Up until now we haven't really had a direction, Pat, it's just been an informal study group. The purpose has always been to learn from Venture. But there's never been a particular path for that. Learning from Venture is what the dialogues (and speaker series before) are intended to do: to learn about Venture from those who were involved, with an eye toward how we can use that knowledge for the future. Beyond that learning was to be self-directed. The regular Study Group meetings on Tuesdays are to discuss what we have learned and what we want to learn; to plan and reflect on our learning. That's all the "path" was. It seems to me that many folks want to do something more active and hands-on. There seems to be especially strong interest among participants in developing a community-wide vision. Unfortunately, there are no resources for establishing a formal organization to do that on a large scale. And, as much as I think it's important to learn from Venture, there don't seem to be resources to support large public meetings. I personally can't afford to put more effort into them. I know the path I personally want to take and would welcome anyone and everyone to come along. That involves scaling down the public dialogues and doing more to directly and systematically engage people. Since there are no major resources to support that, it's going to have to be a collaborative, "crowd-sourced" approach. Basically, I'm going to approach it as an entrepreneur rather than a professor. Unless you have other suggestions. I'm flexible but personally need to refocus. So the Study Group needs to shift from studying what Venture did to identifying specific needs & opportunities to do what Venture did. It needs to move from self-directed learning to collaborative action to directly engage regular folks, basically what you suggest: ask simple, meaningful question, record responses, and share them to inform the "network." That's where I'm going to focus. For example, I love your list of topics. We need folks to convene small group discussions and share results, rather than having a few large gatherings that don't really have results. How do we do that? I think Venture points the way. I plan to follow that path. Again, I more than welcome others to come along as partners, participants, sponsors, etc. Does that make sense? On Mon, Apr 6, 2026, at 7:02 PM, Deconstruction Advisory Board wrote:

I cannot attend Tuesday's meeting. The feedback I have gotten from those I invited to attend and others who attended once or twice is that they are not really clear on what we are doing. They were confused about the difference between the Study Group & the Dialogues. They appreciated learning about Venture's past but unclear of the path we are taking. Until we have resources, I think the best things we can do is ask questions of people we meet, listening, recording responses for future use & networking.

Agreed on all counts, Pam… and more! There are several other key lessons from Venture. Let’s put them into practice! The three questions I suggest for “Community Confabs” are: What do you see as the critical issues and major challenges for our community? What is your vision for the future of our community? What would it look if we addressed those issues and challenges? Can you provide examples from other communities? What key resources are required for our community to achieve that vision? What do we have and what do we need? Bonus question: What are you able and willing to do achieve that vision? What actions can you take? What do others think? This is a bit off-topic from our agenda but it's an important discussion, maybe we should start another thread… or move it online to venturing.chattanooga.digital. 😉 It’s also important to build capacity and have tools for this, which is where the Facilitator Bank comes in. More on that tomorrow!

On Apr 6, 2026, at 9:35 PM, Deconstruction Advisory Board <deconchatt@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes. I’m going to take what I have learned like Bob Corker - The Chattanooga Way Ron Littlefield- steal from other cities shamelessly Sally Robinson- Think BIG and don’t worry about the money And it was either you or Eleanor that said “engagement now, engagement tomorrow, engagement in the future I think it could maybe be helpful if there were 3 or 4 common questions for all of us to try and get responses to from the people we meet.

— GL

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.

On Apr 7, 2026, at 7:52 AM, David Littlejohn <littlejohn.david@gmail.com> wrote:

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 www.eduity.net greg@eduity.net 706-271-5521

Right. I'm still a bit unclear on what NPC is — and isn't. The "National Park City" moniker implies a number of things to me that may not be the case. Do you see NPC as a general purpose engagement initiative with no particular agenda other than ensuring all voices are heard, including diametrically opposed parties, David? To be clear, CVSG isn't an "organization." It's just an informal group. I say that because it seems a lot of folks except the group to do something coherent. That's not what it's about. It's just a bunch of folks learning together. That said, there seems to be real interest if not evident resources for a broad community vision and shared approach. That's why I think we need to evolve into a network by everyone adopting common practices, joint approach, and standard metrics for engaging people and sharing results. David, do you see NPC operating such a network, coordinating activities, collecting and distributing results, maintaining standards, supporting participation, etc.? Is that what NPC is? A formal organization isn't necessary for such a network but it can definitely be an asset. On Tue, Apr 7, 2026, at 10:09 AM, David Littlejohn wrote:

Thanks Greg -

I would like to share the vision and mission with you all that I have crafted for National Park City because it definitely is not limited to nature. Our 5 commitments provide a comprehensive and expansive framework to address any and all parts of a city that improve quality of life for all citizens. When you step outside your front door you are in the park. This means that we aim to impact walkability, bikeability, public transportation, our technology and infrastructure, workforce housing, development and our growth over the next 50 years. And I'm happy to share how I am working to address the problem of silos and making sure that all are included. Also - we are just beginning and I welcome all feedback and input from the venture group to make sure we are aligned to community values. This is why it was important to me that Elanear be on our council from day one.

I am happy to be challenged and peppered with questions today. I know there has been a lot of confusion about National Park City.

But it would be a mistake for us to not all try to get on the same page about how these two organizations can collaborate and not attempt to be doing the same thing. Because everything you describe is what I am aiming to do. And we have a huge amount of momentum and support right now, which I hope to continue to grow with all of your help.

It will take a village. But that village needs to be aligned and on the same page.

Let's make that happen!

Talk more soon,

d

On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 9:25 AM Greg Laudeman, Ed.D. <greg@eduity.net> wrote:

...

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.

...

On Apr 7, 2026, at 7:52 AM, David Littlejohn <littlejohn.david@gmail.com> wrote:

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 www.eduity.net greg@eduity.net 706-271-5521

_______________________________________________ Cvsg mailing list -- cvsg@list.chattanooga.digital To unsubscribe send an email to cvsg-leave@list.chattanooga.digital

-- Greg Laudeman, Ed.D. *Executive Officer and Principal* Eduity, LLC www.eduity.net greg@eduity.net 706-271-5521