Thanks, David! I can’t say how much I appreciate your participation and how gratifying it is that you’ve gotten useful insights from the group. That’s what it’s (been) all about!
One of the things I’ve discovered over the last few months is that LOTS of organizations are seeking to narrowly engage community members about specific topics. There are two big issues with this.
One is that it contributes to fragmentation because no one is connecting and coordinating efforts. People get little snapshots for their own purposes but we don’t get a detailed panoramic picture for everyone’s purposes. Methods are inconsistent—some aren’t even real engagement—and results are inaccessible, all of which can feed cynicism.
The other big issue is that community is, by its nature, comprehensive. Narrowly focused efforts miss the economies and synergies that emerge in community. For example, NPC is focused on nature. But what is the vision for advanced manufacturing or aging in place or arts & culture? Initiatives and organizations must focus to execute effectively. But their customers do not live in isolation; they live in community where issues are interdependent and intertwined. If community is weak, it impedes all positive development.
This, to me, was the genius of Venture: It did not have a topical focus. Its focus was community engagement, for anything and everything that was for and in the community. That broad purpose is, in my humble opinion, hugely valuable but under-valued. Everyone can benefit from it but no one wants to invest in it because it is beyond their particular purposes. Even with Chattanooga.Digital, which is interested in all aspects of community vision, doesn’t have a compelling reason to put resources into engaging everyone (input from people who hate technology or are fans of giant tech companies is not really useful for our purposes).
This is exactly why I think the group needs to evolve into a network that coordinates, guides, and standardizes activities. Rather than a single formal organization creating and own the vision, I think the “path” is for everyone to take responsibility for listening to the community and sharing what they hear, including input that is outside their particularly area of interest.
As far as a creating a community-wide vision that can be put into action - that is precisely what I am aiming to do with National Park City and I am diligently doing my best to incorporate the principles of venture into all National Park City efforts. I welcome any and all input from you all. And I’m happy to field questions about what National Park City is and what it seems it’s becoming. Truthfully, it can be whatever we want it to be. And my commitment is to making sure National Park City benefits our entire community and empowers everyone from neighborhoods to non-profits to city-officials to be able to make a bigger impact and drive civic change in our region through collaboration.
Personally I have benefited greatly from these venturing sessions and dialogues. But I have also heard similar feedback around not knowing what the outcome is meant to be.
I have always felt like there could be some very clear ways that National Park City and Venturing could compliment each other and serve distinct and mutually beneficial roles. Perhaps we can have this conversation today.
I appreciate all the passion and discussion and look forward to continuing the conversation.
—
Greg Laudeman, Ed.D.
Executive Officer and Principal
Eduity, LLC
706-271-5521