Resources / Chapter 6: Potential Applications of the Fast Forum Technique

Chapter 6: Potential Applications of the Fast Forum Technique

Uses of the Fast Forum: Suggested Models

Through the past 30 years of research in social science to enhance citizenship, we have learned a lot of things that do not work. Research in social science is a very slow, almost at times a glacial process. It may take one, two, or more years to duplicate the setting, make a change, and try again. However slow, progress has been and is being made. What follows in this chapter is our best thinking at this time as to next steps that could and should be taken at state, county, city, municipal, school, church, and orga- nizational levels to utilize the Fast Forum^® technique to achieve symbolic dialogue in an overall process of civilization building. These models are: The Citizen Councilor Network Forum for state governments, The Citizen Councilor Network Forum for city/county governments, The Spiritual Councilor Network Forum for religious or- ganizations, Psycho-Social Education for schools, PLAN Forum^® (Planning Long- range Assessment Network) for organizations and QUEST Forumª (QUick Environ- mental Scanning Test) for organizations.

The effort here is timely because the “United Nations Year of Dialogue among Civilizations” is the year 2001.¹⁰⁰ Hopefully, the suggested models which follow will help initiate that dialogue in the next millennium.

The Citizen Councilor Network Forum For State Governments

Washington State Citizen Councilor Bill

In the last year we have come to recognize a State Auditor as the natural administrator for Zeitgeist Communication programming in state governments. Professionally, state auditing has moved from fiscal audits (primarily to prevent fraud) to compliance audits (compliance to higher authority and laws) and performance audits (compli- ance with a municipality’s or agency’s own laws or regulations). These reports that are generated by a State Auditor are helpful to administrators being audited.

The auditor, an elected public official, is administratively neutral, but performs an essential outsider function that, however, is based on constitutional authority (at least in Washington State). It is natural for the auditor to ask citizens to help do the job of auditing state government and all other governments and agencies dispensing public funds within the state. We believe the concept of a “social audit” using the Fast Forum^® technique can be developed over the years ahead as another major profes- sional tool to audit “intangible” assets. This can be used by auditors everywhere. In the public application what will be created is basically a feedback communication system owned by the people but provided for the benefit of all governments—state, county, city, and regional. The same is true of universities as well as economic and cultural institutions, e.g., trade associations, Chambers of Commerce, and community and church organiza- tions.

People are not anti-government, they are not anti-business, they are not anti- schools, they are not anti-religious. These are all vital organizations in the survival of our society and civilization and what people want is for them to succeed. Mistakes will be made, that is sure, but we will learn! Hopefully, all governments, through the cooperation of officials and administrators, together with the news media will help in the task ahead of civilization building. It is a noble goal.

We hope you find the letters and legislative bills which follow of interest and use.

The Citizen Councilor Network Forum For City/County Governments

This model is derived from the state model but instead of a state law to administer it, the city or county has to pass an ordinance. It is important to do so because of the concept of “mainstreaming.” People must believe that what they are being asked to do is “mainstream” and a part of the decision-making processes of their governments, or they won’t get too excited. They must believe that someone is listening. The effort must be perceived as something more than “citizenship education” (providing information to citizens of what they need to know) or “Citizen Participation” (providing citizens an opportunity locally for input to meet the standards of some higher political body, e.g., federal). The passage of the ordinance sounds a clear bell that government offi- cials and bureaucracies truly want to “talk” (symbolically) to their constituents. That message is not clear at this time. In general, our present cultural reliance on big public meetings do not allow conversations but only confrontations—officials see citizens who are upset rather than at their best (as in juries). But symbolic dialogue of small groups connected by the Fast Forum^® Technique to each other and their leaders re- tains all the attributes of small group, eyeball-to-eyeball, communication yet allows thousands of people to interact with each other. We hope that you will find these ideas of interest and use.

Key Points of the Model

1. The program is open to any citizen who volunteers to meet on call in small groups of 8 to 12 persons approximately quarterly but not more than monthly during a 30-45 day window period. People meet usually in their own homes or workplaces; these are places where people already They do not have to go to a big meeting at an often-remote distance to participate. Their role is as a councilor—“one appointed or elected to advise a sovereign or chief magistrate.”¹⁰¹ An ordinance should be passed establishing the program and appointment of any citizen who volunteers to become a “Citi- zen Councilor.” With one simple stroke of the pen, this law will create the three essential conditions for the successful functioning of the future of society postulated by Peter Drucker:

“No society can function as a society unless it gives the individual member social status and function, and unless the decisive social power is legitimate power.

Status, function, legitimacy: [are] the essentials of the new order (emphasis added by Tarrant).¹⁰²

It will also meet the essential condition postulated by Alvin Toffler.

“I would urge all of us as futurists to devote some of our energies to finding new ways to destandardize, deconcentrate, descale, delimit, and democratize plan- ning. (emphasis added).” ¹⁰³

It also meets the criteria of John Gardner:

“If we are to solve the problems of the cities we must greatly strengthen local government. And given our tradition of private-sector independence, we must invent ways in which local leaders in and out of government can work together to formulate community policies and purposes. ” ¹⁰⁴

1. Program is usually funded by the government entity organizing the network. Grants can be limited to the first one, five, or ten thousand citizens who apply to enroll in the Above that initial number set, any citizen can participate who contributes to cover the variable direct costs of the program estimated to be between $15-$20/year currently. Alternatively, the entire program can probably be self-funded by nominal annual fees of $25-30/year if desired; it need not require tax funds to implement. In effect, a communi- cation network could be established owned by the people but available for use by government officials and planners at the state, county, and municipal levels when citizen participation is desired or required. Provisions can be made for scholarships to assist citizens who are unemployed or handicapped.

2. Citizens (and school youth too when desired) can interact symbolically with the Mayor, County Executive, Governor, President (i.e., “chiefs of state”), planners, or other officials. A network established and maintained by a municipality can be utilized on occasion by the county, region, or state with approval by the Citizens will then learn of a variety of topics at all governmental levels and will become increasingly better informed and able, over time, to contribute positively as a citizen to their public planning processes of civilization building “in pursuit of happiness.”

Washington State was identified as one of five precursor states in social innovation by author John Naisbitt in the best seller Megatrends.¹⁰⁵ It is true. For example, Wash- ington was the only state that emerged from the United State’s bicentennial celebration in 1976 with a recommendation and funding by its commission for ongoing programming to try to enable its citizens to participate better in the public planning processes of government. Several states established ongoing programs in volunteerism, while most just turned the key, locked the door, and walked away from their celebra- tion of two hundred years of democracy. Washington, however, was the only state able to discern that where citizenship was concerned, it was not quite volunteerism they were after, i.e., the idea of “give me your time, give me your body, give me your hands.” Washington was more interested in “give me your mind”! That is signifi- cantly different!

The Citizen Councilor concept is symbolically interactive. People meet on call through mailed notices to their group conveners who each arrange for their own small group to meet at times and places convenient to themselves, usually in homes or the workplace where they already are. Citizens then listen to an audiotape (or watch a video) and study printed materials prepared by government officials and planners concerning the issue being discussed. After discussion, including a two-minute Day- in-the-Sun, each participant responds individually to an enclosed Opinionnaire^®. These can contain demographics of sex, age, county, city, neighborhood, legislative district, congressional district, census tract, ZIP code, etc. They also can contain up to 50 objective questions (yes/no/abstain, multiple-choice questions with up to 5 choices, or value scale questions, e.g., strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree, or abstain) or those using “end anchors”, e.g., “Not Appropriate 1 2 3 4 5 Highly Appropriate” and the like. The Citizen Councilor bill is an adaptation of the PLAN Forum^® model; both use the Day-in-the-Sun group process.

The Citizen Councilor model was designed originally to operate at the level of the state with provisions for utilization at the county and municipal levels. That is still the ideal public arena. It is being adapted here, however, to begin at the municipal level with provisions for later compatibility with systems initiated at the higher county and state levels. The reason is that there are more opportunities to start at the munici- pal level and gain experience rather than start at the state level. The model provides an informal public information system to citizens to allow them to learn about a public issue and respond with their opinions about it before laws are passed. This is in contra- distinction to a formal public information system as is the case with the Washington Voter’s Pamphlet that is typical in many states. In the voter’s pamphlet all citizens face a choice—vote for the law proposed as it is with all of its complexities or vote against it. There is no middle ground.

Value Reporter

In the process proposed in this model “value reporters” are assigned by public officials or a steering committee to prepare the audiocassette or videotapes and develop mate- rials for the citizen councilors network to assist in their discussions. This is a person trained in searching out the facts of an issue much like a reporter, an attorney, or one trained in debate. A value reporter differs in two significant ways from an investiga- tive reporter. First, a value reporter tries to present all sides of a controversial issue fairly and in an unbiased manner to help groups focus their discussion. The Value Reporter represents the people’s “right to know.” The research is not meant to be nor could it ever be exhaustive. It is meant to help stimulate people in their discussion and dialogue processes. The value reporter always returns to the experts and officials inter- viewed and has them inspect prepared tapes and materials meant for distribution to small groups participating. If a person interviewed is not satisfied with his or her previously recorded statement, the interview is simply done again until the person literally signs off that the statement given fairly represents his or her views. If one misspeaks during an interview, the danger of improper utilization and embarrass- ment is avoided which might be the case with investigative reporters who often have different agendas. The second difference, as mentioned, is that a value reporter re- searches only those issues assigned by the government official or steering committee and is representing the people’s right to know. An investigative reporter, on the other hand, is usually not so circumscribed and often reports on the sensational. While the role of the value reporter, as we see it, is more deliberate and circumscribed than that of an investigative reporter, both are important.

Convener/Host

Each group has a convener. Usually this is someone who agrees beforehand to act as host or hostess and to convene the group, which is organized earlier, usually to meet within a 30-45 day window period. This allows each small discussion group to ar- range their own meeting at a time and place convenient for themselves rather than be asked to attend a big meeting at a remote distance that is the cultural norm. Since there are only about two to six couples in the group, it is not a big task for a convener to get the group together. At their meeting, the person designated as convener helps lead the group through its discussion first by playing a cassette tape. This is usually a 20 to 30 minute audiotape prepared earlier by the organization leader or by his or her staff or “value reporter” with an introduction by the leader followed by a presentation of the issues by others. After listening or viewing the audio or videotape, the convener invites each person in turn to have his or her two-minute “Day-in-the-Sun,” if the person wishes to do so. An open discussion follows.

At least fifteen minutes before the group is scheduled to leave, each person is given a copy of an objective Opinionnaire^® covering the issues under discussion. Each person then individually completes the demographics and answers the questions posed on the optical scanning response sheet provided (or on the Reproducible Response Sheet if used instead).

The machine-scannable response sheet does the same thing as a computer terminal. It allows a human being to interface directly with a machine accurately, swiftly, and eco- nomically. Though low tech, it is high touch. This application, in conjunction with Zeit- geist Communication and the Fast Forum technique, is a breakthrough in social science!

Response sheets (and tapes for reuse) are returned by mail for optical scanning of responses. A Viewspaper^® with highlights of results can be returned to each par- ticipant by mail and one or more detailed computer profile reports are also re- turned to each convener for study by participant groups as desired. Results are distributed to public officials and planners as advisory data only. Thus, people act as official advisors and a sounding board to assist in the public planning process. All reports are properly disclaimed as described under “The Formal Clauses.” (See Chapter 4.)

If organizational and political leaders want organizational and political stability, they should not be up in the crow’s nest just giving orders (authoritarianism) and swaying to each pitch and yaw of the organizational ship of state. Instead, they should be as close as possible to the center of organizational stability, near the keel, where the people are. The closer a leader stays in touch with his or her colleagues and constituents, the more stable the organizational and political relationship is between and among them all. This is why authoritarianism, centralism, and dictatorships are all doomed ultimately to fail; they simply cannot compete with the openness and dynamics of a fully functioning democracy. The Community Forum model has great potential. We commend it to organizational, societal, and political leaders everywhere.

Hopefully, political, civic , and cultural leaders will respond. History waits.

The Spiritual Councilor Network Forum for Religious Organizations

Lay Councilor Network Proposal

A religious denomination should use its good offices to take the lead to organize a grassroots discussion of its own theological policies and publications or, as a starting point, of The Book of Resolutions of The United Methodist Church.¹⁰⁶

I (RJS) have been a certified or local church lay speaker¹⁰⁷ of The United Method- ist Church annually since 1967 in my research in communication and social science. After the Bible and the hymnal, I consider the Social Principles and The Book of Reso- lutions to be the greatest written treasures of our church. The 1996 edition has 294 resolutions of policy statements concerning moral issues faced by an individual, the church, and the society itself within which the church functions. They are carefully considered and well crafted. Forty-three percent were new—just passed by the Gen- eral Conference, the highest governing body of the church, in 1996. The new 2000 edition is now available from Cokesbury Bookstore and has 338 resolutions; 55% were passed or amended and readopted in 2000.

When I read the Social Principles and The Book of Resolutions, I am highly influ- enced. I know it is my corporate church trying to give me, as an individual member, and the church, and the society of which we are a part, a moral sense of direction. However, we are Protestants, and as such, we do not believe in the infallibility of the church. Thus, I am free, as every member of the church is free, to disagree with any part of the theology and policies recommended without being ostracized from the church. Why? Because it is not the corporate church that has the primary responsibil- ity—it is the individual disciple! That is a very powerful theology that can bring spiri- tual relevancy and empowerment to the level of the pew in our churches. Accordingly, our task as laity in the church is to talk symbolically together through our study of the Social Principles and The Book of Resolutions of The United Methodist Church, or similar publications from religious leaders in other denominations, as we build civili- zation together.

We conducted a nine-week research program from January 16 to March 13, 1994. About 400 parishioners in The United Methodist Church throughout the country in nearly 40 churches participated in a study of issues considered by The Book of Resolu- tions. The nine weeks included Program Orientation, Authority in the Church, The Family, Children, Aging, Health Care, Racism, Economic Justice, and Program Evalu- ation (see the Viewspaper^® summary in Appendix D-1. The research was well re- ceived and approved by the participants and proved to be a robust feedback commu- nication technique. We learned—and made progress.

Leadership in the Faith-Forming Community

Dan Dick and Evelyn Burry, authors of Quest, A Journey Toward a New Kind of Church, write:

Leadership in the faith-forming community paradigm will create an environment where every person can find a place for learning, growth, formation, and meaningful service.

To accomplish this shift into the new paradigm, leaders of The United Methodist Church — at all levels — will need to focus attention in four areas: 1) to accurately identify the current reality of the church [e.g., study the ‘current reality’ of its theology as contained in thSeocial Principles and The Book of Resolutions, which are updated every four years by the General Conference,]2) to articulate the desired reality of the people [e.g., enable parishioners to meet as ‘Lay Councilors’ in groups of 4 to 12 to discuss issues in theSocial Principles and The Book of Resolu- tions using the Fast Forum® technique], 3) to design appropriate systems

to move the church from its current reality to its desired reality [e.g., con-

duct ‘symbolic dialogue’ between ‘Lay Councilor’ parishioners and some or all of the following: general boards, agencies, and the general con- ference. This symbolic dialogue can be done through use of the Fast Forum® technique. For ease of analysis, the data can be posted on a website. The Polarization-Consensus Ratings can also be published in subsequent issues of thSe ocial Principles and The Book of Resolutions.

The ratings will show the degree of personal ratification of resolutions discussed], and 4) to adopt a “balcony perspective” to observe and im- prove the entire process [e.g., by studying the profile reports of Lay Coun- cilor responses at the national, jurisdictional, conference and district levels by gender, age, ethnic family etc., on a website and publish Viewspaper® summaries when appropriate.]” ¹⁰⁸ (The bold-faced brack- eted passages in the above quotation were inserted by the present writers.)

While The United Methodist Church at the present time considers The Book of Resolutions to be a reference document, it has the capacity to be a truly great dynamic document. This can be achieved through symbolic dialogue and Zeitgeist Communication to help clarify the overall theology of all religions to their ministry of civilization building to the world. The process can equally help society at large which can participate too; the computer can keep track of all responses and groups and make reports accurately, swiftly, and economically.

All meetings would be held in small groups in local churches or in homes weekly, bi-monthly, or monthly and be open to all members who are interested in participat- ing (including the public as the computer can keep track easily). Here is how we see it working. Small packets can be sent to local churches participating containing:

1. An instruction and assignment sheet patterned after the experimental research done in 1974.

2. An Opinionnaire^® listing questions for each subject studied using multiple- choice or value scale “end anchors” questions, e.g., a) How appropriate is this resolution? Participants can respond: Not Appropriate 1 2 3 4 5 Highly Ap- propriate; b) All things considered and as now written, can you personally ratify this resolution? Participants can respond Yes, No, or Abstain (similar to the options provided citizens when they vote in elections on laws pages long).

3. A Fast Forum^® machine-scannable response sheet on which individuals can record answers (no “punching” of ballots or generation of “chad” that were often used in the 2000 Presidential elections of Governor Bush and Vice President Gore which proved so controversial).

4. Completed “Reproducible” response sheets, if used, can be returned by the deadline date at the end of each assignment and tabulated by: a) a local church “communicator,” if available, who keys participant responses into a computer for transmission to the Forum Foundation by e-mail or mailed diskette for tabulation of profile reports without cost, b) by expressing the completed response sheets with identifying church letterhead together with a check for 50 cents for each sheet to be keyed by the Forum Foundation, or c) by replac- ing reproducible response sheets in advance with machine-scannable response sheets from the Forum Foundation at 25 cents per sheet in packets of 100 sheets which includes scanning (Note: all costs are nominal, but all prices are subject to change without notice.) At present the Forum Founda- tion plans to advertise this research project to a random selection of the 36,000 local churches in the United States in 2001 to get started.

If you would like your church to participate in the Spiritual Councilor Network Forum using the Fast Forum technique, fax (206-633-3561) or write to the Forum Foundation, 4426 Second Ave. N.E., Seattle, WA, 98105-6191 and request a copy of the Spiritual Councilor Forum Monograph containing the Lay Councilor Network program information. Any religious groups can participate and modify their own materials if required as long as they follow along in the basic format of the program.

1. Results will be optically scanned and tabulated by the Forum Foundation using the Fast Forum^® computer “socialware.” The computer program is now being updated for the seventh Profile reports showing symbolic responses by Gender, Age, Geographic, and Ethnic Family can be provided to denomi- nations for return to participating churches. A simple, single sheet, folded Viewspaper^® of summary highlights can be prepared for return to local churches for reference by the study groups participating and/or inserted in their Sunday Bulletins as ongoing information for all members of the local congregation if they desire. Religious leaders also will be able soon to access their national, jurisdictional, or district database to produce specific profile reports eventually of member attitudes and opinions in an ongoing symbolic dialogue of civilization building. (After December, 2001, see www.ForumFoundation.org/UMissues2001 for the first year’s postings. We are continuing to learn.)

Other Favorable Factors

• Inasmuch as the 1996 Book of Resolutions adopted a new resolution titled “Realizing Unity Between Lutherans and United Methodists” (page 713), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America could easily be included in the project if desired.

• Inasmuch as the UMC 1996 The Book of Resolutions adopted a new resolu- tion titled “Make Evangelism the Number One Priority for the Next Quadrennium,” (page 695) the project could be easily expanded to invite citizens from local church communities as “Citizen Councilors.” Anytime anyone from outside the church comes to a local church for any activity— that is evangelism. The problems and issues under discussion are not just “church” issues, they are personal, family, national, and international issues in which all citizens are interested. The computer can easily keep track of the different responses and a church, through its organizing efforts, can contrib- ute to civilization building.

  • Inasmuch as the UMC 1996 The Book of Resolutions readopted a resolution titled “Enlist and Involve Youth in the Life of the Church” (page 735), as a program emphasis for the 1997-2000 Quadrennium, this project could easily be expanded in the years ahead to fulfill that objective with important overtones for the youth and citizens of the society at large. In addition, church youth can participate in Psycho-Social Education and the “State-of- the-Union Address” which follows (See www.ForumFoundation.org for more and current information.)

  Conclusion

  As reports are generated, responses will be returned routinely to the appropriate de- nominational boards and agencies for their reflection. The responses should help them in their continual task of perfecting the statements and resolutions in the new Book of Resolutions or other religious documents being prepared. Presently, each resolution listed in The Book of Resolutions ends with the word “Adopted” on a line showing the year of adoption or readoption noted. The overall responses of United Methodist “Councilors,” for example, to their study and discussion of resolutions considered, could be reported on this same line in the next publication of the book (every four years). This would complete the feedback loop for everyone’s information and benefit and without adding one line more to the book. In this manner The United Methodist Church, or other participating denomination, will have created a national feedback system in which religious leaders of the church and the laity of the church at large can “talk” symbolically to each other and create a balcony perspective as their Zeitgeist becomes visible.

  What is the critical “action” that every individual must take in this process of civilization building? It is to think—what is best for the common good and express it in symbolic dialogue.

  This will meet the criteria of administrative theory number nine, “The Zeitgeist Principle,” stated in Section One of this book.

  To work most effectively, human organizations and institutions (from the smallest—a husband and wife, up to civilization itself—the largest) require a functional feedback communication capability. This is best ac- complished in most organizations by a democratic, open, participative, reliable, viable, anonymous, routine, and objective feedback communi- cation system. Most organizations, institutions, and governments in the world today have no such system.

  If this experimental research project is successful, it will be a significant contribu- tion to the successful functioning of society at large by participating religious organi- zations. It will be a significant contribution to the noblest experiment in governance in the history of humanity—democracy!

  “What is occurring is a process — a doing, specifically a process of interrelating the person and his or her world, bringing new meaning into the human situation,” (Reflections on Youth Evangelism, 1959, by Howard Ellis and Ted McEachern, The Methodist Church, authors).

  Psycho-Social Education For Students and Parents

  The Need: A New Type of Social Knowledge

  Psycho-social education is profoundly concerned with communication and collabo- ration. It can lead to important new knowledge.

  As human systems and organizations grow ever larger, more complex, and more impersonal—in our schools, in our communities, in our churches, in our governments, and in our industries and commerce—the individual shrinks toward facelessness, hopelessness, powerlessness, and frustration.

  — Dr. Stuart C. Dodd, University of Washington professor emeritus of Sociology and Richard J. Spady, in their article, “Citizen Counse- lor Proposal,” The Seattle Times, November 10, 1974.

  Harvard Professor Elton Mayo, sometimes called the “father of the human relations movement,” wrote in the preface of the classic Management and the Worker by Roethlisberger and Dickson published in 1939:

  The art of human collaboration seems to have disappeared during two centuries of quite remarkable material progress. The various nations seem to have lost all capacity for international cooperation in the necessary tasks of civilization. The internal condition of the nation is not greatly better; it seems that only a threat from without, an unmistakable emergency, can momentarily quiet the struggle of rival groups …. How can humanity’s capacity of spontaneous co-operation be restored? It is in this area that leadership is mostrequired, a leadership that has nothing to do with political ‘isms’ or eloquent speeches. What is wanted is knowledge, a type of knowledge that has escaped us in two hundred years of prosperous development. How to substitute human responsibility for futile strife and hatreds.

  Again, notice that it wasn’t just more “knowledge” per se for which Mayo was searching, but rather a “type” of knowledge that somehow we have missed. It is our thesis that the new type of knowledge and leadership, for which Mayo was searching, has been found in Zeitgeist Communication and the Fast Forum^® Technique using symbolic dialogue!

  This new kind of knowledge appears when the Fast Forum^® Technique is used to enhance democracy.

  The Solution: Enhancing Democracy (A>B>C>A …)

  It’s as simple and profound as ABC—Administrators over Bureaucrats over Citizens over Administrators—Democracy! Our national and global institutions of state, eco- nomic, religious, and social enterprises require organization, direction, and adminis- tration. But how and where do these democratic solutions all start?

  In the Schools: Psycho-Social Moratorium

  This idea deals with the theory of the late Erik H. Erikson, a preeminent national and international school psychologist, advocating the need for “Psycho-Social Moratoria” for youth. Robert Pranger, a political scientist at the University of Washington in Seattle, wrote a small book in 1968 titled The Eclipse of Citizenship. In it he stated, “This need of the adolescent for Psycho-Social Moratoria, as defined by Erikson, is so important, it is of equal importance to the need of a small child for maternal care.” This section explains how to conduct such a program in schools using new “socialware” and “symbolic dialogue” communication technology.

  The Curriculum: Intellectual Gaming

  A child is told by his or her parents, teacher, and culture, “this is a fact.” But when the child reaches adolescence, the youth begins to realize that there is ambiguity; there are differences of opinion—everything is not clear-cut. We all must realize that teenage youth exist at a crucible-forming time in the development of the human personality between childhood and adulthood. And if parents and society “don’t get it right then”—they may never get it right. During this special formative time and place, this period and place of psycho-social moratoria, there are no “right” or “wrong” answers by young people as they reflect on the “facts” they have learned in a search together for “mean- ing.” What they need is an educational arena in which to do it. It is the responsibility of adults organizationally, locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally to provide this neutral, mentoring, supportive, loving, and caring community. Moreover, these basic processes of democratization are therapeutic, they reduce organizational and societal tensions among people, that is, they lead to peace!

  The process proposed here is a kind of intellectual gaming in schools and for exactly the same reason that we have physical gaming. As the children exercise their bodies, they get stronger physically. Similarly, as youth exercise their reasoning abili- ties with ideas posed about real problems in life and their future, and they share their opinions with each other, their parents and others—they grow stronger intellectually, i.e., they learn through the dynamics of the Socratic Method! Socrates didn’t “tell” his students as much as he “asked them questions.” In the process they achieved their own “insight” that up-welled from within themselves. “Ah-ha, that’s the answer to my problem,” or “Ah-ha, that’s the answer to the question—it’s “yes” or it’s “no!” And it makes no difference which is chosen at that time; it has nothing to do with what is “right” or “wrong.” What does occur, however, is that the youth’s mind becomes “psychologi- cally benchmarked” with the problem or the question and his or her own creative response to it, and the youth learns! And when an individual learns “X” amount, the organization and the society of which he or she is a part learns exactly the same amount and all move toward being able to solve problems better in the future.

  The moral to the story is that if leaders and educators in society are really inter- ested in improving the abilities and capacities of their citizens and of their children and youth, then they must enable them to make lots of decisions about lots of real problems in life! Through the dynamics of the Socratic Method—they will learn! The first three steps in the Socratic Method (awareness, frustration, and insight) are per- sonal—just the individual and his or her world; no one else is involved. But there is a fourth step, and it is a group effort. It is called “verification.” The individual needs to know, “Are my ideas practical? Will they work? How do they stack up against the thinking of other people?” Thus, intellectual gaming requires a systematic feedback component.

  Printed or computer reports generated in the process are all disclaimed and do not purport to represent the views of the parent or sponsoring organizations or others not participating. This allows people to speak; they speak only for themselves which is every person’s right. The results are, however, 100 per cent valid for the students, parents and citizens participating. In the final analysis, it allows the parents to say, “Look, son or daughter, even though all other students say this or all other parents say that, I want to call your attention to this ‘additional fact.’” They then can present their own value judgments to their own child as is the parental prerogative, and the process ends right there with remaining questions still unanswered, just as in the story of “The Lady and the Tiger.” While the adults participating as mentors search for their own “right” answers to the questions posed, the youth participating are not told by anyone ahead of time which is the “right” answer to the ideas and questions posed. They need to seek their own solutions. Educational leaders will ask, “But how can you assure that young people will have the “knowledge” and “right” information to make such choices?”

  The Moral Stance: No Right, No Wrong

  There are no “right or wrong” answers for children and youth in their search for mean- ing as they grow to maturity at this point in their lives between childhood and adult- hood. They will begin to discern the morality, the diversity, and the insights of their peers, parents, and other citizens as they learn from the process itself using the dy- namics of the Socratic Method to gain insights and mature their critical thinking and civil discourse skills.

  The process will build in students the essential citizenship and democratic skills of listening respectfully, stating one’s own opinion, and interacting respectfully in civil discourse with public officials, planners, and other citizens in their own “pursuit of happiness” with others for a better future. Governments are not charged with provid- ing their citizens with all the amenities of life they feel they need to make them happy, but all governments are charged with enabling their citizens to pursue their own happiness!

  The Methodology: How It Would Work

  Traditionally, in schools, democratic institutions are mimicked by students electing their own officers and representatives. The expectation then is that the officers and representatives will determine school policy and administer projects and that thus this process “teaches the principles of democracy.” That is wrong. While this is a valuable and positive learning experience for those few students elected, it is a nega- tive democratic learning experience for those defeated or not even running for office. The democratic and educational philosophy that is really being communicated to our children and youth by this methodology is, “If you are not elected or duly appointed in organizations or society, you don’t count.” That philosophy is anti-democratic—it strikes at the very foundations of a democratic society. Further, that flawed adminis- trative process produces apathetic citizens instead of interested and informed citizens actively striving to improve the quality of life for themselves, their community, and the society of which they are a part.

  What should be done differently in the initial step?

  1. After the officers and representatives are elected, they should determine the subject for class or school Usually at the start of the school year the subject is “What should our class or school do this year?”

  2. All students should be invited to print, legibly, on one side of a 3 X 5 inch card an idea or proposal concerning the subject under discussion.

  3. The officers and representatives should read all cards and select, edit, and rephrase, if required, up to 50 key, representative, “value questions or state- ments” (the new Form L response sheet will allow up to 150 questions if needed). Note: It is all right if statements are similar—even differing by just one word. The important thing is that the statements are typical, from the students, and help illustrate different choices.

  4. The officers and representatives should prepare and administer an “Opinionnaire^®” listing the selected ideas and providing demographics of gender and class such as freshman, sophomore, junior, or In this case participants will respond: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, Abstain, or Object. To most people, this will look like a typical “Ques- tionnaire” random-sample “survey” using objective yes/no, multiple-choice, and value-scale questions. But a Questionnaire is based on statistical theory that in turn, is based on mathematical theory. An Opinionnaire^®, however, is based on participation theory that, in turn, is based on administrative theory. There are essential differences in some small but critical, theoretical, and prac- tical ways, e.g., an Opinionnaire^® always allows students to abstain or object to any question. Different rules apply!

  5. Let all students respond to the Opinionnaire^® by circling their responses on the Opinionnaire^® for keying into the computer or marking their response Response sheets are either machine-scannable or reproducible, in which case the data are keyed into the computer. When appropriate, ask parents to respond, too.

  The officers and representatives should organize and oversee the hand or com- puter tabulation of the data and the preparation of printed profile reports using the Fast Forum^® technique showing responses to each question or state- ment by gender and again by grades. It is essential that each report show the Disclaimer Clause that follows.

  Disclaimer Clause

  “The purpose of this informal report is to communicate ideas, issues, and problems among people as a platform for future, meaningful dis- cussions of concerns. Participants are assisted in becoming aware of their own beliefs as well as of those intellectual and moral beliefs of others at a point in time—“the Spirit-of-the-Time.” The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the individuals who partici- pated and do not necessarily represent the official views of the parent group or sponsoring organization. Nor will the views expressed nec- essarily represent those of the same participants at a later period of time; as humans we each have the ability to receive new information, consider it, and change.”

  The Disclaimer Clause actually frees all participants to contribute their opinions because everyone knows the societal context in which their opinion is being given. They speak only for themselves which is every person’s right. It allows each individual to contribute his or her greatest gift—human thought. Furthermore, the model deals with the statistical “universe” and not just a random sample.

  1. A “Viewspaper^®” should be prepared, posted, and distributed which is a short summary report of response highlights that also must contain the Disclaimer

  What is the second step?

  1. The officers and representatives should study the detailed reports and prepare a second Opinionnaire^® iteration listing the representative’s opinions of the prevailing consensus of the For example, “The elected representa- tives of (school) have studied the reports generated and discussed the results and the following value statements appear to be the prevailing consensus among the student body. Do you agree?” The Opinionnaire^® could list up to 50 (or 150) statements or questions with the demographics of gender, class, ethnic family, role (e.g., student, parent) and/or other demographics felt appropriate.

  2. The officers should then administer and tabulate the second Opinionnaire^®. What is the third and final step?

  3. The officers and representatives should organize and oversee the hand or computer tabulation of the data and the preparation of the printed profile reports and the Viewspaper^® using the Fast Forum^® technique.

     At this point, after this third step, the forum would normally end. However if the elected officers and representatives feel there is still no general consensus or if there are other specific areas that need to be explored, they could continue the iterations. Oth- erwise it is at this point that the officers and representatives would begin their in- depth discussion of the information, make policy decisions, and administer the pro- grams desired.

     Notice that in this process, the elected officers and representatives still retain all their prerogatives to make the final decisions, but they just go through the prelimi- nary democratic process first in order to enable their constituents to participate. What is the main thing to be gained by this approach? Authority will begin to flow from the students to their elected officers and representatives making ultimate decisions by the representatives easier and more acceptable to the student body as they “pursue their own happiness.”¹⁰⁹

     This model using Psycho-Social Education and Intellectual Gaming in schools holds great promise. It is a model that can be tabulated by hand using arithmetic if a computer is not available in a classroom or school. This itself is an exercise for stu- dents that can build skills and learning (and reduce expenses). Opinionnaires^® can be administered verbally to students with their responses made on reproducible sheets. Alternately, responses can be made onto machine-scannable “Forum Foundation Coun- cilor^™ Response Sheets (Councilor: “One appointed or elected to advise a sovereign or chief magistrate.”)¹¹⁰ The machine-scannable response sheet does the same thing that a computer does but at a fraction of the cost—it allows a human being to inter- face directly with a machine, accurately, swiftly, and economically.

     Further QUEST Forums^™ or PLAN Forums^® (described later in this chapter) can be held approximately quarterly to expand the psycho-social education curricu- lum as determined and administered by the officers with topics selected by the repre- sentatives. Typical questions which might be considered and from which questions and value statements are derived are:

     • How can we tell when a person is “grown up?”

     • What makes “growing up” most difficult?

     • What “concerns” you about growing up?

     • What do you believe is the most difficult part of being a parent?

     • How might one become a “successful parent?”

     • How might we change the “family” to make it a better place to grow up? ¹¹¹

     The Summary: Psycho-Social Education!

     The Forum Foundation started a research project in 1999 with a new psycho-social education model involving a symbolic dialogue between the President of the United States and the youth of America based on the State-of-the-Union or inaugural ad- dress. Any teacher may enroll a class for a one-hour “State-of-the-Union” session. An enrolled class can hold its session at any time between March 1^st and November 1^st. Teachers and students will engage in the following activities: 1) listen to about 20 minutes of excerpts of the address (to stimulate discussion), have “Day-in-the-Sun” and discussions in foursomes in “Future Molding Game” groups, 3) respond to an Opinionnaire^® on either machine-scannable response sheets (or by e-mail if the class key their own data responses), 4) the teacher mails in scanning sheets (or e-mails data) to the Forum Foundation, 5) gender and role profile reports (students/parents/other adults) are returned by mail or e-mail showing responses for the class, 6) the teacher and class discuss responses and compare their own responses to those of their parents (if participating). In December, a report and Viewspaper^® of totals from all sources including other students and other adults, is sent to the President and to each teacher participating. A final class discussion of these materials takes place thereafter.

     PLAN Forum®

     (Planning Long-range Assessment Network)

     Leaders of society itself and organizations that have either many employees/constitu- ents and/or are spread over large geographic areas have a common problem. We call it the “Great Dilemma.” It is the continual need of leaders to bring people together to talk about their system problems against the cost in time and money to do it. If all people do is have meetings, they can never get any of their own work done. On the other hand if they don’t get together for meetings, they can’t solve their system problems.

     The PLAN^® Forum using symbolic dialogue can solve this apparent dilemma because it can eliminate many big meetings at often remote distances for people by organizing them into: 1) small-groups of four to twelve people with a “convener” for discussions, 2) meeting during a 15-to-45-day window period convenient for them- selves, 3) listening to a 20-30 minute audio or video tape of the leader describing problems and perhaps suggesting solutions, 4) giving each person in turn a two minute “Day-in-the-Sun” to be heard, 5) engaging in open discussion in the small group about the issues, 6) responding to an Opinionnaire^® prepared by the leader by mark- ing Fast Forum^® Councilor^™ Response Sheets which provide opportunities to “ab- stain” or “object” to questions, 7) receiving Fast Forum^® feedback reports and/or a Viewspaper^® from the leader with data open to all (i.e., a “leadership” forum) or with the prior understanding that no data will be returned to participants (i.e., a “manage- ment” forum) such as is typical of most random-sample surveys.

     The Plan Forum^® should be a tool in the quiver of all government, corporate, school, and religious human resource personnel and organization development prac- titioners. See Appendix H, Forum Foundation Fact Sheet and website — www.ForumFoundation.org — for further information about the availability of vari- ous Fast Forum^® monographs for specific applications as they are developed.

     QUEST Forum™

     (QUick Environmental Scanning Test)112

     Key Point of the Model

     The QUEST Forum^™ (QUick Environmental Scanning Test) model is designed to get quick survey-type information from constituents without their meeting with oth- ers.

     The idea of the QUEST Forum^™ is to send out an Opinionnaire^® to a closed, organizational constituency quickly by mail without the need for small discussion groups or any other supporting information. It is a quick, simple, uncomplicated way to scan and test a specific constituency individually about current issues without us- ing discussion groups. It can be either a management forum where the data returned are kept private and confidential or a leadership forum where the data are public and open to all.

     For example, a QUEST Opinionnaire^® sheet could be sent by mail directly to local church pastors nationally, regionally, or in a smaller conference or district that are members of a denomination. They could be asked to make copies of the Opinionnaire^® for each ministerial associate and for four key laity in leadership posi- tions. This permits tabulation to compare results of pastors, associates, and key lay persons. The data should be interesting and credible to church leaders. Completed responses using Forum Foundation optical scanning sheets could be used and re- turned in a church envelope with a secretary’s signature authenticating the data as long as participants remain anonymous by categories. In this manner, the denomina- tion can best assure the validity of the data returned if required.

     This model has never been used as designed to date of this writing, but the format is a viable research proposal. The model has great flexibility in program design and should be of immense use to improve communication in appropriate situations in organizations.

     ← Chapter 5: Examples of Fast Forum Projects Chapter 7: Citizens, Communication, and Civilization Building →