top of page

Comments, Assessments & Evaluations
How To Heal Our Community
October 20

31 In-Person Attendance -  24 Evaluations

Do you have any suggestions for other events you’d like to see? 

  1. Racism!!!

  2. How can any sort of "civility" be established when the Founding Fathers goerning doctrines are UNKNOWN in Cowlitz county. The populace in Cowlitz county are led astray by the; LYING; UNETHICAL: IGNORANT GOVERNING "PUBLIC SERVANTS" who know NOTHING of managing Cowlitz governments

  3.  Sources to get actual facts, not opinions, how to vet material. 2) Create a list of guidelines for local campaign ads. ie tell me what you will do for me not what your opponent won't.

  4. The behavioral research on why people have such extreme views and can’t listen to others who have different views.

  5. Race, sex and gender discrimination, please!

  6. Pre-civil discourse. How to address adamantly polite but uncivil individuals (lying, refusal to listen, refusal to re-evaluate, etc.)

  7. How elected leaders are/can use these "tools" for civil discourse.

  8. School shootings, mass gun killings - how can we ignore such tragedies?

  9. How to understand people who have such different experiences - religion, race, gender, politics, etc.

  10. Constitution - rights & liberties.

  11. Please just tackle all important issues that effect college students: student debt relief, abortion, safety for young women, toxic masculinity, migrants, etc.

  12. Initially, my response to this question was to simply reiterate the topics that I would like to see tackled in the future in a more succinct fashion than my previous lengthy post. Yet, as I pondered further on what other people and myself would like to see in future discourses, I found that many of these topics were sub-topics to broader topics. That being, predominantly, mental and sociological quandaries that plague our society. So, scrapping my original more monotonous, repetitive list, I’m ultimately proposing that the admins investigate the concept of umbrellaed broader topics as an overarching theme for future sessions, and within the confines of that umbrella, there would be focus on individual matters within those parameters. For instance, many people want to discuss why, we as a nation, and perhaps as Cowlitz County, lean far more towards Republican based agendas, especially radicalization, as seen in the previous Trump administration. My innate response to this is people’s fear of the unknown and wishing to live in a stagnant world where everything is Wonder Bread white and with a dominant Evangelical Christian culture with White Jesus plastered on a pulpit. But there’s obviously more to this sociological mindset. This common factor could then branch off into discussions into gun lobbying/restriction debates, what does it truly mean to have Freedom of Speech, white supremacy and other hate groups, discrimination in race, sex and gender, radicalization of religious agendas, etc. Mental health, and its many disparities, plague this county. This alone, is worth a whole series to address. From what I could gather from other people’s suggestions, they would love to see discussions surrounding how we can better equip the county with mental health programs (a definite must), drug rehabilitation options, discussing and confronting gun violence in (especially in white male youths), helping children plagued by mentally ill and/or substance abusing parents, etc. I cannot agree with these people more! I also thoroughly second the concept of having a panel of people on opposite sides of the political divide being able to come together and have a round table discussion about a given topic.

  13. My only suggestion to this format would be to slightly restructure the Civil Discourse proceedings into a more immersive experience for its audience participation. Perhaps we keep the introduction to the topic to that of a foreperson, such as the illustrious Michael Strayer, as an overview is provided for both the panelists and the audience to mull over. Audience members could then be asked to jot down initial thoughts on a notecard (or typed in a Word document or jotted down for Zoom viewers) from the information provided by the foreperson, then hold onto their notes for the panelists’ responses. The panelists would conduct themselves, as suggested, with Democrats, Independents, and Republicans; varying on the spectrums, of course, taking turns describing their thoughts on these topics in a roundtable. As they converse, the audience is again, able to digest material and mindsets from all these different participants and jot things down as it speaks to them. Finally, the audience can have a chance to react to the panelists and the foreperson’s input on the given topic by providing their notes and some may partake in the last fifteen minutes of the forum sharing their thoughts. Perhaps this concept is a bit of stretch, and I will admit, I do not have a fully realized vision for it but being that I am a former student of the infamous integrated course Race, Class, Sex and Gender (circa. 2012), I would love to see if elements that were utilized in this previously available course could be applied to the Civil Discourse proceedings. I know that we do not have the privilege to have a near perfect attendance of participants, we can’t force people to take home source materials for Socratic Seminars, and that activities such as Body Works, may be a stretch for audience participation; God know I was even reluctant to partake when I was a student, but I believe that so many of the lessons that my peers and I took away from that course cemented us into healthier, more accepting, and open minded people. It would be another venue to perhaps get more younger people involved in these events as well, and it would be incredibly humbling to see another set of individuals go through another similar life changing experience. But, as I said before, only elements could be used since it was such an immersive course. Just some food for thought though!

Please provide any comments about your experience at this event. In your response, you might consider these questions: What was effective? What part of the event engaged you the most? What was less effective? What might have been done differently? What was your most significant learning from this event?  

  1. Thank you organizers of these forums. I watched on zoom and was disappointed I couldn’t see the audience but I could hear them. I don’t understand the one woman’s criticism about the information share by the LCC teacher. I thought it was unbiased and informative.

  2. I find the "messiness" of these forums valuable when it comes to the differing ideas, positions, and solutions as it creates new paths of thought, greater opportunities to creatively solve issues together, and more compassionate and discerning ways of being and interacting with others that would not blossom otherwise without that friction necessary for growth. This allows us to have greater horizons of choice, exploration, and experimentation. What these dialogues have reminded me is that we have so much more in common than we might believe. As we sit here, we have to face the humanity of others, to hear them, to potentially sit in our discomfort in our differences and then realize we see ourselves in them, instead of keeping our eyes forward and taking the "easier" way of denouncing people, making them binary, or placing a single label on them. I believe people participate in their society when they feel included in that society. How do we do that? That's why I believe these forums are great for. I believe in us. I have hope for us. I believe we can strive for excellence and come together. We are capable as human beings!

  3. So enjoyed listening to everyone. Again professor Strayer added useful information about social media and how it contributes to incivility!

  4. I’ve attended or watched each forum, some the audience comments at this last one was disappointing. Hope you will continue this project with even more important topics. Thank you!

  5. Of a "how to" be civil in disagreements. Kids get the education, maybe the adults need a refresher - Michel Strayer? I was nice to hear from the community today. Let's do this with a topic again without a panel that takes the whole time.

  6. Gun violence, gun control, school shootings - because it could happen here!!! What does Strayer have to say about all this?

  7. I think there were comments/questions from the zoom viewers, but the online screen showed 5 comments/questions in the zoom Q&A.

  8. SICK! (In reference to question #3 "Do you identify as a Woman, Man, or some other way?" Everyone was respectful. Children need to learn the 3 R's, history, science, etc., and do away with CRT, SEL, etc. No sex garbage needs to be taught or discussed at school- - - only at home. Let our kids be "normal."

  9. I enjoyed the first four forums more than this last one. Let audience ask questions but restrict comments or limit them.

  10. This session was the best, hearing various points of view. Recommend podcast - Brian McClary (McClarian?) Can't model if we don't lay out precepts we're trying to model.

  11. I like the effort to civilize communication. I disagree with the comment made that there needed to be more robust discussion and disagreement. It is my observation that the higher the temperature the lower the listening. Secondly, I think there should be more facts presented. As I listened to some of the people they made statements with no factual basis. It may be good to quote sources when referring information.

  12. This was a great opportunity to listen. I especially like the PowerPoints and social media information.

  13. "Disgusting question!" (A reference to question #3 "Do you identify as a Woman, Man, or some other way?"

  14. Who the hell was the woman who criticized the forum, as she said this was the first one she had attended. She was offended? I was offended by her remarks as I attended each forum. Thanks to all of you that did this for our community!!!

  15. When will you do this again?

  16. This event from this point of view is/was totally worthless, and reeked of GROUP THINK "a la" Cowlitz Founding Fathers Governing Doctrines IGNORANT!

  17. Great job from everyone of the organizers, Warning as moderator, Strayer as the college resource and all the others. Thank you for doing this series.

  18. This was an excellent introductory series, but needs to continue into techniques and addressing problems in a civil way. Invite some SMELT, perhaps. (Reference to the LCC Debate team “The Fighting Smelt.”)

  19. Thank you Old White Guys for your contribution to our community!

  20. Just like the rest of this series, I greatly enjoyed this final forum. I cannot emphasize enough that this series needs to continue. It has my utmost support!

  21. Michael Strayer, as always, is an incredible speaker, a fountain of knowledge, and has the profound ability to reach most people, regardless of political affiliation (emphasis on most, as a roll my eyes). In all seriousness, his last comments in the initial opening were drop mic worthy! I slow clapped when I was livestreaming at home!

  22. My immediate biases aside, I enjoyed, respect, and agree with many of the comments and points of view that were presented by the audience that night.

  23. As mentioned in a previous reply, I sincerely appreciate and welcome the opportunity for varying sides of the political divide to have a roundtable discussion about a given topic. Perhaps this might not be the format for every forum, but I still say that this is a great idea worth looking into implementing. My only additional question would be how these people would be selected. Would they just be from the general population to offer a heterogenous array of professions, or would they be experts and/or specialists that work within the confines of a given topic?

  24. Perhaps it was due to a limit on time, but I thought it was a bit odd that none of the Zoom questions, including my own were addressed. Perhaps the audience just took up the bulk of the time with retorts and insight? Furthermore, when I was livestreaming via Zoom, I could only see my question posed and only discovered that other people sent virtual questions after hearing about it in one of the responses. I will admit, I am still becoming adept with Zoom, so maybe it’s on me, but I found it odd that none of the other questions appeared in the Q&A selection.

  25. I cannot emphasize enough how much I appreciated the young woman who brought up Brian McClaren’s podcast! I have been binging it and have almost listened to the entire first two seasons! It’s a phenomenal series that I also recommend to everyone! As an additional note, I also highly recommend Alan Alda’s Clear and Vivid podcast. Alda is a gem, just as much as he was on M*A*S*H and in Scientific American Frontiers (to name only two things in his vast filmography) and he has a myriad of guests that join him on his program with the emphasis to initiate conversations on how to connect and to communicate with others. There’s a barrage of topics and guests, many of which do relate to socio-political, scientific, philosophical, and other constructs. I have listened to nearly every one of his episodes and always have something to take away from each session. The same sequence of seven quick questions on communication that he asks at the very end of the program are so incredibly insightful! Both in reference to the interviewee’s answers and allowing the listener to soak up those replies like a sponge and contemplate on what their own answers might be and why.

  26. I also applaud the remark that parents need to be more proactive in the lives of their children. I’m sorry, as someone who works within a local school district, and has a mother who has taught for over twenty years, it is a consistent fact that parents expect the school systems to raise their children and do not give teachers support in return. The school districts are not a free babysitting service that also branders your children with all the life skills they require. A lot of it needs to be cultivated and nourished at home. I do not target this specifically at people who are single parents, and families that are just trying to make ends meet. These people often strive so hard to give the children the very best that they can provide, and I applaud them for trying hard every day. But if you’re just going to be the scarily more commonplace, stereotypical, middle-class parent that just doesn’t want to parent and yet berate teachers when your child has academic and behavioral shortcomings (i.e. a “Karen”), you have no one to blame but yourself. You are the problem and are hindering your child’s ability to blossom and you are making the lives of the teachers and other staff within a school district even more crippling.

  27. There were so many other people whose two cents were so insightful and engaging as well. The woman who bravely came forward to say that she was/is viewed as a “nobody” and the everyday occurrences that she sees by so many people suffering, truly broke my heart. She was so strong in her convictions and yet had a gentleness to her that just made your heart bleed for her! She was truly a blessing to listen to, and I would really like her to know that. She is somebody, as we all are. I also applaud the efforts of the young man who brought up the political correctness paradox! I would love for that to just be a source of discussion! Whomever that was, I salute you, good sir! The emphasis to have more female, LGBTQ+, younger people, and racial variations in the forums would also bring a greater form of representation from a wider population. Especially since some of the responses were repulsed by the gender identification question, I think that it is even more crucial that we have representation from people from the LGBTQ+ community to bridge that disconnect. To have a real discussion of what the term “gender” really means and see that these are people who deserve love and acceptance just like anyone else.

  28. Despite my overall satisfaction with this forum though, I do have to bring up one thing that really bothered me. I am sorry, but other people have brought it up as well. I was so disgusted by that woman's, viewpoint on these forums perpetuating “left-wing biases” and not representing and showing "Conservative values", and in doing so, alienating Conservatives from showing up for future forums. Let it be clear, I am not intending to objectify her as "that woman”. I simply do not know her name, and it doesn't really matter in the broader context of this discussion.

  29. Like many people’s thoughts, things were kept neutral throughout all these forums. All the information provided in these forums were succinct and had factual evidence to support them. Extraordinarily little of it was anecdotal, and the few times they were, the intention was to the validate the points of discussion. Furthermore, her concept of "Conservative values", which were predicated by her viewpoint on political correctness were so superficial, and blasphemous. This just furthers the point home that we need to look beyond our own personal viewpoints and let down our barriers a bit to learning something from a different point of view. Seriously, I went through all the previous forums, just to be fair, and none of them leaned towards any specific political affiliation. This just sounds like someone who is insecure in her viewpoints, and just wants to have them reinforced as the Gospel truth. Or was she was looking for “alternative facts”? Oh, and she said this was the first forum she was attending? Hmmm….. Suspicious…. Anyone who gets that meme reference, you are impressive! This just goes to show that everything she is mentioning is purely by inference and not from personal experience.

  30. Plus, anyone who accuses Michael Strayer of “promoting an agenda” and “silencing people’s voices”..…. And it was for this reason, that the numbers in attendees dropped?!......I am sorry, what?! He did not put down anyone’s beliefs or viewpoints in that first session, because here is the kicker, he did not speak at the first forum! Furthermore, the individual who did speak at the first forum did not put down anyone’s beliefs or values either. He was simply reiterating what is the common jargon and mindset within a particular group of Conservative people. He did not go into a raging fit of putting people down for their personal beliefs or political leniencies! Finally, all the statistics Michael and the rest of this committee have gathered from the previous sessions, which this woman also did not attend and/or view online, were unfiltered and not cherry picked to suit any specific agenda. Someone can go on the website and see this for themselves! May I reference the disdain that numerous comments had towards people on drugs and those that are houseless, the disregard for environmental regulations to save the planet, and the blatant disgust that people had for the gender binary question? Smells like Conservatism to me! I am sorry, I am not trying to attack this woman, but these claims are ridiculous!

  31. I know that what Michael mentioned at the beginning of this forum is important, regarding having anger towards another that disagrees with you only concretes them further in their viewpoints. I know I am being hypocritical here, but it is not right to just blatantly give out misinformation either! This is the kind of rhetoric that the committee is trying to prevent from propagating in the general population! And, at the end of the day, this does not impact the overall view I have towards these forums, but it obviously bothered me if I went to the trouble of rewatching every forum and am on my fourth paragraph about this matter.
    With all that being said, let us end things on a positive note. I am eternally grateful, and cannot emphasize enough, how much I appreciate this committee’s dedication and arduous work to have these open discussions and to start getting people to at least contemplate on the need for civility in our everyday lives. It has been something that we have slowly been losing over the course of decades, and only in the last ten years or so, has it really started to show. I am so glad that we can start picking up the pieces, and learn to agree to disagree, enlighten people by pulling them out of the shadows of misinformation, and with any hope, work towards a more beautiful tomorrow for us all. Thank you to all of those who have been a part of this project, and may it continue to prosper. I cannot wait for the equivalent of Season Two, and I will be ready to partake in more when it premiers!

Drug Abuse, Addiction & Decriminalization  October 6th
51 In-Person Attendance -  33 Evaluations

61 In-Person Attendance -  40 Evaluations

September 8th: Economy & the Environment
66 In-Person Attendance -  43 Evaluations


Do you have any suggestions for other events you’d like to see?
19 responses

  1. Gun Violence

  2. Where to get accurate facts!

  3. Gun violence and laws.

  4. Working on one fall term.

  5. Need to have discussions on social justice; Zoning & planning; The Riverkeepers org. need to have a session for people to understand them.

  6. Critical Race Theory in our public schools

  7. Basically, I would like to see a redo of the Environment/Economy discussion with more diversity in views

  8. Racism and homophobia in cowlitz county

  9. More women involved and people who don't talk about things 30 years ago.

  10. Two-Party Political system; Melting Pot vs. Multicultural; The future of public schools; Energy generation!

  11. Ending Citizens United

  12. Sex and gender identity.

  13. Firearm freedom & Regulation. Policing locally and

  14.  Nationally.

  15. Race, Sex and gender equity in our community!

  16. Downtown renewal.

  17. Have these events each quarter!

  18. Gun control - keeping our children safe!

  19. Fake News - how to critically think about the news and media.

August 18th: Civil Discourse in Uncivil Times
103 In Person Attendance - 60 Evaluations

Why Here.png
  1. Even more time was needed for a more thorough discussion

  2. Great introduction by Dr. Louie Pierre

  3. Thanks for doing this, your efforts are appreciated.

  4. LCC open is good. Good resource people are important. Need resource people to have facts as part of answers - not just opinions. Fisherman did best with facts and quotes for answers.

  5. I had a different expectation of the subject matter - I'll be doing research. My question was regarding WOOPS - the atomic power station mothballed around 1980, Hanford/Tri-Cities.

  6. Clear introduction by LCC resource faculty.

  7. You folks need to have this civil discourse every quarter!

  8. Hard to hear some of the comments - Mr. Bridges was particularly hard to understand. Introduction was hard to follow and to connect to topic. Most significant learning was the health of salmon runs.

  9. Great panel discussion, thanks for doing this.

  10. I was excited for this event, and hoping to hear a discussion about the impact of our extractive economic model on our world, and to work on local solutions for "how can people's needs be met in ways that don't degrade the environment?" My prepared question was as follows (I pared it down to two lines to fit the 3x5 card format, but it was not read, nor was this perspective even nodded at) : "What room is there in the conversation for people who dispute the entire premise of our current economic model, who dispute the idea that it is working for people and the world, and that it is remotely sustainable to be ravaging resources at these rates, to be aiming for infinite economic growth on a finite planet? Minor tweaks, like moving from gas-powered cars to battery-powered cars, aren't going to make a difference in a system that dictates that we can do the right things only when they equal corporate profits. We can't even do the basics like recycle single-use plastics (which should never have been made in the first place) simply because it doesn't pencil out economically. Extractive capitalism does not appear to be working for most humans, and it is clearly not working for all the other species who have a right not to be going extinct because of one species' greed. Is there room for these perspectives?"

  11. The point of view of environmental groups which have consistently opposed industrial development in our county was not well addressed. I would have liked to hear them defend their obstructionism.

  12. Panelists were very good, thank you!

  13. It is so important that our community has these discussions. Thank you!

  14. Bringing up Columbia River Keepers was not appropriate!! Ted Sprauge - what has he done for Cowlitz County??? Laughing at Susan Donaldson when she was talking about grant writing was grossly inappropriate.

  15. Loved Louis LaPierre!

  16. I attended the 1srt event and this (the 2nd) was better. Panel members were more honest about their positions and clearly expressed them. Also, there was a diversity of opinion which made the event more interesting. To some degree there was a lack of knowledge among panelists, specifically about energy. One mentioned "electric vehicle" twice, and all pretty much agreed fossil fuel is past history, but no one expressed where all the new electric energy will come from.

  17. I had the opportunity to ask questions even if it was only in written form.

  18. At the end of each event, have each panelist and moderator share any "final thoughts or insights" about the discussion. This mostly happened organically, but the LCC resource person (Louie?) didn't get to share his thoughts.

  19. Great job to everyone involved! Thanks for doing this!

  20. I enjoyed the conversation style. I didn't feel like economy and environment are really at odds. I liked hearing about our area's future economy predictions.

  21. The understanding of permits. Getting other companies to come to our community. The strict regulations.

  22. I loved the notecard questions - good format! Diversity feedback: There are plenty of people in this community that support the environment. Having only one person that is clearly an environmentalist on a panel and having that person be the only female and the only person of color puts her in an uncomfortable position on many different fronts.

  23. I'd like to see individuals who aren't so well versed in having civil conversations actually have a moderated dialog to see if it's something we as a society can learn to do again.

  24. I was disappointed that the LCC faculty person didn't speak at the end.

  25. Thanks for allowing audience questions this time.

  26. Kudos to everyone involved!

  27. Thanks to LCC for doing this for our community.

  28. You can't model civility (what it looks like) if everyone is so civil.

  29. Thanks for including us finally (reference to age question 71+)

  30. Thanks for taking questions from the audience.

Please provide any comments about your experience at this event. In your response, you might consider these questions: What was effective? What part of the event engaged you the most? What was less effective? What might have been done differently? What was your most significant learning from this event?  

30 responses

Audience Topic Suggestions & Comments


  • You needed to have different people talk. Both parties are status quo for the current economic system. I don't believe they represent the majority of working people.

  • Sex & Gender issues

  • role play - demonstrate turning an uncivil dialog into one that is civil.

  • Abortion rights

  • Confronting racism!

  • Public school education under attack

  • Gender and sex issues, homophobia, transphobia, etc.

  • Racism

  • repeal citizens united, corporate money in politics

  • Woke curriculum and CRT in our school’s curriculum

  • Community Learning Nights!

  • Talk about hot button issues, not milk toast; use of true science to establish political policy

  • Racial problems

  • indoctrination in public schools

  • how to learn techniques for asking questions of opposition that encourage solid detailed and honest responses.

  • how to get young people involved and to vote.

  • How to heal the country from the cancer of Trump!

  • Having follow up workshop.

  • Invite Jaime Herrera Beutler to share her experiences and insights.

  • Invite Trump to attend!

  • would like to hear from liberal, conservative, moderate, centrist, independent, other!

  • More dialogues!

  • discussion on civil responsibility. Fostering Civility! Critical thinking!

  • Ways to be an involved citizen - what else beyond voting?

  • Getting back to excellence in public education.


Please provide any comments about your experience at this event. In your response, you might consider these questions: What was effective? What part of the event engaged you the most? What was less effective? What might have been done differently? What was your most significant learning from this event? 

  •  You should have time for questions or comments from the audience

  • I was unable to use Zoom without the meeting ID and filming was not the best. Really liked the introduction and civility of all participants. Thank you!

  • We need younger voices in these forums. Spencer Boudreau and Jon-Erik Hegstad for example.

  • The most divisive, uncivil man in America was not mentioned. It would be interesting to see civility demonstrated while discussing him.

  • Good start to this series and process. This is a topic dear to my heart. I am always frustrated with the far right or far left.

  • An impressive beginning to a relevant series of discussions. Was it intentional to avoid any mention of the most divisive President in US history?

  • I didn't learn anything I didn't already know. I was hoping to see new suggestions about how to change the divisiveness in our society. Ann talked about things she did when in the state Senate that were done years ago in the US Senate by Teddy Kennedy and John McCaine. Those were great ideas but they don't happen today. I felt like you were all preaching to the choir. I wanted to say "so what" when many statements were made. What would you do today in the current environment. You also need to get some people on the panel with a more diverse background to get different perspectives.

  • The conversation was very civil, but did contain any extreme points of view. What would happen if it did? I'd like to see extreme points of view listening to each other with respect!

  • Thrilled with the turnout. Disappointed that speakers weren't more in sync with a fully helpful perspective!

·         This was a circle of slapping each other on the backs. Little truth spoken - audience pleasing.

  • Couldn't get to meeting via Zoom, couldn't find meeting id number on website or Facebook. Using web access only gave me a small picture of participants until recording stopped then it went full screen. Audio was OK but it would have been nice to see the panelists better. Also curious if the chat function was going in Zoom or not. Might have given a fuller experience if it was.

  • The part that engaged me the most was when I believe it was Jerry Cooper (see above) talked about being proud to be called a Christian Nationalist since it means being a Christian patriot. His definition disregards the historical definition and effects of Nationalism in the west since the 19th century. Nor does it account for the current activity of those acting as the vanguard and under the banner of Christian Nationalism. I wonder how it would be received if someone replaced the definition of revolutionary, anarchist or Nazi with positive sounding words to replace the historical definitions. Nevertheless his point that it is necessary to define our terms was made very apparent and it was interesting to see in real time one of the root causes of the division in our society.

  • One thing that might have been done differently is having a period of questions from audience of on-line participants. Even if they were screened first to control order and read I think it would add value. Thank you for doing this for the community and our country.

  • Only lightweight topics. Local applications and get younger panel members. Too many old farts tonight. "The past was secretive and dishonest politics." The dismissal of social media ignored the possibility that many people were here because of social media.

  • I think we need to face that being disruptive, disrespectful, personal attacks wins. Last town hall Brian Baird was threatened and chose not to run. Not sure if the "uncivil folks," those who need to hear this are here. How to reach out to them? Good Discussions - didn't know these political operatives, good to hear from them?

  • Good job defining the problem, zero solutions!!

  • Need to model what we want to see - ask for clarification - don't assume

  • Need some participation from audience!

  • Please include questions from audience

  • GREAT!

  • I think that future events that focus on specific issues will be more useful.

  • I had some questions to ask!

  • Thanks for doing this for our community!

  • Singing to the choir - The Oath keepers, Proud Boys, the violence, the elections changes, promoting outright lies, the lack of consequences for illegal activities. "We know what's right." But so do those [who] know they are "right."

  • Thank You!

  • 1) A who is in the room activity to engage the audience and help break the ice.

·         2) Create a Facebook event for this series to draw more participants under 50!

·         3) Sign-in-sheet if people want to stay informed about upcoming events. 

          4) To the extent possible ask panelists to stay focused on how issues play out locally and what the                            average citizen may be able to do about it.

·         5) Having a panelist who is 40 or younger each week may help draw other young people.

·         6) Allow audience members to practice civil dialogue among each other.

  • WHAT WORKED WELL: Nice physical space, felt very organized, good sound-acoustics, friendly welcome at the door, good modeling of civility between panelists!! Very nice to come and listen to political discourse without showing rude behavior, name calling, etc. I liked that audience members could not "chime in" but just needed to listen.

  • Some issues not addressed: hot button issues; political party control; shift of cultural trend from melting pot to mulligan stew and why this trend is causing greater conflict; emergence of irrational thinking and the inability to rationally analyze an issue; how change can be bad as well as possibly better (ie most change is bad and should be rejected)

  • I would have rather seen an honest and gritty discussion than the dialog that we saw tonight. All 4 panelists came off as disingenuous when I have personally seen all 4 of them act in the contrary as to how they acted tonight. A panelist said that we aren't "united" if some states' opinions differ from his state. The literal point of this was lost because his statement is part of the political polarization problem.

  • Ask questions like "How do you know that?" avoid assumptions. Why no, nearly no, young folks in audience? What does that suggest? Audience question period?

  • A better MIC for moderator, remind panel to speak into their MICS. Could not hear Dean Takko

  • Social Capital - grow? What is the civil response to uncivil learners? Shame & Shun - As effective means? Empathetic curiosity - to seek solutions not answers. Parties - overall good or bad for USA?

  • The statement "listening past one's preconceptions" was important to me.

  • A little frustrated that speakers weren't clear, mumbling, or too fast.

  • I would suggest giving panel members a list of questions ahead of time, which would allow a more thoughtful dialog.

  • Propose strategies to overcome the divide in today's society.

  • Include more extreme panelists to balance and at the same time diversify the conversation.

  • I attended this event to see if there is enough hope for the community to want to stay.

  • Leave big screen down during panel discussion, please.

  • Have a way for audience to submit topics/questions. I saw 2 to 3 audience members who were close to the moderator slip papers to him (assuming they were talking points). Other audience members would like to also submit ideas. This could be done electronically or via paper & pencil.

  • Interesting to see the "two sides' sit together - it would have been a good message/example to mix up the seating.

  • Provide the full list of dates & topics.

·         1. Alex's introduction was informative and useful.

·         2. Handheld microphones could be better.

·         3. Agree with need for education (in school and for grownups) on governmental process, civics classes.

·         4. I would vote for Ann Rivers and Dean Takko in a heartbeat.

·         5. Personal respect and friendships are the basis for any successful professional & political progress.

·         6. Covid broke many things, but we need to get past that brokenness.

·         7. I agree that we shouldn't let the tail wag the dog.

·         8. Doing the right thing is hardly ever the easiest option but is the best thing to do in the end. 

        9. Understanding the backstory is critical to being able to have an honest discussion.

·         10. We have two ears and one mouth for a reason - listen more - talk less!

bottom of page