FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION
UNIVERSAL BEDROOM DEFINITION WORKGROUP
Meeting
III—April 7, 2009—Gainesville, Florida
Meeting Objectives
ü
To Approve
Regular Procedural Topics (Agenda and Report)
ü
To Hear a
Report Regarding TRAP Feedback and Recommendations
ü
To Review Any
Unresolved Issues Regarding Draft Universal Bedroom Definition
ü
To Discuss
and Evaluate Level of Acceptability of Revised Issues and Options
ü
To Consider
Public Comment
ü
To Adopt
Recommendations for Submittal to the Commission
ü
To Identify
Needed Next Steps and Agenda Items for Next Meeting
All
Agenda Times—Including Public Comment and Adjournment—Are Subject to Change
Meeting Agenda
1:00 Welcome
and Opening
1:05 Agenda
Review and Approval
1:15 Review
and Approval of the October 15, 2008 Facilitator’s Summary Report
1:20 Technical
Review and Advisory Panel (TRAP) Input on Issue Report and Discussion
1:40 Discussion,
Identification and Evaluation in Turn of Any Unresolved Issues and
Options
Regarding Draft Universal Bedroom Definition
3:20 General
Public Comment
3:30 Adoption
of Recommendations for Submittal to Commission
3:40 Review of Workgroup Delivery Schedule
3:50 Next Steps
4:00 Adjourn
Contact Information and Project Webpage
Jeff Blair; 850.644.6320;
jblair@fsu.edu ; http://consensus.fsu.edu/FBC/ubdw.html
Universal Bedroom Definition Workgroup Members
Commission
Appointments
Dick Browdy, Matt Carlton, Joe Crum, Dale
Greiner, Jim Goodloe, Jim Schock, and
Randy Vann.
Health
Department Appointments
Ed Barranco, Anthony Gaudio, Roxanne
Groover, Robert Harper, Mark Lander, Jim Love, Jim Schivinski, and Ed Williams.
Overview
Chairman Rodriguez announced that the
Commission is convening a facilitated joint workgroup process with the Florida
Department of Health (DOH) to develop recommendations regarding requirements
for the sizing of septic systems. The
purpose of the Workgroup is to develop recommendations regarding an acceptable
definition of “Bedrooms” used for the sizing of septic systems. The definition
should work from the Florida Building Code (FBC) and Department of Health (DOH)
perspectives.
Workgroup’s
Consensus Draft Recommendations Regarding Sizing of Septic Systems
The
Workgroup voted unanimously, 10 - 0 in favor, to recommend in concept the
following strategy for sizing septic systems:
·
Use census
definition of rooms for calculating system sizes,
·
All rooms that
meet the “Room” definition are counted as a room,
·
Use 70 square
feet as minimum room size, and
·
Use a
conversion factor of 50 gallons per day/room for sizing septic systems.
WORKGROUP’S PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES
PARTICIPANTS’ ROLE
ü
The Workgroup
process is an opportunity to explore possibilities. Offering or exploring an
idea does not necessarily imply support for it.
ü
Listen to
understand. Seek a shared understanding even if you don’t agree.
ü
Be focused
and concise—balance participation & minimize repetition. Share the airtime.
ü
Look to the
facilitator(s) to be recognized. Please raise your hand to speak.
ü
Speak one
person at a time. Please don’t interrupt each other.
ü
Focus on
issues, not personalities. Avoid stereotyping or personal attacks.
ü
To the extent
possible, offer options to address other’s concerns, as well as your own.
ü
Represent and
communicate with member’s constituent group(s).
FACILITATORS’ ROLE
ü
Design and
facilitate a participatory task force process.
ü
Assist
participants to stay focused and on task.
ü
Assure that
participants follow ground rules.
ü
Prepare
agenda packets and provide meeting summary reports.
GUIDELINES FOR BRAINSTORMING
ü
Speak when
recognized by the Facilitator(s).
ü
Offer one
idea per person without explanation.
ü
No comments,
criticism, or discussion of other's ideas.
ü
Listen
respectively to other's ideas and opinions.
ü
Seek
understanding and not agreement at this point in the discussion.
THE NAME STACKING PROCESS
ü
Determines
the speaking order.
ü
Participant
raises hand to speak. Facilitator(s) will call on participants in turn.
ü
Facilitator(s)
may interrupt the stack (change the speaking order) in order to promote
discussion on a specific issue or, to balance participation and allow those who
have not spoken on an issue an opportunity to do so before others on the list
who have already spoken on the issue.
ACCEPTABILITY
RANKING SCALE
During the meetings,
members will be asked to develop and rank options, and following
discussions and
refinements, may be asked to do additional rankings of the options if requested
by members and staff. Please be prepared to offer specific refinements or
changes to address your reservations. The following scale will be utilized for
the ranking exercises:
WORKGROUP’S CONSENSUS PROCESS
The Workgroup will seek
to develop a package of consensus-based recommendations for submittal to the
Florida Building Commission. General
consensus is a participatory process whereby, on matters of substance, the
members strive for agreements which all of the members can accept, support,
live with or agree not to oppose. In
instances where, after vigorously exploring possible ways to enhance the
members’ support for the final decision on a recommendation, and the Workgroup
finds that 100% acceptance or support is not achievable, final decisions will
require at least 75% favorable vote of all members present and voting. This super majority decision rule underscores
the importance of actively developing consensus throughout the process on
substantive issues with the participation of all members and which all can live
with. In instances where the Workgroup
finds that even 75% acceptance or support is not achievable, publication of
recommendations will include documentation of the differences and the options
that were considered for which there is more than 50% support from the
Workgroup.
The Workgroup will
develop its recommendations using consensus-building techniques with the
assistance of the facilitator.
Techniques such as brainstorming, ranking and prioritizing approaches
will be utilized. Where differences
exist that prevent the Workgroup from reaching a final consensus decision (i.e.
with support of at least 75% of the members) on a recommendation, the Workgroup
will outline the differences in its documentation.
The Workgroup’s consensus
process will be conducted as an open process consistent with applicable
law. Workgroup members, staff, and
facilitator will be the only participants seated at the table. Only Workgroup
members may participate in discussions and vote on proposals and
recommendations. The facilitator, or a Workgroup member through the
facilitator, may request specific clarification from a member of the public in
order to assist the Workgroup in understanding an issue. Observers/members of the public are welcome to speak during the
public comment period provided at each meeting, and all comments submitted on
the public comment forms provided in the agenda packets will be included in the
facilitator’ summary reports.
Facilitator will work
with staff and Workgroup members to design agendas that will be both efficient
and effective. The staff will help the
Workgroup with information and meeting logistics.
To enhance the
possibility of constructive discussions as members educate themselves on the
issues and engage in consensus-building, members agree to refrain from public
statements that may prejudge the outcome of the Workgroup’s consensus process. In discussing the Workgroup process with the
media, members agree to be careful to present only their own views and not the
views or statements of other participants. In addition, in order to provide
balance to the Workgroup process, members agree to represent and consult with
their stakeholder interest groups.