Civic Governance Basin Team Training
Outcomes from October 30, 2013
Civic Governance Identity Statement- Civic Governance is a new approach to policy making (governance) that
produces the civic infrastructure needed to govern for the common good and sustain democracy as a just system of
governance while achieving particular water quality goals.
The Purpose for Training. Members will be introduced to the Civic Governance Policy Document as it would be
applied to water governance. This document summarizes a civic organizing approach. Members will determine its
relevance to their role.
Civic Standards guide all decision-making




All those impacted by the problem are stakeholders and help define the problem in light of civic principles and the realities of
their situation.
All stakeholders are accountable for contributing resources (leadership/time, knowledge, constituencies & dollars) to solve
the problem.
All stakeholders are engaged in decision-making and policy-making that contributes to the common good.
All stakeholders implement policies (agreements) grounded in civic principles in the places where they have the authority to
act
Reminder Outcomes from the October 30th Meeting relate to Meeting Purpose and Meeting Evaluation:




Map the existing work being done by participants to achieve water/environmental quality.
Determine what is working? Challenges?
Introduce a civic organizing approach/Civic Governance as a possible way to meet challenges.
Determine expectations for moving forward. Determine next steps and do meeting evaluation.
Participants: Eric Wojchik, Tim Ritten, Chris Gaetzke, Kyle Kulow, Amanda Hanson, Sam Martin, Rod Webb,
Ron Verdon, John Haack, Buzz Sorge, Julia Olmstead. (Those who plan to participate but were unable to
attend: Dan Prestebak and Danette Olson, )
I. Meeting Evaluation. Did we meet the purpose for the meeting? What worked? Gap/questions? Steps to take to
address the gaps.
 Participants agreed that we met the purpose for the meeting. And agreed to move forward to participate in the next 5
meetings: December 18th, Jan. 29th, 2014; Feb. 26; March 26th; April 30th .
What worked? .




Good group of leaders representing different institutional settings but sharing a common interest in advancing water
quality. Participants feel we can learn from each other. Please note: In a civic organizing approach an institutional
setting includes-households, community and faith based organizations-government, business, educational. These are
considered “jurisdictions”.
We heard that we share the same challenges even though we are in different situations. The challenge set up the
context for why Civic Governance is being proposed as a solution strategy (Challenge is summarized under II and
expectations for participation III.)
Agreed upon specific steps to take prior to Dec. 18th. (See IV).
Agreement that we will be publicly accountable to each other in terms of saying what we think, doing the pre-work
for each meeting because we agreed to do so, evaluating if the meeting was time well spent in terms of addressing the
particular challenges we face, and coming to the meeting to tell the group if we plan to drop out.
Gap or questions? Time spent has to provide support for the work we are each doing. Not sure yet.
Steps to address the gaps: Participants will see themselves as “citizens” of the meeting- governing members vs.
consumers. Each meeting agenda will be set up based upon the expectations for participation (See III) and agreements
reached through public evaluation of each meeting.
II. Common Challenge
We have many programs and activities that provide incentives to be very busy, compete against each other for scarce
resources including the time of leaders (i.e. land owners) who are needed to implement the programs. Burn-out, and the
lack of incentives to work together at the scale needed to address the scale of the problem-economic, environmental,
socio-political.
Need to get people involved-don’t seem to care. Don’t have time to work with people. Citizenship is seen as voluntarism,
voting, paying taxes, protesting… not governing for the common good. It is a role we carry out-if we identify at all with
the role-on our off-hours, not in our organizational roles.
III. Expectations for participation-Each individual will:

Have specific water quality (or environmental) goals and measurable outcomes and timelines for achieving
those outcomes.

Identify key stakeholders (including themselves) needed to achieve those goals and take the lead in
organizing the process of achieving the goals. Should be a short list-starting with names participants already work
with and who are essential to achieving goals. Stakeholders need to be able to contribute to achieving goals in the
places where they have the authority to act. I.e. staff role; household; program; etc

Determine alignment between individual leadership principles and standards and civic principles and
standards in the Civic Governance Policy Document.
Please note: The civic organizing disciplines and skills listed in the document will be introduced and participants
will determine how they would be applied in their process of organizing key stakeholders to own and achieve
goals and measures. The experience will be related to the meaning of the document. For instance-the Oct. 30th
Meeting Agenda was an example of the civic organizing discipline-Public Meeting and Public Evaluation. We
will be conscious of applying these disciplines to our meeting, and will explore how they could be adapted to the
“governing meetings” participants organize to achieve goals.

Establish a regular time and place for key stakeholders to govern the process of achieving goals. Everyone
would check-in on their progress towards achieving goals, govern the process, and members in the training would
relate the experience to the meaning of the Civic Governance Policy Document.

Establish a regular or routine time for 1-1 meetings with key stakeholders to support them in achieving their
role/goals, ensure they come prepared to check-in on progress at the “governing meeting”. Clarify governing
issues that impact the whole group and that need to be addressed by everyone at the “governing meeting” and
relate the way to address the issue using the civic standards in the Civic Governance Policy Document.
III. Pre-work for December 18th.
1. Peg Michels and John Haack will draft the outcomes from the October 30th Meeting. Participants will follow
through on agreements. If they have questions or need for clarification they would call-Buzz S and/or John H.
prior to Dec. 18th . This is a key part of establishing public accountability between us and to ensure that the time
we invest in the meeting achieves expected outcomes. We will all chip in dollars to cover the cost for pizza.
2. Each individual will come prepared to check-in on:
 Your water quality goals, measures for success, stakeholders needed to achieve goal.
 Individual Leadership principles and standards as they relate to civic principles and standards in the Civic
Governance Policy Document. (Please note: Pg. 3 of this document-A.* has a suggested exercise for
identifying leadership principles if you are interested.)
3. Review the Civic Governance Policy Document and come prepared to identify places of agreement, disagreement,
questions and need for clarification. This can be done with participants in the training who are in the same
institution (I.e Extension-DNR-county) or who are working together in water quality projects. Questions and
insights will be addressed at the training to clarify how the document would relate to organizing key stakeholders.
A. *Civic Leadership Development-2nd civic organizing discipline listed in the Civic Governance Policy
Document.
Exercise-Determine compatibility between individual leadership principles and standards and
civic principles and standards. .
o Think about 3 times/situations in your life when something shaped what you think of as
your public identity. Pick 2 times that were successful and 1 time that was not. Focus
insights on how it relates to your public (professional) role.
o Ask yourself the question: What was driving me in each situation-Be truthful to yourself
about this question-all of what you might think of as good-i.e justice, competency, love
of the environment, transparency, team work- and all of what you might think of as not so
good. You might think of these drivers as principles- a governing rule of conduct..
o Reflect on the 3 experiences and think about the factors that led to your success-to your
failure-- Were they the same in each situation? -Where they different?
o Recall what you believed were standards that determined success in each situation. Were
they the same in each situation? Different? Consistent with your principles? .
o Draw insights from your reflection to identify a list of key words that you would describe
as the principles that define you. Reflect upon those principles as they relate to your
leadership in your public role. (job-profession) Ask yourself-Do they take into account
the responsibility you have to develop the capacity of other individuals in your
jurisdiction to be leaders? To be accountable to the public mission (purpose) that defines
your jurisdiction. (program, organization, etc)
o Finally compare your individual leadership principles to the civic principles and the civic
standards in the Civic Governance Policy Document. What is the same? What is
different? Come prepared to give feedback from your exercise. Continue to review the
glossary at the end of this document for definitions.