Participation Guidelines
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?
OpenGov
- 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.
Translate
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)
When do you typically use the greater Observatory Mesa area?
How well do you think the plan addresses the following priorities? (1 = poorly addressed, 2 = neutral, 3 = well addressed) (review the draft plan linked in the survey introduction)
Would the proposed formal trail system for the greater Observatory Mesa area be an improvement of the current conditions? (see maps, above and review the draft plan linked in the survey introduction)
Should Class 1 E-bikes be allowed on the proposed trail system for the greater Observatory Mesa area? There may be an opportunity to allow E-bike use within the planning area. Class 1 E-bikes are pedal-assist bikes that can travel at speeds up to 20 miles an hour.
Do you support the inclusion of the following trail design types in the Greater Observatory Mesa Trail Plan? (1 = No, 2 = neutral, 3 = Yes)
Several dirt roads in the focus area will be retained for administrative uses. Should these roads be used as trail connectors to reduce overall impact, or would you prefer a new trail be developed adjacent to some of these existing roads to provide additional user experience? (see maps, above)
Please provide comments regarding what experiences you prefer as it relates to using existing roads vs. new proposed trails.
Close as many of the existing roads to motorized use as possible. There is rampant illegal use. Convert those roads to trails. There are already tons of trails proposed and putting a new trail in the same general area as an old road unnecessarily adds to the footprint of the trail system. I know some people want a "better experience" than an old road, but the system is already way too dense in my opinion, and is likely to adversely impact wildlife use of the area.Please provide further comments and direction on your views associated with any aspect you think this plan should consider. Specificity will assist us in using feedback to make plan revisions. (i.e., include: location, solutions, access point numbers, trail id numbers, section numbers, etc.).
Observatory Mesa is part of the primary wildlife corridor from the Peaks to the Mogollon Rim (see work by Paul Beier). Significant wildlife disruption is likely from existing use in MEDL and the Fort Valley area. The proposed trail system is way too dense to allow for somewhat natural wildlife use, and the proposed trail system would likely exacerbate the disruption elsewhere in the area. More emphasis should be placed on the retention of large untrailed blocks of habitat. Ever more trails are likely undermining the "naturalness" of the area that users are seeking. In particular close the roads connecting to Hidden Hollow road; do not encourage additional motorized use in this now relatively quiet area. Motorized access here would also affect the Hidden Hollow neighborhood and community, which I live close to. If FR 506 will be closed, FR 515A also should be. A long motorized spur that dead ends at a closed road does not make sense, and is likely to facilitate off-route motorized use.Would you like to receive future news about the Greater Observatory Mesa Trail Plan? Enter e-mail if interested.
[email protected]What is your home ZIP code?
86001