The Values Group met at the Tucson Historic Y at noon on Monday, August 29, 2011. Meeting particpants included: Anita Fonte, Bob Hungate, Ron Spark, Kathy Wilson, Michele Crow, Joe Silins and Don Ijams.
As part of discussing the purpose of the group, a new name was decided – Achieving Community Values. The tag line for the group remains as Don suggested: Aligning community decisions with community values. Some of the preliminary names considered were: Community Values Alliance, Values Catalyst Group, Network for Values in Decisions, Community Values Action Network and Achieving Tucson Values. Words like actuating, motivating, results, decision making and enstilling were considered.
The group's purpose centers on bringing community values more into the everyday life of organizations, groups and institutions that affect the region's future. Achieving Community Values (ACV) believes that our future can be better if we make a conscious attempt, on a continuing basis, to align community decisions with community values. The geographic reach of this effort is the metropolitan area centered on Eastern Pima County.
The group discussed its relationship with Imagine Greater Tucson. Achieving Community Values is an offshoot of the IGT's Values Stewardship Working Group. ACV wants to maintain cooperative and friendly relations with IGT but is its own group, not a part of IGT. Working in partnership with IGT and with others (such as United Way, PRO-Neighborhoods, public and private organizations, and governmental jurisdictions) in metro Tucson is a welcome possibility.
Achieving Community Values wants to focus on a wide variety of community values, including all IGT value areas, as well as on other sources of information about the region's values. In particular, ACV wants to assist in honoring the effort expended by participants in IGT Phase I's conversations and surveys. ACV's goal is to use values from multiple data sources as guideposts in community decision making.
The group discussed a major strategy for moving forward. Subgroups relating to value areas were suggested. Each subgroup would begin by creating a trend report for its area, highlighting current status, trends and trajectories: where we've been, where are and where we're headed if current directions and practices are maintained. The trend report would be fact based, with source annotations, with an eye to building a widely accepted baseline of where we are and where we're heading.
As part of the report, the subgroup would compare trajectories with community values, to identify positive areas where congruencies exist and problem areas where significant gaps are apparent. Also, a review of currently existing groups and institutions working in the area, emphasizing their missions and current programs, would fill out the picture. The next ACV agenda will include discussion of subgroups, what they are, how they will operate, what areas they will cover and what their work programs might look like.
ACV agreed to meet weekly at noon on Mondays at the Historic Y as a regular course. Meetings are open to all – new interested persons are invited. Given Labor Day Monday 2011 and full schedules, the next meeting will be held on Monday, September 12, 2011 from 11:30 AM until 1 PM at the Historic Y Conference Room.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
August 2, 2011 - Initial Meeting of Values Group
The first meeting of the Values Group met today at the City of Tucson's Ward 6 Office. Though lightly attended, we had a good beginning discussion.
Attendance:
Tina Neil, Sarah Popovich, Melissa Miller, Bob Hungate and Don Ijams
Meeting handouts:
IGT Phase I Values, Livable Tucson Values/Goals, Trends Scenario Overview
Background Reading:
Tucson Knows What It Wants: . . . (AzStar April 8, 2011)
After introductions, we talked over why we were here and what purpose our group might have. A tag line for the group was suggested: Aligning Community Decisions with Community Values.
Imagine Greater Tucson history was recounted with discussion of the wide variety of input received in Phase I. IGT's followup Phases are focusing on land use, urban design, the environment and transportation. A number of important value areas, not related to urban design, are not currently receiving IGT focus. The group around the table saw it as important to keep a broad focus and to seek ways to bring future decisions about the Tucson area more in line with relevant value areas.
One method to proceed would be to support subgroups, each focused on one of the value areas. Picking up from the IGT Trend Scenario and from the statement in the April 8 article: "The next step is how you take those value sets and alter the trends.", each subgroup could work to create its own trend report. This effort would involve knowledgeable people in each value area identifying widely accepted measures that would help detail where the value area is at the current time, where it has been and what the trajectories are. When juxtaposed with the values, a useful picture would be produced. The picture might lead to research into what it would take to alter the trends.
Each subgroup could also examine the reputation of each area, trying to separate fact from fiction, and could identify continuing problems as well as myths worthy of correction. Mission statements of the wide variety of groups and organizations working in the value area could be examined as part of painting a picture of the area's current state.
The group spent some time discussing marketing the use of values in the daily decisionmaking/policy development process of local groups and institutions. Simple distribution of the values within organizations, along with some explanation, might be a start. Persuading organizations of the value to the community of considering their hopes and aspirations in decisions being made would be worth attempting. Easily attainable, simple steps might be brainstormed that would raise the profile of community values. Even at the neighborhood level, presentations could be made and roundtable discussions supported.
There was some discussion of our relationship with IGT. The shared view was that our Values Group is a separate entity from IGT, but one with many similar goals. We want to work with IGT, giving and receiving information and support. Once our organization is further along, we may entertain some form of partnership with IGT. This may become clearer when our own directions are firmed up and timeframes/directions can be compared with those of IGT.
The group decided that more people who expressed interest in the Values Group should be at the table before a name for the group is considered. Conflicting obligations and vacations kept a number of participants away. D.S. Ijams
Attendance:
Tina Neil, Sarah Popovich, Melissa Miller, Bob Hungate and Don Ijams
Meeting handouts:
IGT Phase I Values, Livable Tucson Values/Goals, Trends Scenario Overview
Background Reading:
Tucson Knows What It Wants: . . . (AzStar April 8, 2011)
After introductions, we talked over why we were here and what purpose our group might have. A tag line for the group was suggested: Aligning Community Decisions with Community Values.
Imagine Greater Tucson history was recounted with discussion of the wide variety of input received in Phase I. IGT's followup Phases are focusing on land use, urban design, the environment and transportation. A number of important value areas, not related to urban design, are not currently receiving IGT focus. The group around the table saw it as important to keep a broad focus and to seek ways to bring future decisions about the Tucson area more in line with relevant value areas.
One method to proceed would be to support subgroups, each focused on one of the value areas. Picking up from the IGT Trend Scenario and from the statement in the April 8 article: "The next step is how you take those value sets and alter the trends.", each subgroup could work to create its own trend report. This effort would involve knowledgeable people in each value area identifying widely accepted measures that would help detail where the value area is at the current time, where it has been and what the trajectories are. When juxtaposed with the values, a useful picture would be produced. The picture might lead to research into what it would take to alter the trends.
Each subgroup could also examine the reputation of each area, trying to separate fact from fiction, and could identify continuing problems as well as myths worthy of correction. Mission statements of the wide variety of groups and organizations working in the value area could be examined as part of painting a picture of the area's current state.
The group spent some time discussing marketing the use of values in the daily decisionmaking/policy development process of local groups and institutions. Simple distribution of the values within organizations, along with some explanation, might be a start. Persuading organizations of the value to the community of considering their hopes and aspirations in decisions being made would be worth attempting. Easily attainable, simple steps might be brainstormed that would raise the profile of community values. Even at the neighborhood level, presentations could be made and roundtable discussions supported.
There was some discussion of our relationship with IGT. The shared view was that our Values Group is a separate entity from IGT, but one with many similar goals. We want to work with IGT, giving and receiving information and support. Once our organization is further along, we may entertain some form of partnership with IGT. This may become clearer when our own directions are firmed up and timeframes/directions can be compared with those of IGT.
The group decided that more people who expressed interest in the Values Group should be at the table before a name for the group is considered. Conflicting obligations and vacations kept a number of participants away. D.S. Ijams