence decision-making.
b. Dialogues bring the general public more proximate to the decision-making itself.
c. Dialogues increase civic engagement.
d. Dialogues, as implemented in the City of Salinas, have revealed measurable
differences from prior years‟ decision-making patterns in response to public input.
In order to develop conclusions and recommendations within the timeframe established
for the research project and capstone course, the study was delimited in a specific way. The
primary data from dialogues come from the City of Salinas, and include data that resulted
8. Dialogue and Decision 8
directly from the dialogues implemented in February through April of 2009 in the City of
Salinas, with secondary data coming from other comparable sources utilized in the narrative of
the research. The amount of available data focused the research upon analysis of information
provided by persons participating in the dialogues in 2009, as well as background information
from persons who participated in other ways outside of the 2009 dialogues. This background
information included a review of public record data available from the City of Salinas which
dated back to 1999. The research is limited to an analysis of data available from the City of
Salinas from 1999 through June 30, 2009, as well as narrative information from other cities.
Assumptions of the researcher relevant to this study are as follows:
There is a reasonable expectation that an increasing number of members of the
general public in the United States today have been, or will become interested in
matters involving governmental expenditure.
Members of the general public want to be able to influence how the government
allocates money.
Members of the general public believe that their thoughts and opinions should be
held in higher value by elected, appointed, and employed governmental agents,
and would take advantage of additional opportunities to influence or change what
is done with money allocated by government.
A system of a constitutional and democratic republic in the United States can be
maintained and enhanced through the practice of civic engagement, where
governmental agents and a growing number of members of the general public
increase the frequency, civility, and collaboration inherent in their interactions.
These assumptions will be re-examined in the context of this dialogue research.
9. Dialogue and Decision 9
The potential for action directly resulting from this research is significant. This is due to a
strong increase in the number of local government jurisdictions in California performing
participatory budgeting projects in recent years, along with an increase in consultation with, and
engagement of, members of the general public by a variety of local government jurisdictions.
Additionally, the federal government has recently increased its emphasis on engagement. Finally,
the findings from this research indicate that the public interest in dialogues can be transformed
into a useful tool for local government policy and budget development, if some modifications are
made to existing dialogue processes used by local governments. These modifications are
necessary to develop appropriate measures of influence on decision-making processes.
Literature Review
I. Works on Dialogue and Decision-Making
Early writings on the dialogue and decision-making did not have the benefit of primary
data coming directly from dialogues developed as a part of a local government effort; however,
various existing works did lay the groundwork for development of an understanding of how
dialogue might be utilized as a precursor to decision-making processes. As an example, Dialogue
Processes for Generating Decision Alternatives by Bergner (2006) not only described the
differences between dialogue and decision-making, but set out to “develop principled dialogue
facilitation methods (…) especially in cases where the decision-maker desires a comprehensive
search of possible actions and outcomes” (pp. 1-2), worked to “establish a foundation for future
theoretical and empirical research on dialogue processes in decision analysis” (p. 1), and
introduced a “decision-dialogue model” (p. 61) to explain the “relationship of dialogue processes
to the quality of decisions” (p. 11).
10. Dialogue and Decision 10
More recently, the Engagement Streams and Process Distinctions Framework by the
National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation (2009) was refined to add new processes used
in the field of dialogue, and to indicate which processes are used in the specific categories of
engagement known as:
Exploration,
Conflict Transformation,
Decision-Making, (and)
Collaborative Action. (National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation, 2009)
II. Social Capital as a Resource: Community Well-Being and Development
The notion that dialogue may somehow be utilized as a type of engagement between
decision-makers and the public in a manner which influences representative government has its
roots in early American history. In a seminal work, The Community Center, Hanifan (1920)
provided ideas for how this process might begin. Hanifan (1920), then State Supervisor of Rural
Schools in West Virginia, defined “Social Capital” (p. 78) as
that in life which tends to make (…) tangible substances count for most in the daily lives
of people; namely, good will, fellowship, sympathy, and social intercourse among the
individuals and families who make up a social unit, -- the rural community, whose logical
center in most cases is the school. (p. 78)
In Hanifan‟s (1920) work, the concept was tied to the economy directly:
First, then, there must be an accumulation of community social capital. Such
accumulation may be effected by means of public entertainments, picnics, and a variety
of other community gatherings. When the people of a given community have become
acquainted with one another and have formed a habit of coming together occasionally for
11. Dialogue and Decision 11
entertainment, social intercourse, and personal enjoyment, then by skillful leadership this
social capital may easily be directed towards the general improvement of the community
well-being. (p. 79)
Gittell and Vidal (1998), in Community Organizing: Building Social Capital as a
Development Strategy, provided the first modern examples of how community can be built from
the ground up with their work on a “social capital perspective on community development
practice” (p. 33). In Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American community, Putnam
(2000) defined “social capital” (p. 19) as “connections among individuals – social networks and
the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them” (p. 19), and provided a full
description of the idea of “bridging (or inclusive)” (pp. 22-23) social capital in the context of
“networks” (p. 22), while crediting Gittell and Vidal with “coining the labels” (p. 446) of
“bridging” and “bonding” (pp. 22-23) forms of “social capital” (p. 19). According to Wojcicki
(2001), social capital is “the resource, or collective power, emanating from connections among
individuals, from social networks, and from social trust, norms, and the threat of sanctions, that
people can draw upon to solve common problems.” (p. 10) Wojcicki (2001) briefly and
comprehensively covers the subject of concept of social capital, its modern history, and how it
may be most precisely defined by viewing it as a resource.
III. Resource Utilization and Network Development: Precursors to Dialogue Opportunity
In Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition, Burt (1992) stated that “(t)he
task for a strategic player building an efficient-effective network is to focus resources on the
maintenance of bridge ties.” (p. 30)
12. Dialogue and Decision 12
Burt described a critical rule to network organization design: “The first design principle
of an optimized network concerns efficiency: Maximize the number of nonredundant contacts in
the network to maximize the yield in structural holes per contact” (Burt, 1992, p. 20)
The implication from this reference to an “optimized network” (Burt, 1992, p. 20) is that
there is a critical value in the sort of connections made when individuals who do not normally
interact develop a connection with one another. Burt‟s “structural hole is a relationship of
nonredundancy between two contacts” (Burt, 1992, p. 18). Thus, where bridging can occur
between one person in a „collaborative network‟ and another person not already associated with
the network, one or more of the following several opportunities arise: the possibility of
expansion of the network, a development of an awareness of the organization(s) associated with
the „collaborative network‟ on the part of the person making contact with the „collaborative
network‟ member (a potential result of “civic engagement” (Wojcicki, 2001, p. 10)), and
awareness of the possibility for idea exchange and economic opportunity on the part of the
„collaborative network‟ member and on the part of the person who has made contact with the
network through a member. It is these bridging activities which form the class of interactions
most critical to creating an environment favorable for economic growth while fostering dialogue.
Some skill and discretion is necessary for maintenance of this bridging activity, for as
Burt (2000) has also pointed out, “brokerage across structural holes is the source of value added,
but closure can be critical to realizing the value buried in structural holes” (p. 1). This statement
is based in part on Burt‟s (2000) observations resulting from network analyses of five studies of
managers utilizing questions about trust, socialization, reporting (hierarchical) relationships, and
others (Burt, Structural Holes versus Network Closure as Social Capital, 2000).
13. Dialogue and Decision 13
Part of the reason why these bridging activities can be utilized for economic purposes has
been commented on by Grandori and Soda (1995), who defined “(a)n inter-firm network (as)
(…) a mode of regulating interdependence between firms which is different from the aggregation
of these units within a single firm and from coordination through market signals (prices, strategic
moves, tacit collusion, etc.) and which is based on a cooperative game with partner-specific
communication.” (Grandori & Soda, Inter-firm networks: antecedents, mechanisms and forms,
1995). Later, Grandori (1997) provided further detail on this concept in the context of “social
networks” (p. 910) in a work on inter-firm coordination, in which it was reasoned that
as long as the interests of interdependent firms are convergent in selecting a set of actions
preferred by everybody, and as long as the number and combinations of players and / or
matters (…) is small, whatever the types of mechanisms employed for coordination, they
will not have to be formalized into external and internal contracts in order to achieve
effective and efficient coordination. The reason for this claim is that the establishment of
formal contracts entails a variety of transaction costs, including set up and administration
costs; search, decision, and negotiation costs; and possibly costs of loss of cooperative
atmosphere. (…) Transactional interdependence can also be managed informally, as long
as the game is seen as cooperative. (pp. 910-911)
The “inter-firm coordination” (Grandori, 1997, p. 897) thus need not take place only within the
context of formalized hierarchies. Citizen working groups, ad-hoc meetings, conversations, and
dialogue opportunities in a variety of formats held over the short-term for a specific purpose, or
over the long-term for an evolving or broader purpose, can and do present economic benefits to
organizations that utilize them. Evidence of increasing social capital and development of
networks such as those referred to above are factors that will make more likely the increase of
14. Dialogue and Decision 14
civic engagement activities that may influence decision-making, including (but not limited to)
dialogue opportunities. While highly developed social capital and strong collaborative networks
are valuable precursors to dialogue opportunities, they are not preconditions for dialogues.
Specific modern sources which have been referred to in the process of studying potential
economic benefits of bridging social capital are Social Capital: Measurement and Consequences
by Putnam (2000), Two Concepts of Social Capital: Bordieau vs. Putnam by Siisiäinen (2000,
July 5-8), A major difference in definitions: Social capital, civic engagement, and civil life by
Wojcicki (2001), Bridging and Bonding Social Capital: Which type is good for economic
growth? by Beugelsdijk & Smulders (2003), and A Multilevel Model of Group Social Capital by
Oh, Labianca, and Chung (2006).
Methodology
I. Data Collection
Baseline data was derived from a period of approximately ten years of decision-making
prior to the implementation of the dialogues. Proposed and approved City of Salinas budgets and
minutes of meetings were reviewed for the ten-year period to determine whether existing
mechanisms in place that were provided for the public to interact with decision makers might
have influenced the decision-making process for the budgets passed during the baseline period.
Budgetary data, City Council minutes, Finance Committee minutes, and Measure V Committee
minutes were obtained for all instances in which meetings occurred for the period of 1999
through 2009. Dialogue data was obtained from the City of Salinas in the form of worksheets
which participants completed for the dialogues. Data exists for such dialogues from the City of
Salinas only for the year of 2009, as this was the first instance of dialogue utilization by the City.
Interviews were conducted with all City of Salinas Council members after the June 30, 2009 to
15. Dialogue and Decision 15
determine key factors in their decision-making. A qualitative analysis was conducted based on
available data. Most data was obtained through California Public Records Act requests delivered
to the City of Salinas by e-mail, with standard language in the requests asking for electronic
records in lieu of hard copy wherever possible. It is important to note that during this data
collection process, while the budgetary data required was disclosed quickly, not all of the budget
data was electronically available, as only those budgetary reports and presentations from 2003
forward were available online, and request for electronic copy for budgetary reports from earlier
years did not yield direct access. To obtain access to earlier years of data, the researcher found
that it was necessary to schedule office visit hours at the City of Salinas to review and determine
what budgetary reports and pages would need to be copied in order to obtain basic budgetary
information that would indicate levels of recommended and adopted expenditures on a
departmental basis, so that these could be reviewed in the context of any records which
documented public comment during or prior to the corresponding meeting or hearing when the
decision(s) were made. In contrast, the minutes of all meetings from 1998 forward were available
electronically, which revealed that while a detailed accounting and record of what transpired in
the meetings was available, the budgetary information itself was not directly available
electronically. This observation is led to the formulation of part of the policy recommendations
which have resulted from this research process.
The period from March of 2007 through February of 2009 was classified as a
„preliminary civic engagement period‟ for the purposes of evaluating budget hearing data for
fiscal decisions made during that time, since the City had a formal civic engagement program in
place beginning in March of 2007 which included Council District meetings with Council
members, Mayoral Town Halls, Community or Neighborhood Cleanups, and large-scale events
16. Dialogue and Decision 16
known as Resource Fairs involving substantial multi-agency and nonprofit collaboration and
heightened public involvement. This period could be characterized as a time of significantly
increased engagement activity programmed by the City, with significant participation by
residents, from March of 2007 up to the start date of the first of four dialogues. The period of
time from February through April of 2009, when the grant-funded dialogues were implemented,
may be referred to as the „dialogue period.‟
Secondary data which were referred to during the research include participatory
budgeting dialogue data in narrative format from Common Sense California (the grantor
organization for the City of Salinas 2009 dialogues on service levels and choices), including an
extended interview with the Executive Director of Common Sense California which was useful
to the researcher in gaining perspective on other dialogue projects in California. These data were
utilized by the researcher as background information.
Elected officials who cast the deciding votes for the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 budget hearing of
June 30, 2009 for the City of Salinas were interviewed, and the interview results and dialogue
information from worksheets submitted by the public were analyzed along with the actual result
of the decision-making (the adopted Fiscal Year 2009-2010 City of Salinas budget). The City
Council members were not asked to participate in interviews until after the Fiscal Year budget
hearing for 2009-2010 was complete. The population sample, for the purposes of this research, is
all 2009 dialogue participants who submitted worksheets to the City of Salinas as part of the
dialogue process. The researcher procured these worksheets after the dialogues were complete
through the California Public Records Act request process.
Some issues were anticipated prior to this research, including the possibility that Council
members might be unavailable for comment on the interview questions, and that difficulties in
17. Dialogue and Decision 17
resolution of what staff should do about revenue shortfalls would make data collection and
research on the subject more sensitive and difficult to complete. Other issues anticipated were
concerns regarding the impending adoption of a budget balancing plan for Fiscal Year 2010-
2011 which proposed significant alterations to the budget allocations represented by the adopted
Fiscal Year 2009-2010 budget. Since the period under study ends with the June 30, 2009 Council
action on the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 budget, the budget balancing plan for Fiscal Year 2010-
2011 is not considered within the context of this study.
The researcher observed possible areas of measurement. These following possible
quantitative measurements were evaluated as a possibility for internal and external utilization:
- Determination of the number of decision-makers directly involved in endorsing or approving a
dialogue grant concept
- Determination of the number of decision-makers directly involved in observing each of the four
dialogue opportunities in 2009 funded by Common Sense California
- Determination of the number of instances in which particular participants are directly
connected to a policy-making action.
- Determination of the number of participants involved at a dialogue, and number of participants
in subgroups within each dialogue.
- Determination of the total number of participants involved in dialogues where the informational
outcome of the dialogues is directly connected to a decision.
- Determination of the number of policy-making decisions which are influenced or potentially
may be influenced by the dialogues. (This determination would require a system of measurement
of influence levels, as there must be a threshold level below which it would be understood –
based on the values inherent in the measurement -- that a decision is effectively not influenced.)
18. Dialogue and Decision 18
Results and Findings
The results of the analysis are presented below in summary format. There were four
dialogues, and the number of participants at each varied, as did the results of the preferences
indicated by the dialogue participants. However, across the board, some patterns became evident
which persisted in each dialogue despite differences in group sizes and demographics from one
dialogue date to the next. At each dialogue session, the choice labeled as „Enhance Salinas as a
Community‟ (Choice 3) was supported by the highest percentage of participants, and at each
dialogue session, the service area for which cuts would be most acceptable to the participants
was administration.
A key budgetary report in the context of the dialogues was a ViewPoint Learning
summary report which was presented to the City Council on June 16, 2009, two weeks prior to
the City Council decision by vote on the budget on June 30, 2009 for the staff recommendation
on the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 budget. In this budgetary report, which was provided to the City
Council as a presentation without an accompanying staff report, it was reported that forty-eight
percent of the participants supported Choice 3 (Enhance Salinas as a Community), that thirty-two
percent supported Choice 2 (Preserve the Current Level of Services in Salinas), and ten percent
supported Choice 1 (Minimal Government Services at Minimal Cost). The researcher determined
that the primary data provide different percentages than those provided in the ViewPoint
Learning summary report, as shown in the following figure that cumulatively illustrates the
selection provided by each participant that completed the „Final Judgment‟ portion of the
worksheet provided during the dialogues. In the view of the researcher, the reason for this
difference is because the information gathered from the dialogues (completed dialogue
worksheets) was provided by City management to City temporary or part-time staff for
19. Dialogue and Decision 19
tabulation prior to the production of the report by ViewPoint Learning, which is likely to have
caused errors in the process of information transfer, data tabulation, and presentation. The
following figure (Figure One) is based on the researcher‟s own tabulation of primary data
available (completed dialogue worksheets obtained via a public records request).
Figure One
After the dialogues were completed, and after the Salinas City Council‟s June 30, 2009 action to
adopt the recommended budget for Fiscal Year 2009-2010 (with less available revenue, but with
Council direction to staff to avoid layoffs in Fiscal Year 2009-2010), it became evident that the
State takeaways from local government would be even more than originally anticipated. In the
context of the dialogues, the worksheets completed by the participants include, in part, suggested
areas for cuts. These suggestions are the participants‟ responses which the researcher has focused
on, due to revenue declines that the City experienced over the period of time in the months
leading up to the Salinas City Council June 30, 2009 budget vote. Figure Two cumulatively
describes the most acceptable cuts to participants who completed the worksheet section that
asked, "If it became necessary to make cuts, in what area would a cut be most acceptable to you?
20. Dialogue and Decision 20
(CHOOSE ONE).” The researcher observed that a few participants chose more than one. The
researcher tabulated the data by dividing a single vote amongst each participant‟s choices made.
Figure Two
Actual changes were evaluated in corresponding service areas, as shown in Figure Three.
Figure Three
21. Dialogue and Decision 21
Direct comparisons between dialogue results for service areas and subsequent
percentages of change in funding for service areas are not recommended. It would not be correct
to directly compare or correlate areas desired to be cut or enhanced by the participants to budget
percentages. Additionally, it was not possible with the data available to determine the
preferences of the participants (individually or collectively) on what percent or level each service
area should be cut or raised to, although it was possible to determine the service areas which
were most preferred by the participants for a possible cut or enhancement.
Some of the data reflected in Figure Three does not reflect eventual cuts which are
anticipated to result, but are not known with certainty at the time of submittal of this research
work. For example, the Recreation/Park category in Figure Three shows a nearly 29 percent
increase in funding from Fiscal Year 2008-2009 to Fiscal Year 2009-2010, but this number may
be misleading, since a 54 percent cut in the Recreation/Park category is anticipated for Fiscal
Year 2010-2011 in the City‟s budget balancing plan, with some of those cuts potentially
beginning in the middle of the Fiscal Year 2009-2010. Changes in the City of Salinas revenue
situation which might alter these figures could not be known at the time of submittal of this
research work. However, it is clear that cuts to Administration, Library, and
Environmental/Maintenance categories were made as part of the budget decision-making process
for the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 budget, for which the vote was made on June 30, 2009.
While each participant could express a preference for the best ways of cutting and raising
revenue, only those who selected Choice 3, “Enhance Salinas as a Community,” were asked, “If
the City budget is increased, how should the additional monies be spent?” The participant
selections on enhancement are not examined in detail here, since for the purposes of this study,
the need to analyze whether the dialogues influenced decision-making, and the substantial
22. Dialogue and Decision 22
decline in revenue experienced by the City during the Fiscal Year 2008-2009, concentrated the
researcher‟s analysis of available dialogue data on the participants‟ preferences for what service
area cuts would be most acceptable. This portion of participants‟ preference represents responses
provided by all the participants, not only those who had indicated a preference for enhancement.
Finally, the Salinas City Council interview results were examined, with the past ten years
of budgetary reports, Measure V Committee minutes, and Finance Committee minutes serving as
background information for review of how the public has interacted with the City‟s decision-
making process and budgetary review in the past. There are seven Council members, which
includes one Council member per Council District and a Mayor, a Council member who covers
the City. Each Council member has one vote to exercise during culmination of a decision.
The Council member interview process was initiated by an e-mail request to all Council
members that contained the following standard request language from the researcher:
This e-mail is to request a time for a phone interview with you that would occur at some
point in the next week to week and a half. This interview is needed to help me complete
master's research for my final capstone presentation for a master's program, and will
take about five to ten minutes. The questions are oriented around decision-making and
how it occurs. Please contact me at (personal phone number) to let me know when a
good time for this interview would be.
The Council members were also informed that the results of the interviews would be
utilized for this research work without attribution. They provided the following answers in
response to the specific questions outlined below, with key words summarized by the researcher
from longer responses. The researcher documented the entire response of each Council member
word for word, then categorized the responses by dividing each response into four distinct parts,
23. Dialogue and Decision 23
before comparing the Council members‟ responses to each other for each question in a process of
observation and determination of key words which were repeated by various Council members
without knowledge of what other Council members had said in response. The Council members
were not limited in how they could respond (questions were open-ended, not multiple-choice),
with the exception of one question requiring a yes or no response.
1. What factors (during the months of January through June of 2009) influenced your
decision-making with respect to your decision-making process on your June 30, 2009
action on the recently adopted (FY 09/10) budget?
a. Finance Committee / Finance Director (3 of 7 Council members)
b. Employees / Employee Groups (2 of 7 Council members)
c. Projections (2 of 7 Council members)
2. Of the presentations that you received while in Council sessions (from January through
June of 2009) prior to the June 30, 2009 vote, which presentations had the most impact
and influence on you and your process of evaluation of the budget information presented
to you prior to the June 30, 2009 budget voting date (regarding the FY 09/10 budget)?
(Note: These could be presentations by staff, consultants, or anyone who made a
presentation to you while you were in Council session from January through June of
2009.)
a. Employee group presentations (3 of 7 Council members)
b. Employees speaking about personal impacts to them (3 of 7 Council members)
c. Finance Committee / Finance Director (3 of 7 Council members)
24. Dialogue and Decision 24
3. From January 2009 through June 30, 2009, did you seek out or request information (as
you evaluated information relating to the budget) apart from the various presentations
you received in Council sessions? (Note: The answer for this question is yes / no.)
a. Yes (7 of 7 Council members answered yes).
3a. If you did seek out or request information relating to the budget from January through
June 30, 2009: What information did you seek out or request, and how long did it
take you to obtain it? (If you sought out information on various dates or requested
information on various dates, please summarize briefly.)
a. Budget projection / Budget information (3 of 7 Council members)
b. Impacts to employees and members of the general public (4 of 7
Councilmembers)
4. Of the factors that influenced your decision-making (beginning with those factors you
considered during or after January 2009) before the budget vote on June 30, 2009, which
would you say was the most influential? (This may be one or more factors, please name
all that seem relevant to this question and identify which was most influential to you.)
a. Employees / Employees‟ stories (2 of 7 Council members)
b. People who will be impacted – employees and residents (4 of 7 Council members)
c. Revenue and Expenses / Projections (3 of 7 Council members)
5. In the days or weeks which passed just before the June 30, 2009 vote, was there any
factor or series of factors which altered or changed your thinking about any part of the
budget?
a. No (4 of 7 Council members answered no).
b. Yes (3 of 7 Council members answered yes).
25. Dialogue and Decision 25
i. Two of the three Council members who answered yes refer to budgetary
information from the State, the stimulus, and / or the Finance Director.
6. During the vote on June 30, 2009, what factors were most prominent in your mind which
contributed to your voting decision that evening? (Here, consider only those factors
which arose in your mind during the hours of the Council session on June 30, 2009.)
a. Budget reports (4 of 7 Council members referred to the budget report itself)
b. Layoffs versus No Layoffs (1 of 7 Council members referred to an agreement
reached by Council on the evening of June 30, 2009 to take a direction of no
layoffs and utilize furloughs)
The results of these interviews show clearly that the Council members considered
personal communications provided to them in a public venue to be a strong influence upon their
decision-making with respect to the budget.
Key findings of the research are described below:
1. The decision-makers (Council members) who voted on the budget, when interviewed,
did not cite the dialogues as factors in their decision-making process, although the
dialogues were supported by all Council members and were directly observed by some
Council members while the dialogues were being conducted.
2. Council members did cite people‟s stories, testimony, or comments when mentioning
factors that most influenced their decision-making processes.
3. Many Council members also directly cited financial concerns as a factor and cited the
Financial Committee or Finance Director‟s financial reports as influential.
26. Dialogue and Decision 26
4. The City Council meetings in the City Rotunda have provided a public space where
public remarks and testimony regarding issues of interest are regularly voiced, with
periodic increases in public comment on fiscal issues over the ten year baseline period.
5. Engagement opportunities through dialogues have influenced budgetary processes in
Salinas, but not through a means which is effective enough to measure easily.
6. Measurement of engagement opportunities through dialogues could be accomplished by
enhancing the use of existing facilities which have historically been well-utilized by the
public for communicating with the City Council.
7. The Finance Committee is not designed to facilitate public comment, and engagement in
that venue, based on the minutes, has diminished over the ten year baseline period.
8. The results of the dialogues have been presented by consultants and staff to Council, but
not by residents of Salinas to the Salinas City Council.
9. The provision of dialogues has increased the number of participants involved in civic
engagement activities in the City with methods not previously utilized.
Based on these findings, assumptions of the researcher were re-examined. The sense of the
researcher that a system of a constitutional and democratic republic in the United States can
be maintained and enhanced through the practice of civic engagement, where governmental
agents and a growing number of members of the public work to increase the frequency,
civility, and collaboration inherent in their collective interactions, holds true only if civic
engagement techniques are altered to connect the results of civic engagement directly to
decision-making processes. In the opinion of the researcher, people will only continue to take
advantage of additional opportunities to influence or change what is done with money
allocated by government so long as they can clearly see that their participation is valued.
27. Dialogue and Decision 27
Conclusions and Policy Recommendations
The research reveals that dialogue does influence decision-making, although it was not cited
as a factor in decision-making by the Council members surveyed. The alternative – that dialogue
does not influence decision-making – is not supported by the data, given the clear interest that
decision-makers expressed in obtaining budgetary information on their own, the emphasis
decision-makers placed upon personal stories as key factors in their decision-making process,
and the high level of interest in future dialogues shown by the participants based on indications
collected from the dialogue worksheets. The dialogue process did influence decision-making, but
lacked a direct connection to the physical location where the decision-making customarily
occurred. Such a connection, established far enough in advance of the decision date itself, could
have made the influence the dialogues had on decision-making processes quantitatively and
qualitatively measurable. The dialogue processes should be modified to increase involvement of
citizens in processes more proximately connected to decision-making actions that local
governments use to establish budgets and allocate revenue.
Evaluation of the research process, in the view of the researcher, reveals the following:
while the implications for the research are significant, the extent to which the research can be
meaningfully employed is limited until further research is conducted that would focus on
measurement in the context of dialogue and decision-making processes.
Below are three key policy recommendations with detailed recommendations resulting from
this research, which will aid local governments, members of the general public, and researchers.
A. Policy Recommendation I: Conduct dialogues regularly with enhanced facilitation.
1. Dialogues on a jurisdiction‟s budget should be conducted quarterly or with greater
frequency over a local government jurisdiction‟s fiscal year.
28. Dialogue and Decision 28
2. Dialogues should be facilitated with involvement by staff but facilitated by
residents of the jurisdiction, so as to encourage sharing and collaborative
ownership of the process. Staff facilitators should be drawn from a variety of the
jurisdiction‟s departments, and residents should be drawn from different parts of
the local government jurisdiction. Where it is possible to do so, consultants should
be contracted to assist with facilitation, particularly where the dialogue
implementation has not been previously performed in the jurisdiction.
3. One or more of the elected decision-makers of the jurisdiction should also be
provided with the opportunity each year to assist with facilitation. In this way,
elected officials who cast deciding votes on budgets will gain further appreciation
for the dialogue process and its potential for influencing decision-making
processes.
4. While dialogue processes are necessarily personal, involving and enhancing the
connections between people directly, instruments should also be made available
to allow people to review budget information and submit preferences online in a
survey format throughout the year.
B. Policy Recommendation II: Establish presentation opportunity for participants.
1. Dialogue participants should be provided with the opportunity to present the
information from the dialogues directly to the decision-makers along with their
personal stories. This opportunity should become part of the dialogue process.
2. Participating members of the public should be asked as part of the dialogue
process – through the worksheet or other dialogue instrument – if they would like
to assist the jurisdiction by serving as a presenter of a portion of the dialogue
29. Dialogue and Decision 29
summary. In this way, some members of the public would be able to share the
experience with staff of presenting the results of the dialogues to the local
government jurisdiction‟s governing body.
3. Participating members of the public should also be asked as part of the dialogue
process if they would like to share their experience at the dialogue directly with
the local government jurisdiction‟s governing body (e.g., City Council or Board
of Supervisors) as part of an agendized component of the governing body‟s
meeting or hearing. These personal experiences and stories will be considered as
influential factors by the governing body in its decision-making process.
C. Policy Recommendation III: Enhance and redirect participation to civic centers.
1. Certain places (such as the City Rotunda in the case of Salinas) have a long and
well-documented record of being utilized as civic centers where people go to
comment or directly interact with their elected officials, and these places should
be utilized more extensively to deliberate and conduct dialogues on fiscal matters
of concern to residents in a local government jurisdiction.
2. Commissions and committees of high value to elected officials which have not
historically shown evidence of substantial public involvement (such as the
Finance Committee in the case of Salinas) should be provided with civic
engagement mechanisms -- public opportunities to engage through dialogue
directly with such commissions and committees in civic centers where evidence
of substantial public involvement has historically existed. As an example, the
Finance Committee of the City of Salinas should be re-oriented so as to allow for
quarterly dialogue opportunities with the public (with at least half of these
30. Dialogue and Decision 30
opportunities held in the City Rotunda and the other half held in well-utilized
civic centers around the City), preceded by neighborhood-level planning to
involve members of the general public and staff from departments throughout the
City in announcing each dialogue opportunity beginning two months in advance.
This would allow for substantial time for personal collaborative networks to
extend the reach of the announcement of the dialogue opportunities through direct
and personal communications in a manner beneficial to residents and which is
valued by the City Council as an influential factor in the decision-making process.
3. A performance-based scoring system should be developed to allow members of
the general public, as well as elected and appointed officials, to readily view the
levels at which dialogues conducted are or are not influencing the decision-
making process over time. This system should include measurable standards that
would be collaboratively developed by the public, staff, and elected officials.
Areas for Further Research
Additional research is recommended in order to determine whether or not dialogue
processes are improved. Dialogues do influence decision-making processes, however, a clear and
simple system of measurement of the level of this influence is needed. Because dialogue
processes observed by the researcher were not clearly measured in the context of their influence
on decision-making processes, a comprehensive assessment should be performed of existing
standards of measurement relative to additional dialogue opportunities utilized by various local
governments. Additional research on dialogue and decision-making should evaluate efforts of
governments that have already utilized dialogues prior to conclusion of budgetary decision-
making, and should evaluate how to best measure the influence of these and future dialogues.
31. Dialogue and Decision 31
References
Alves, A., Carneiro, L., Madureira, R., Patricio, R., Soares, A. L., & Pinho de Sousa, J. (2007).
High performance collaborative networks: a realistic innovation or just an academic
desire? In J. Legardeur, & J. Martin (Ed.), Towards new challenges for innovative
management practices. II, pp. 51-55. Biarritz, France: ERIMA.
Axelrod, R. H., Axelrod, E. M., Beedon, J., & Jacobs, R. W. (2004). You don't have to do it
alone: how to involve others to get things done. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, Inc.
Bergner, D. (2006). Dialogue Processes for Generating Decision Alternatives. Stanford
University, Management Science and Engineering. Ann Arbor: ProQuest Information and
Learning Company.
Beugelsdijk, S., & Smulders, S. (2003). Bridging and Bonding Social Capital: Which type is
good for economic growth? European Regional Science Association. Jyvaskila (Finland):
Tilburg University.
Blau, P. M., & Scott, W. R. (2005). The Concept of Formal Organization. In J. M. Shafritz, J. S.
Ott, & Y. S. Jang, Classics of Organization Theory, 6th ed. (pp. 203-207). Belmont
(California, U.S.A.): Wadsworth.
Block, P. (2008). Community: the structure of belonging. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, Inc.
Borgatti, S. P., Brass, D. J., Burt, R., Coleman, J. S., Cross, R., Gladwell, M., et al. (2003).
Networks in the knowledge economy. (R. Cross, A. Parker, & L. Sasson, Eds.) New York,
New York, United States of America: Oxford University Press, Inc.
32. Dialogue and Decision 32
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (2005). Mechanistic and Organic Systems. In J. M. Shafritz, J. S.
Ott, & Y. S. Jang, Classics of Organization Theory, 6th ed. (pp. 198, 199). Belmont
(California, U.S.A.): Wadsworth.
Burt, R. S. (2000, August 10). Structural Holes versus Network Closure as Social Capital. Pre-
print for a chapter in Social Capital: Theory and Research . (N. Lin, K. S. Cook, & R. S.
Burt, Eds.) Chicago, Illinois, United States of America: University of Chicago and
Institute Europeen d'Administration d"Affaires (INSEAD).
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Cross, R., Borgatti, S. P., & Parker, A. (2002). Making Invisible Work Visible: Using Social
Network Analysis to Support Strategic Collaboration. California Management Review ,
44 (2), 25-46.
Fair, J., Gallagher, C. G., & Juarez Jr., J. (2008). Proposed Neighborhood Services Work Plan
for Fiscal Year 2008-2009. Salinas: City of Salinas.
Friedkin, N. E. (1993). Structural Bases of Interpersonal Influence in Groups: A Longitudinal
Case Study. American Sociological Review , 58 (6), 861-872.
Gagnon, M. A., Jansen, K. J., & Michael, J. H. (2008). Employee Alignment with Strategic
Change: A Study of Strategy-supportive Behavior among Blue-Collar Employees.
Journal of Managerial Issues , XX (4), 425-443.
Gallagher, C. G., Juarez, J., & Rifa, J. J. (2007). Proposed Neighborhood Services Work Plan for
balance of Fiscal Year 2006-2007 and Fiscal Year 2007-2008. Salinas: City of Salinas.
Gittell, R. J., & Vidal, A. (1998). Community Organizing: Building Social Capital as a
Development Strategy. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
33. Dialogue and Decision 33
Gloor, P. A. (2006). Swarm Creativity: Competitive Advantage through Collaborative
Innovation Networks. New York: Oxford University Press.
Grandori, A. (1997). An Organizational Assessment of Interfirm Coordination Nodes.
Organization Studies , 18 (6), 897-925.
Grandori, A., & Soda, G. (1995). Inter-firm networks: antecedents, mechanisms and forms.
Retrieved August 16, 2008, from BNET Business Network:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4339/is_n2_v16/ai_17167886/pg_1?tag=artBody;c
ol1
Hanifan, L. J. (1920). The Community Center. Boston: Silver, Burdett, & Company.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (2005). Organizations and the System Concept. In J. M. Shafritz, J. S.
Ott, & Y. S. Jang, Classics of Organization Theory (6th edition) (pp. 480-490). Belmont
(California, U.S.A.): Thompson Wadsworth.
Krebs, V. (2008). Social Network Analysis, A Brief Introduction. Retrieved August 16, 2008,
from Social Network Analysis software & services for organizations, communities, and
their consultants: http://www.orgnet.com/sna.html
Markus, K. A. (2000). Twelve Testable Assertions about Cultural Dynamics and the
Reproduction of Organizational Culture. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom, & M. F.
Peterson, Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate (pp. 297-308). Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation. (2009). NCDD's Learning Exchange. Retrieved
January 12, 2009, from National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation:
http://www.thataway.org/exchange/categories.php?cid=105&hot_topic_id=1
34. Dialogue and Decision 34
Oh, H., Labianca, G., & Chung, M.-H. (2006). A Multilevel Model of Group Social Capital.
Academy of Management Review , 31 (3), 569-582.
Osborne, D., & Plastrik, P. (2000). The reinventor's fieldbook: tools for transforming your
government (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA, United States of America: Jossey-Bass.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone. The collapse and revival of American community. New
York: Simon and Schuster.
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital. Journal of
Democracy, 6:1 , 65-78.
Putnam, R. D. (2000, March 19). Social Capital: Measurement and Consequences. Retrieved
July 20, 2008, from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/25/6/1825848.pdf
Schein, E. H. (2004). The Levels of Culture. In E. H. Schein, Organizational Culture and
Leadership (3rd edition) (pp. 25-37). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schuldt, R., Ferrara, B., & Wojcicki, E. (2001). Profile of Illinois: An Engaged State (Illinois
Civic Engagement Benchmark Survey Results). University of Illinois at Springfield,
Center for State Policy and Leadership (formerly the Institute for Public Affairs).
Springfield: Illinois Civic Engagement Project.
Scott, J. (1991). Social Network Analysis. London: Sage.
Siisiäinen, M. (2000, July 5-8). Two Concepts of Social Capital: Bourdieu vs. Putnam.
Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä Region, Finland.
Sustained Dialogue. (2009). Results-Oriented Dialogue for Corporations and Organizations.
Retrieved March 1, 2009, from Sustained Dialogue Home:
http://www.sustaineddialogue.org/programs/results-oriented_dialogue.htm
35. Dialogue and Decision 35
ViewPoint Learning, Inc. (2009b). Viewpoint Learning, Inc.::Ground Rules of Dialogue.
Retrieved April 7, 2009, from Viewpoint Learning, Inc.:
http://www.viewpointlearning.com/about/rules.shtml
ViewPoint Learning, Inc. (2009a). Viewpoint Learning, Inc.::What Is Dialogue? Retrieved April
7, 2009, from ViewPoint Learning, Inc.:
http://www.viewpointlearning.com/about/dialogue.shtml
Wojcicki, E. (2001). A major difference in definitions: Social Capital, civic engagement, and
civil life. Retrieved April 21, 2009, from Civic engagement research of Ed Wojcicki:
http://www.edwoj.com/Links/research_civic.htm
Interviews
City of Salinas City Council Members
Executive Director, Common Sense California
36. Dialogue and Decision 36
Appendix A
The Future We Want for Salinas
FINAL JUDGMENT
1. Look back at the sheet describing the three choices. Which of the three comes closest to
your vision for the future of Salinas? (CHOOSE ONE)
Choice #1: Minimal government services at minimal cost
Choice #2: Preserve the current level of service in Salinas
Choice #3: Enhance Salinas as a community
IF you chose option 3, please answer the following question: If the city budget is
increased, how should the additional monies be spent? Put a (1) next to your first
choice and a (2) next to your second choice.
___ Increase the police force
___ Provide after-school and summer programs for young people
___ Improve park & street maintenance
___ Provide services for seniors
___ Other (please specify)
2. If it became necessary to make cuts, in what area would a cut be most acceptable to you?
(CHOOSE ONE)
Police
Fire/EMS
37. Dialogue and Decision 37
Park and tree maintenance
Maintenance of City facilities
Library and recreational programming
Administration
3. In your judgment, of the several ways of raising revenue, which would you find most
acceptable? Put a (1) next to the choice you find most acceptable, and a (2) next to your second
choice.
___ Sales Tax
___ Extension of Measure V (for at least 5 years)
___ Parcel Tax
___ Transient Occupancy Tax
___ Lighting and Landscape Assessment
___ Utility Users Tax & addition of mobile phones
Do you find any of the above choices UNacceptable? If so, put an (X) next to the one choice you
find least acceptable.
38. Dialogue and Decision 38
4. How useful were the background materials in helping you think about the issues?
Very useful Somewhat useful Only a little useful Not at all useful
5. How useful was the discussion in helping you think about the issues?
Very Somewhat Only a little Not at all
6. How helpful was the leader in guiding the meeting?
Very Somewhat Only a little Not at all
7. Overall, how much impact did your participation have on your thinking about the issues
facing Salinas?
A lot Some Only a little None
8. What, if anything, was the most important thing you learned from today‟s session?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
For classification purposes, please provide the following background information:
1. How long have you lived in Salinas?
Less than 2 years 2-5 years 6-10 years 11-20 years More than 20 years
2. Do you own or rent your home? Own Rent
39. Dialogue and Decision 39
3. What is the highest level of schooling you have completed?
Less than High School Graduate High School Graduate Some College College Degree
Post-Graduate Study/Degree
4. Do you have children aged 18 or under living at home? Yes No
5. What is your gender? Male Female
6. What is your age? 18-34 35-44 45-54 55-65 Over 65
7. What was your total household income before taxes in 2008?
$20,000 or less $20,001 - $40,000 $40,001 - $60,000 $60,001 - $80,000
$80,001 - $100,000 More than $100,000
8. What is your ethnicity? (Choose one)
White Latino African-American Asian American Indian/Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Other
The Future We Want for Salinas
Updates and Further Information
This meeting is one of four taking place in Salinas this year. Updates on the results and
information on related matters will be available in the coming months, and there may be
additional opportunities for you to participate in dialogue with other residents and city leaders.
Please check if you are interested in receiving the following:
40. Dialogue and Decision 40
____ Updates on the Community Dialogues
____ Information about important city matters
____ Information about opportunities for continued participation
Contact information (please print): Name:
Address: Phone: E-mail: