The City of Flagstaff (the “City”) has partnered with OpenGov, a third-party online forum provider, to create a civic engagement platform that will allow the citizens of Flagstaff get more involved in City government. Flagstaff Community Forum is a forum for the discussion of proposed City projects and upcoming policy topics related to local government in the City and its partner agencies. The topics are generated by City staff, commissions, and Council for the purpose of public participation in current government decision making.
To ensure that all voices are heard and that forum participants are able to speak freely about the posted topics, participants who register to use the forum must agree to not post disruptive statements. Disruptive statements include the following:
- Statements that do not relate to the posted topic;
- Personal attacks and statements that threaten or abuse other forum participants, members of the public, City staff or City officials;
- Statements that discriminate on the basis of race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual preference, age, region, disability, etc.
- Hate speech of any kind;
- Statements containing any sort of commercial advertising or soliciting funds, goods, or services;
- Repetitive or meaningless messages (“spam”);
- A statement from a user who has falsified their registration information with the intent to post multiple statements in one topic or to misrepresent their city of residence; and
- Statements that include obscene, pornographic, abusive, or otherwise illegal material.
OpenGov, acting as the forum monitor, will remove any disruptive statements that are posted on the forum. Forum participants who post disruptive statements may lose their posting privileges.
Frequently asked questions about the participation guidelines
Why does Open Town Hall monitor for disruptive statements?
OpenGov is a non-partisan company dedicated to building public trust in government and broadening civic engagement. Many people will not participate, if the forum has disruptive statements.
Does Open Town Hall find many disruptive statements?
No. Disruptive statements are quite rare - less than one in a thousand statements on OpenGov moderated topics nationwide are disruptive.
What does Open Town Hall do if they find a disruptive statement?
- moves the statement to a different web page,
- describes the problem in an email to the author, and
- invites the author to change the statement.
Does Open Town Hall ever edit or delete statements?
Never. Only the statement's author can edit or delete a statement. If a statement is removed from the public website, it will still be seen by the City of Flagstaff and be part of the public record.
If I disagree with someone, can I post my opinion?
Yes. Open Town Hall encourages open dialog and debate which, by necessity, includes disagreements.
How do I know if my statement is a 'disagreement' or a 'personal attack'?
Personal attacks are disparaging remarks which impute motives to a person's action. Statements of fact, or of your own opinion are generally not personal attacks.
Here are some examples of statements which are, and are not, personal attacks.
Personal Attack v. Not A Personal Attack
He is a liar. V. He said he did X, but in fact he did Y.
She misrepresented the truth. V. I don't believe what she said.
He is greedy. V. He is making money from this project.
It is merely a power play on her part. V. She will announce her candidacy soon.
1. On average, how often do you use the greater Observatory Mesa area (i.e., Lowell Observatory, Observatory Mesa Natural Area, and abutting National Forest)? (see map, above)
2. When do you typically use the greater Observatory Mesa area?
3. Which of the following activities do you participate in within the greater Observatory Mesa area the most frequently? Pick your top priorities.
Describe the significance of this item
Describe the significance of this item
4. The proposed trail system will support recreational opportunities for multi-use (walking/hiking, running, biking, equestrian use, etc.).
5. The proposed trail lengths will fit my recreational needs.
6. The proposed trail system will preserve the natural character of the area.
7. How well do you think the plan addresses these priorities? (1 = poorly addressed, 2 = neutral, 3 = well addressed)
8. The plan’s proposed recreational infrastructure addresses the area’s current level of use (approximately 20-30,000 users per year) and the community’s desire for recreational opportunities. (see map, above)
9. How well does this plan address the five Observatory Mesa recommendations identified in the Flagstaff Trail Initiative’s (FTI) regional trail strategy? (1 = poorly addressed, 2 = neutral, 3 = well addressed) FTI's Trail Strategy: http://flagstafftrailsinitiative.org/
10. If priorities 1 – 3 are implemented as funding becomes available, do the steps identified in the priorities meet the needs for recreational use and community goals in the short term while funding is being secured for the complete project? (see maps, above)
11. The proposed formal trail system for the greater Observatory Mesa area would be an improvement of the current conditions? (see maps, above)
12. How would the implementation of this plan affect the way you use the area?
13. Please provide further direction on your views associated with any other priorities you think this plan should include. This feedback will be used to make plan revisions. Please be as specific and clear as you can. (i.e., include: location, solutions, identification numbers, etc.).WILDFIRE RISK WILL INCREASE! The City's plan will predictably increase the foot traffic on the Observatory Mesa, and that will increase the wildfire risk. In the wake of the Pipeline Fire in Flagstaff, there must be a solid plan in place to ensure the increase in visitors to the Observatory Mesa would not lead to another wildfire. What is the City going to do to ensure more visitors won't increase the risk of wildfires on the Observatory Mesa? The City also bears responsibility to ensure that the boundaries between Observatory Mesa land and adjacent private property is clearly demarcated.
14. Please provide additional detail regarding your views on the overall trail plan. This feedback will be used to make plan revisions. Please be as specific and clear as you can. (i.e., include: location, solutions, identification numbers, etc.).Poorly planned, increases wildfire risk, violates homeowners' private property, and encourages illegal activity. LEAVE NATURAL AREAS ALONE. Proposed access points 2.9 and 2.10 are located on private property. Any trail from those access points would pass through privately owned land. Anyone who uses that trail and who is not a Linwood Heights homeowner would be criminally trespassing on private property. Jesse Gregg Park (JGP) is privately owned. The fact that the City proceeded with this proposal to put public trails on privately owned land, without even reaching out to the Linwood Heights homeowners and/or HOA, constitutes harm done to the Linwood Heights homeowners. This proposal encourages illegal activity (trespassing on private land). Moving forward, the City must make every effort to correct the damage that has already been done by creating this proposal.
15. Would you like to receive future news about the Greater Observatory Mesa Trail Plan? Enter e-mail if email@example.com
16. What is your home ZIP code?86001