7732 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• 4.3.4. Full Participation of the Stakeholders. The fact that discussions were facilitated kept the group focused and allowed all stakeholders to participate fully. Without facilitation, one of the stakeholders would have had to play the mle of chairperson thus vitiating either that person's contribution as stakeholder or their role as chair. The participants in this project were consistently engaged and working toward an agreement. They were extremely persistent and patient, qualities that not every working group brings to the table. Facilitation also provided the rubric under which some important consulting interventions could be made, especially in the realm of conflict management and consensus-building. 4.3.5. Agreement on Process Issues. Early on, the group recognized the importance of agreeing on procedural issues. The group adopted clear groundruies and enforced them throughout the project. For example, it was agreed that everyone would attend all sessions and that there would be no substitutes for the principals. With few exceptions, this guidance was • observed and meant that a stable work team interacted with each other over the six months of the project. In addition, each meeting had a clearly stated set of expected outcomes and an agenda designed to achieve them. 4.4. Recommendations. The substantive recommendations of GURU II aze contained in Chapter 3 of this report. The following additional recommendations are tendered by the Center for Public Private Sector Cooperation to help move those substantive recommendations forward. 4.4.1. Prompt Action. First, and most importantly, the recommendations of GURU II as embodied in this report should be taken promptly to the Water Acquisition Committee of the RIP. There is a sense of momentum about this project that should not be lost if practical solutions are to be put in place in a timely fashion that will balance the needs of endangered fish with other • 44