Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />SEeTlONTHREE <br /> <br />Steering Commmee Process <br /> <br />this process asks the group to work toward a consensus level of agreement on decisions before <br />them. The meta-decision-making process allows that if there are still unresolved questions once <br />the consensus discussion has run its course, the Steering Committee members could agree to <br />acknowledge any areas of consensus reached and provide additional time to address unresolved <br />Issues. <br /> <br />To achieve a consensus in the Steering Committee recommendations, an iterative discussion <br />process was needed, as many issues had to be addressed and re-addressed to build understanding <br />of the complexity of the operational and financial aspects of stormwater management. Each <br />meeting provided a new layer of information with which the Steering Committee needed to <br />become familiar. In each meeting, the Steering Committee worked either in small group <br />discussion or in plenary discussion to build their comfort and understanding of the components <br />of the problem. From these conversations, the Steering Committee was able to both identify a <br />set of guiding criteria to use to help evaluate acceptable alternatives and work with the <br />consultants to build a set of viable alternatives for further investigation. During the seven <br />months of conversation, these alternatives were challenged, evaluated, and winnowed down to <br />the final recommended alternative. <br /> <br />The process is illustrated in Figure 2. The conclusions and recommendations that resulted from <br />this process are discussed in the sections below. <br /> <br />URS <br /> <br />T:\PROJECTS\22236022~GRAND_ VALLEY\SUB_OO\6.0~PROJ_DELlV\FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPT REV 5.DOC\24.JUL.03\\ 3-3 <br />