The questions:

1. _5.9 average___ On a scale of (0) strong disagreement, to (5) neutral, to (10) strong agreement, should the Civic Caucus serve as a prototype for other, more permanent, organizations, rather than try to be a permanent organization itself?

2. _9.1 average___ On a scale of (0) strong disagreement, to (5) neutral, to (10) strong agreement, is it important for the Civic Caucus to continue mainly as a virtual organization, making it easy for individuals to participate without their having to attend meetings?

3. _5.3 average___ On a scale of (0) strong disagreement, to (5) neutral, to (10) strong agreement, should the Civic Caucus give prime emphasis to offering information and involvement, with lesser emphasis on taking positions?

4. _8.9 average___ On a scale of (0) strong disagreement, to (5) neutral, to (10) strong agreement, is the Civic Caucus fulfilling its objective of being nonpartisan and impartial?

5. _5.1 average___ On a scale of (0) strong disagreement, to (5) neutral, to (10) strong agreement, should the Civic Caucus continue to rely almost exclusively on contributions from a few individuals, rather than seeking financial support from a broader group of participants?

Robert J. Brown (5) (8) (2) (10) (5)

Question 2: While it is reasonable to be primarily a virtual organization I think it would be worthwhile to have an occasional meeting (annually?) where people can meet, build personal relationships in a nonpartisan way, and possibly build support from some of the policy positions taken.

Question 3: It is important for the civic caucus to take a stand on issues - at least those dealing with the structure and operation of government.

John R. Finnegan, Sr. (8) (10) (5) (10) (7)

Ann Berget (5) (9) (5) (9) (9)
Question 1: I'm not sure I want to consider CC an impermanent organization at this time.

Question 2: Once in a while it is nice to attach faces to names. For instance, CC participants could have been seated at the same tables at the recent Citizens League Annual Meeting without knowing that they "knew" each other.

Question 3: I like the current balance of information and position-taking.

Question 4: I am disappointed with the continued reliance on the same pool of education informants, especially given that not much changes or improves in that area.

Question 5: It's been nice not to focus on the fund raising aspect of group sustainability and all that entails. If the future of the group is unclear at this time, let's change as little as possible until more is decided. Besides, it's hard to raise funds for organizations that are in the midst of change.

Clarence Shallbetter (5) (9) (3) (9) (5)

Ray Schmitz (4) (9) (__) (9) (3)
The plan seems realistic. Ideally expansion of this kind of organization is the future of civic engagement. The legislature should be encouraging virtual hearings, city councils and county boards may televise their meetings but until citizens can participate from other sites the full utility of that is not realized.

Wayne Jennings (7) (9) (8) (8) (7)
CC provides a unique information service and should remain in that vein as an unbiased informed source. It's probably best that a few individuals control and finance it to avoid mission creep. Yes, a booklet should be prepared on CC and a foundation should finance that as an inexpensive initiative. In today's world, everyone is hugely busy but hungry for good information, obtained quickly. Hence the need to spread the word. You guys are doing fine. Keep it going in the same manner and look for ways to expand the base. All of us should be responsible for recruiting more 5-10 more readers each.

Tim McDonald (2) (9) (7) (9) (2)

Deb Frenzel (3) (10) (8) (10 (0)

Bright Dornblaser (10) (10) (10) (10) (4)

Austin Chapman (4) (8) (7) (9) (8)

Hans Sandbo (9) (10) (6) (5) (2)
Question 1: I like this because participation using the internet is easy. However, it is evolving, and finding "best practices" for using the internet to accomplish this is vital to staying power for "permanent ?" organizations. You can evolve your prototype to take advantage of new developments and concepts of communicating on the internet which in the future may very well be the "best" way to get views and comments.

Question 3: I think both info and involvement are needed - to be able to indicate a position.

Question 4: I have not had enough experience to determine this.

Question 5: When one contributes they have a greater sense of involvement (especially if they have a strong view point) - I am not asking for a pledge envelope here - just my view on raising funds. Finding non-profit bi-partisan groups to support this effort would be of value. If there are such organizations.

Gene Franchett (10) (10) (10) (10) (10)

Bob White (6) (10) (5) (8) (5)

Joe Mansky (6) (7) (4) (10) (8)
I agree that this organization is still in the development stage. Perhaps in another year it will become easier to make a more definitive decision concerning its future.

Dave O'Denius
I have not been totally familiar with the Civic Caucus and its goals and objectives. But from some of the issues and position discussions I have read from you r group, the Civic Caucus sounds like an excellent model of a grass roots non-partisan political issues group.

Minnesota has a reputation for clean. somewhat wholesome, issues oriented politics. Discussions from groups like yours seem very important to the process.

I hope you continue your advocacy and discussions of important issues in Minnesota politics! (That would be 10-AGREE STRONGLY on the Lickert scale)

It seems to me that the use of television media, funded PAC groups, E mail fund raising, etc. that face to face discussions are a rather rare thing.

Do you feel arcane not to have the discussions on FACEBOOK ?

Charles Lutz (5) (10) (9) (10) (6)
Question 1: I could go either way on this. Haven't heard rationale for Civic Caucus not going permanent.

Ques;tion 3: I like the idea of Civic Caucus taking positions, at least much of the time if not always. Such positions need then to be communicated to pertinent public policy-setters, of course.

Question 5: It depends... I lean toward CC not having to enter major fundraising territory, unless necessary to meet needs appropriate to purposes.

Dave Durenberger (5) (7) (1) (10) (1)

Paul Hauge (8) (9) (5) (9) (8)

Terry Stone (2) (10) (3) (10) (_)
Question 1: The concept of being an idea incubator model for other organizations and the concept of being a standing organization do not strike me as mutually exclusive. Indeed, the very longevity of an organization is frequently a criterion of its suitability as a model for others.

Question 2: Notwithstanding the tremendous advantages of thriving as a virtual NGO, there are human artifacts of social need best met with personal contact. This need may well be met with an annual banquet open to all participants.

Question 3: The provision of information, and the involvement that informs that information, have inherent limitations. One would hope that, given identical information, individuals and organizations would process that information and end up with similar conclusions. We know that’s not the case.

For proof of this phenomenon, one need only consider an election, where the electorate shares a common pool of information and very different conclusions are drawn from that information; as evidenced by the resulting vote.

The logical flow of facts, observations and axioms that are collectively called information, are routinely skewed by personal experience, organizational bias, political bent, profit motive and political correctness on the road to a meaningful and useful conclusion.

Position papers are far more than the sum of their informational components. The well-developed position paper, uniquely buffers the reader from propaganda, fallacies and non sequiturs that can otherwise taint the conclusions made by the reader of information elements. The information is weighted, organized and brought to its intellectually instructed and politically neutral conclusions with resources unavailable to most individuals and organizations. One might say that a Civic Caucus position paper connects the dots; while information alone merely supplies the dots.

We can hardly decry the paucity of civic leadership; then fail to lead by example. There are risks. Not all position papers get it right, not everyone will agree with them and they can be polarizing--- all risks common to leadership.

These risks can be minimized by identifying position papers as a separate, but related, work product of the Civic Caucus information model.

Question 5: The question seems to suggest a false dichotomy. An organization at the cutting edge of society’s changing concept of community, and at the cutting edge of information technology, seems most appropriate for foundation grants.

Tom Swain (5) (10) (3) (9) (5)

Ray Ayotte (10) (8) (3) (8) (3)

Ellen Brown (5) (10) (2) (10) (8)
Question 1: I don't think it has to be either/or. Also, I don't think the format has to be applied only to broad public policy, or public policy at all for that matter. It could work for a variety of interest groups, as do other internet based discussion groups.

Question 5: There is so little money for public affairs. It seems to me that as long as the current funders are willing to keep at it, you should stick with them. That said, it strikes me that the Bush Foundation Community Leadership Initiative, which Pam Wheelock will be heading in January, would be a likely funder for getting the booklet/manual done.

John Milton (5) (10) (10) (3) (2)
In general, I like what you're doing, but striking the nonpartisan balance is not easily achieved. And you have to know, I've always been a strong supporter of rail transit, so I wonder if you're still stuck with Citizens League positions from the 1970's. Why not help the Central Corridor survive the ego-driven attacks by MPR's Bill Kling? Good luck!

David Broden (0) (10) (5) (10) (3)
Question 1: The effectiveness of the Civic Caucus is as an independent organization or as a arm but independent arm of another organization--recommend that this be the primary thrust with consideration of a fall back alternate to link strongly to another group. The only reason for tying to another group is to obtain operational support or future leadership which may in itself evolve. Having said this --the prototype structure can serve to aid the evolution of other similar organizations but not replace the Civic Caucus and the type of people involved--the type of people is one of the important strengths to keep in mind.

Question 2: The virtual structure must remain the focus--this is the unique and perhaps the only way to link the type of people who now participate and also to reach across a wide area including the full metro and greater Minnesota. Without the virtual structure the organization would fail in a short time. If we do an occasional meeting it may help. I would argue that the Civic Caucus when it can achieve the funding level necessary should establish a very strong and expanded website that fosters interactive participation. We should also go to occasional web meetings which can link people across a wide area and will like have people who have or could have the weblink capabilitiy in a short time. A weblink capability could be a opportunity to have a corporate sponsor such as Best Buy or Microsoft etc. who might provide members the hardware, software or web services at a reduced cost to support our approach. This could be growth objective.

Question 3: This could be the toughest question. Here we need to have a list of topics and from the list priortize those that we wish to have as information only and those that are important to the Civic Caucus that a position is established and moved ahead with a plan for impact. For example if we are addressing 5-7 topics then perhaps we evolve a position recommendation on 2-3 max.

Question 4: By focusing on process and structure and not linking to the specifics of program funding and execution we address what is needed to make the system work and thus fixing some needs without getting to the specifics how each topic is implemented--if we move to the specific we will lose the nonpartisan structure and related impact.
Question 5: The effectiveness and participation in the Civic Caucus will not be lost by broadening the opportunity to support the funding. By taking the MPR or MN Post format of enabling interested parties to contribute we are gaining commitment and addressing growth or at least strengthening the tools and approaches we are using. Giving people who participate an option to contribute will show that we have an organization that offers something unique and we are working to expand and involve others and to share the thoughts of community leaders etc. We should simply outline a simple statement of opportunity to support the funding and why it can help and add this to the website. We might have a category or two but it seems to me that the interest in reaching to those interested is an opportunity. Need to have someone prepare a specific plan etc.

Shirley Heaton (10) (10) (5) (10) (5)
I'm so impressed with the Caucus and its method of obtaining and disseminating information. Surely there must be a foundation with a mission to explore ways and means of utilizing updated technology to garner more community involvement while respecting its increasing time and travel pressures.

Ed Dirkswager (10) (10) (7) (10) (5)
I really like the direction outlined in your document.

Chris Brazelton (4) (8) (6) (7) (4)
As a member of the League of Women Voters (Mpls) I see many opportunities for the organizations to partner on some of these efforts. I sent them a copy of the email regarding this discussion and invited them to contact you. There may be broader possibilities in partnership with LWV at the state level.

Question 1: While the Civic Caucus is a wonderful prototype, I'm not anxious for it to dissolve. Perhaps at some point in the future as other permanent organizations take a strong hold of the process, but even then there may always be a need for a small group of dedicated individuals to push the envelope of innovation.

Question 3: While I appreciate the information sharing and opportunities for input and seeing the offerings of others, sometimes it is necessary to take a position after reaching consensus in order to move from discussion to action.

Question 4: While I believe the Caucus does a good job of presenting information, I have come to believe that it is not possible for any individual or group of like minded individuals to be completely impartial. Even the selection of topics or guests reveals some partiality. In order to achieve a goal of non partisanship to the degree that one can, it is essential to attract a broad range of diverse members and even then people rarely stray too far beyond their comfort level.

Question 5: While there needs to be a core group to maintain the energy and focus, it should be a goal to attract broader participation and buy in.

Bill Hamm (6) (9) (3) (7) (8)
Question 1: At this point I don't disregard a larger and more permanent role or direction for the Civic Caucus to take on. If this organization's role is to bring forth and discuss pertinent and relevant issues, then there is strong potential for long term consideration for the organization as a think tank as new issues will never stop coming. On the other hand if the organization was to take on a more action oriented role, there is again potential for a long term existence. The big question is, are we fulfilling a useful purpose in the eyes of those watching.

Question 2: If you want quality input from the far corners of the state then the answer is yes. The virtual environment serves us well. But I suspect that including some of us in the virtual world in your core group occasionally wouldn't be bad either.

Question 3: With a group of bodies 1050+ strong I see no reason this group's leanings after discussion should not be a part of the outcome of the effort, of course that would mean polling the members and would add workload. I also see no reason why we shouldn't be looking to this base group to bring some of these conclusions and discussion back to their community level to make use of. It's always fun to be one of the talking heads but generally that's about as useful as warts. Our challenge here is to be relevant and useful.

Question 4: I believe such effort is indeed a goal but nonpartisan and impartial are terms that have a great deal to do with point of view and viewpoint. For instance, the rural versus urban view points do not get equal airing in many of your forums. Another obvious draw back of your organization is an intellectual dominance that tends to cast many issues in the realm of how they affect the 38% ers (the rich and middle class) rather than the majority of citizens. Addressing these divides will determine your acceptance,
growth, and longevity in my opinion.

Question 5: I tend to support what works and at this particular time that works and of course this is one of the first issues that will need to be addressed if the decision is to grow or expand this organizations reach and influence.

John Rollwagen (10) (10) (3) (10) (7)
I believe that the Caucus has indeed successfully pioneered a new and effective way of engaging thoughtful citizens in a deep discussion of important public policy issues affecting all Minnesotans. In a way, it is analogous to the phenomenon of the Citizens League from 60's into the 80's but updated to reflect the pace and technology of today.

At the same time, given the demographics of the Caucus leadership and the financial stresses at work on all of us, foundations and individuals alike, it is unlikely that the Caucus can muster the will and resources to establish itself as an ongoing, independent new entity in the public policy world.

So, as suggested in your summary, the best way to create a meaningful legacy for the organization is to capture what has worked and what hasn't and get in down on paper (or electrons really), i.e. write the users manual or, even better, the business plan. And to do that, I would suggest going to the Humphrey Institute.

This could be a terrific doctoral project for a student or group of students at the Institute. A practical lesson in political science, how to mobilize public discourse and ultimately impact public policy. It would involve meeting with a wide range of political actors and thought leaders. It would be a lesson in history as well as current events. And, in the end, it could perpetuate a new and creative way of stimulating thoughtful public discourse that would have meaningful impact in the real world of political action.

I know the Carlson School does this all the time with groups of students working with real entrepreneurs, developing business plans and creating new companies. Why not the Humphrey Institute too?

Lyall Schwarzkopf (6) (9) (6) (8) (4)

Larry and Ann Schluter (3) (3) (4) (9) (3)

Carolyn Ring (5) (10) (3) (9) (5)