Whatever happened to civility in American public life? Why can't people disagree without being disagreeable? Should not educated people and educated communities set the tone and the example for others?

Actually, I'm glad we had an outburst. It's about time the city council realize people are really frustrated with them. They are liars.

This is a example of how much provocation can happen but when the victim responds, the guy who started it looks around innocently and says, Who me?
The schools are starting to deal with bullying, but this meeting was a perfect example of how adults do it.
One man stood up, shouted and interrupted a woman asking a question. The man was loud and out of order and rude. What happened afterward was a reaction to his provocation. Eveyone in the room saw it.

One can be both passionate AND civil. Incivility LOSES arguments as people tend to discount the views of anyone who sounds and/or behaves like a "hothead". A civil, yet passionate and engaged citizen is more effective than someone who is not rudeand discourteous.

"One man stood up, shouted and interrupted a woman asking a question. The man was loud and out of order and rude. What happened afterward was a reaction to his provocation. Eveyone in the room saw it."

I was there. The man did interrupt. He asked for more respect from someone who was baiting and badgering the moderator, but the man never left his chair until he was startled out of his chair by someone shouting at full volume 6" from his ear. I was standing within three feet of the action. Then the man quickly sat down. That's what I and my neighbors saw. As I recall it was the woman's husband who was first out of order by asking for an unsolicited poll of the room, because he didn't like what the moderator said. Then, the woman's husband assaulted the man outside. That's against the law.

Maybe its time to get rid of the city consultants. Wow, city employee Curtis Williams is going to attend meetings in the future, why was'nt he attending meetings to begin with. Instead of having outside help do your dirty business maybe high priced management city employees should be doing the job they are being paid for!

It was good that that fellow asked for a poll of the room because the moderator misrepresented what the various groups had concluded. The moderator said there was general agreement that we wanted 2 and 3 story housing. He knows that the participants only knew what our own group talked about.
He misrepresented what was going on and he got caught doing it. The impromptu poll confirmed that the moderator was misleading the group. That may have fueled the emotion in the room.

By the way, that is sometimes the outcome of breaking up a large group into small groups. It allows the moderator to summarize as he sees fit. And they can place people at the various tables to manage the discussion.
I have seen this happen more than once. For example, PAGE does it - they have a member of their organization at each table to manage it.

"The moderator said there was general agreement that we wanted 2 and 3 story housing. He knows that the participants only knew what our own group talked about."

That's not what I heard, or my neighbors heard. We heard the moderator say that there were a few people at each or most of the tables that favored 2 and 3 story housing. The out-of-order poll that was demanded by one attendee and ultimately taken, confirmed what the moderator said, because a show of hands showed about 70% "for" and 30% "against" 2 and 3 story housing.

Sorry, the above should read *70%* "against" and 30% "for" 2 and 3 story housing. Again, this confirmed the moderator's projection, and observation.

I'm impressed that you know what your neighbors heard and saw, here it is a week later. And you even have percentages on the "out of order" poll.
The only thing that was out of order was Mr. Forte's shouting out and interrupting a person asking a question.

My neighbors and I spoke about the event after the meeting. Funny, I didn't see you in our group, because we were all agreed on what happened, and what the poll said, but I guess you're entitled to your opinion.

I concur with "I was there" about the results of the "poll". My estimate was that about a third (he claims "30%") raised their hands to the question about who didn't want to see _any_ housing in the area. However, he makes the specious inference that everyone who didn't immediately raise a hand was a supporter of "2 and 3 story housing" (no undecideds, no abstentions, no intermediate positions). He then states these inferred believes "confirmed the moderator's projection, and observation." The moderator's claim was not about what he believed that participants believed, but about what they said (an observable fact): He claimed that multiple people in _each_ group had spoken up for this type of housing, and this was what soundly objected to by participants (and was not contradicted by other participants). I don't know what the other people in my group believed about multi-story housing because we never discussed it - we wound up focused on retail.

In a subsequent post, he claims that what the moderator said about all 5 groups must be true based upon what happened in his one group. I was taught the fallacy of this logic in elementary school.

In judging the article & editorial versus this account, you may want to look at those TSF threads.

Agenda at Web Link There were about 50 participants.

Note: I was at the front of the room and the reporters were at the very back, so there is cause for legitimate differences in observations. The room has bad acoustics, so in a chaotic situation, there could be significant differences in what was heard by whom. But also I was seeing people from the front and could see emotions not visible from behind. Plus most people were facing forward when they talked.


Timeline with comments:

1. The meeting began with a presentation by the consultant David Early lasting about a half hour.

2. The participants broke up into five groups to discuss "Issues and Opportunities" for about an hour. Each group had a secretary taking notes on flip-chart sheets.

3. Meeting reconvened. The flip-chart sheets were posted on the walls and the groups' spokespeople gave 2 minute summaries of those points.

4. Consultant/Moderator David Early then asked about housing and mixed-use and stated that he had heard multiple people in _each_ group advocating such.
Aside: I was secretary for group #5 and it focused heavily on protecting and improving retail (two members were business people from that area). There was barely a mention of housing, much less support for it.
>>>>This is the beginning of the incident and is not mentioned in the article. The editorial claims the meeting "fell apart ... starting with a failure to establish ground-rules at the start." I saw no evidence of problems with ground-rules nor of problems until this point, which was near the scheduled end of the meeting, about 1:45 after it began.

5. A significant portion of the participants - possibly a majority - vocally objected to Mr Early's claim and I heard no one back it. Mr Early backed off a little, to that there had been "1 or 2" in each group, which drew continued objections. I quickly scanned the posted sheets (some were blocked by people) and saw something like this on only one of the five groups. There was no shouting, although people were talking loudly (the room has horrible acoustics).
>>>>The article would have you falsely believe that Mr Holl was the sole person to protest and that he shouted.

6. A participant (unknown to me) asked for a show of hands for how many participants didn't want to see _any_ housing in either of the areas. About 1/3 raised their hands. This "poll" was off-topic because the dispute was not over the opinions of individual participants, but over what had happened in the discussion groups. This "poll" is not mentioned in the article or editorial, but in a TSF posting that falsely extrapolates this brief interruption as meaning that all those who did not raise their hands were supporters of "2 and 3 story housing".

7. There may then have been some minor discussion, but the next significant question was by Ms Holl who ask "How far along in the process" was the concept plan, and what decisions had been reached. I interpreted it to be a question of whether we were just wasting our time providing input (The City has a history of staff reports citing the occurrence of public outreach meetings but ignoring contrary content - opposing opinions and "inconvenient truths" - raised at those meeting).
>>>>I emphatically disagree with the article's characterization of "angrily asked" ("angrily disrespectful" in the editorial). She asked in a normal voice that was calm but firm and insistent. In the other TSF threads, see the posting by other attendees about this.

8. Mr Early stepped on the end of her question (an excusable interruption) and gave an extended non-answer that seemed to arise from his taking offense at the question. Given his insistent misrepresentation of what happened in the discussion groups, this was a logical and legitimate question. If I had been the moderator, even if there was no justification for a question in this form, the "disrespect" was so minor that I would have let it go unremarked, both for the flow of the meeting and because to respond would likely be counterproductive.

9. Ms Holl interrupted, saying that he wasn't answering her question. Things got increasingly testy between the two.

10. Sanford Forte interrupted, berating Ms Holl with "...show some respect..."
>>>>The article is extremely misleading in saying just that he interrupted three times: The reader is likely to infer that these were three separate interruptions over extended comments. The reality is that they were interruptions of the same sentence, as Ms Holl tried repeatedly to complete it.
>>>>Mr Forte speaking was louder and his tone "angrier" than Ms Holl's, but that is not mentioned.
>>>>The editorial reveals extreme bias using the highly judgmental word "chastise" for Mr Forte actions and then referring to him as "the civility enforcer". Absurd. His behavior was that of a bully.

11. Ms Holl flipped Mr Forte the finger, although many (including me) did not see it.

12. Mr Early admonished Ms Holl, but completely ignored Mr Forte's interruptions that kept Mr Holl from talking (she had the floor) and that occasioned her gesture. By this point, Mr Early had completely abandoned his role as moderator and was focusing entirely on Ms Holl, seemingly wanting to force a retraction/apology. Aside: In a TSF posting by me to the initial story, I euphemistically characterized this as the moderator (meaning the role) becoming "passive".

13. As Ms Holl attempted to defend herself and make her point, both Mr Early and Mr Forte repeatedly interrupted her.
>>>Not mentioned in the article, but critical to what followed.

14. With the moderator AWoL, members of the audience (at least three) directed increasingly strong comments to Mr Forte to stop interrupting, which only provoked more disruptive behavior by Mr Forte.
>>>>Contrary to the article, these comments occurred well after (not during) Mr Forte's initial interruptions - The article's timeline substantially minimizes the duration and scope of Mr Forte's disruptive behavior.

15. At the same time, I was telling Mr Early "You have to stop the interruptions" and then "Get control". I don't know whether this registered with him. (I was standing within a few feet).

16. The situation was continuing to escalate and I judged that it was close to getting totally out-of-hand (I have moderated many meetings). I shouted very loudly at Mr Forte to "Shut up" (words that were already being directed against him) - just those two words--nothing more--and then took at least two steps backwards (disengaging). Based upon my experience, breaking the cycle of escalation required - would be accomplished only by - a substantial leap in intensity. My "circuit-breaker" worked: The meeting immediately went back to an orderly discussion.
>>>>On shouting: I would classify myself as the only one who crossed the line from talking loudly to shouting. People who were talking very loudly were doing so in order to be heard over the interruptions.
>>>>Again, the article misrepresents the duration of Mr Forte's interruptions, positioning my shout to immediately after Ms Holl's gesture, rather than much later.
>>>>The article misrepresents my location relative to Mr Forte as "in Forte's face". First, Mr Forte was talking back to someone further back in the room who had called for him to stop interrupting, so he was facing 1/2 to 3/4 away from me. Second, I was standing in the front of the room and Mr Forte as sitting in the second row, leaning over the back of his chair. Since the rows of chairs had good leg-room, I expect that the back-to-back separation of the chairs was at least 3.5 feet, establishing a minimum separation. Again contrary to the characterization in the article (and in a TSF posting on the article by the same person who misrepresented the "poll").

17. Some time after the meeting resumed in an orderly fashion, Mr Forte made an extended speech advocating his position without interruption or signs of disrespect. He was treated with great forbearance. First, his speech was out-of-order because the meeting had badly over-run its time limit and the moderator had specified that he was taking only informational questions. Second, his speech took the tone of a lecture and contained disrespectful comments about people with opposing positions: He disparaged their knowledge, intelligence and morality. This is the type of comment that one is resigned to at such a meeting and lets pass unremarked.
>>>>I think that this is highly significant for what it shows about the various participants and the events -- something that is not reflected in the article.
>>>>The implication of the article and editorial that there was a breakdown of civility is false - If such had occurred, Mr Forte would have been interrupted by others, just as he had interrupted them.

18. The article claims that "After the meeting the argument between the Holls and Forte continued".
>>>>This is highly misleading. After the meeting broke up, the Holls were among the last to leave the room and as I was leaving they told me that they were staying inside trying to avoid Mr Forte. I do not know the Holls; this was my first and only contact with them.

19. Mr Forte was on the narrow walk immediately outside building. As I left, Mr Forte hurled hostile comments at me. I replied, but kept walking (I had carpooled and my ride was leaving).
>>>>The article does not mention this, although it bears materially on Mr Forte's mindset and subsequent actions. The article characterizes the Holls' departure by the primary exit of that wing of the building as them having "approached" Mr Forte (and Ms Devincenzi and the reporters). "Approached" strongly implies that the Holls initiated contact by going out of their way.
>>>>The article uncritically reports Mr Forte's comment "No one should come out of a public meeting and be threatened by anyone. ..." without the context that it was the Holls who were trying to leave and Mr Forte who was positioned where they would have to pass by. So now the false inference has been buttressed.

20. On the TSF thread of a previous article ("Fight erupts..." above), I pointed out that Mr Forte's disruptive behavior at this meeting was very similar to one involving former Library Director Paula Simpson:
"The most egregious case of disruptive behavior in a meeting occurred several years ago (early 2006?) when the then-Library Director Paula Simpson held what was advertised as a meeting for public input on plans for the Downtown Library, but at that meeting, brazenly declared that she had already made her decision and nothing that was said at that meeting would change it. Mr. Forte was at the meeting and as a member of the Library Advisory Commission (LAC), he _could_ have shown leadership and stood up for a fair process. Instead, Mr Forte interrupted members of the public who stood up for their rights (much as he did at this recent meeting), escalating the anger and hostility until the meeting irretrievably disintegrated." (correction: the meeting was in Fall 2005).
>>>>This article uncritically includes Mr Forte's spin on this (again), even though my posting pre-dates the article by 6 days. Can you say "omitting facts contrary to Mr Forte's portrait of himself?"

21. I was not present during the events between Mr Forte and the Holls (having already left).

In summary: The Weekly has no problem with someone (Mr Early) grossly misrepresenting events and facts, but condemns those who protest and try to protect the truth. And then the Weekly champions the person who was disruptive and disrespectful under the banner of demanding respect. What a newspaper.
I smell a Judith Miller Award for Excellence in Journalism.

Thanks, Doug, for adding a few details and perspectives about the meeting. ;-)>

But a review of the Weekly's coverage clearly shows that (1) moderator/facilitator David Early did "take issue" with Victoria Holl's comment, thereby drifting from his role as moderator, with responsibility to create a safe environment for comments; (2) there was reference to several other persons calling out for Sanford Forte to stop interrupting Holl prior to Moran's shouting at him to "shut up," and (3) the chaotic nature of the meeting telescoped who did or said what, and Holl's hand gesture toward Forte would have gone virtually unnoticed if the moderator hadn't commented on it.

For the record, Early, a Berkeley-based environmental-impact consultant, has had years of experience conducting community-input meetings on environmental-impact studies. And in the interest of completeness, Moran might have mentioned his own history of apparently mutual animosity with Forte. The news coverage attempted to fairly cover what happened during and after the meeting without judging or favoring any party.

The editorial concluded from all reports that the genesis of the problem was a lack of focus on moderating rather than becoming involved in disputing comments. And setting of "ground rules" that speakers should not be interrupted, rudely or otherwise, is an essential component of successful meetings. A moderator who was effectively focused on the dynamics of the meeting would have tried to curtail Forte's repeated interruptions and to lower the tension levels of the meeting as an active priority. While perceptions may differ, the editorial's conclusion was that meetings need to be made safer, with proper staff training and supervision. We stand by that conclusion:

"Holding safe and orderly meetings is a core component of a democratic society generally. It is also essential to one of the city's top four priorities, to increase 'civic engagement for the common good,' as difficult as that might be to define. When a 'civic engagement' goal was initially adopted more than a year ago, then-Councilman Peter Drekmeier, now mayor, quipped that perhaps it should be 'civil engagement.' Last week's meeting adds an urgency and seriousness to that idea."

"The news coverage attempted to fairly cover what happened during and after the meeting without judging or favoring any party. "

Unfortunately you have succeeded to the point where your reporting no longer reflects what actually happened.

Once again Palo Altans fail to hold city management responsible for misinformation. Where was the Planning Director at this meeting? Remind me to run for office,or get a city job, or better yet a job at the Weekly, so I can sit by and laugh at the ignorance. The fact that an Editor of a paper has to explain their editorial point is a sad statement indeed.

The real disservice of the editorial is not only the whitewashing of the actions of the man who started it by verbally attacking the questioner, but it distracts us from what the conflict was really about: Increased HOUSING.
Sanford Forte is a public proponent of large developments. Most especially around the California Avenue area where is, or was, a business owner. He has worked closely with Rona Devincenzi on California Avenue projects.
The questioner didn't like the moderator's bias in favor of development. Forte just couldn't stand to hear her strong and well-spoken pointing out the moderator's bias and he stood up and stopped her, mid-sentence.
There is no question about who started the verbal battle and who provoked the anger. It was a hissy fit of the first order.

Editor, it would also be useful if you gave some of Early's background rather than just leaving it as: "For the record, Early, a Berkeley-based environmental-impact consultant, has had years of experience conducting community-input meetings on environmental-impact studies."

Let's take a look at his "experience" such as that reported here: Web Link

"The section of the plan--and the section of the street--causing the most controversy among residents concerns lower Miller Avenue, the portion that goes from the high school to the Whole Foods area. Along that section, the plan envisions "opportunity sites," properties that can be redeveloped and are suitable for three-story buildings."

Now you have a guy with this history trying to state that most of the participants "agree" with 2-3 story buildings in Palo Alto and trying to run rough-shod over the attendees.

Can anyone else say déjà vu?

What do you expect from a society that has no manners, a selfish me-first attitude and, increasingly, no bounds on behavior? The individuals involved made utter a**es out of themselves IMHO and something bad happened... Welcome to Silicon Valley!

One of the 3 main goals of David Early's brief is to:

"identify new housing sites throughout the City, which will allow for completion of a new Housing Element by City staff."

This is the guy you've got chairing these meetings and you wonder why it spirals out of control. He's trying to push more/higher housing to finish his contract asap, not to gain resident's input.
How could the city even consider David Early could chair this meeting with his history and massive conflict of interest.

hmmmmm.....someone ---else--- first broke protocol in the second half of the meeting by demanding, out of order, without being recognized by the moderator, on a poll of the room. David Early and others know who that person was. It wasn't Forte. That person vocally and out of order disagreed with something that Early said, so he and the crowd's ire began to rise, because the majority in the room were against more housing. Many people were becoming more animated, and putting Early on the defensive. It was pretty nasty. Early was on the defensive and asked for the poll, which ironically backed up Early's claim that more than a few people supported housing development in the Cal Ave. corridor. Then a woman asked a question with a very animated tone, a tone to which Early objected, which is understandable because Early had his integrity attacked earlier in the meeting. Forte said "please show some respect"; all the while sitting in his chair.

Amen to JohnRo comments! Everyone insists on always being right and getting their way all of the time. No humilty, no modesty. All ego. No give, only take (or grab, to be more accurate). Nothing noble in that, just more of the "Me Generation" (more accurately "me generations") acting out.

"Everyone insists on always being right"

Just like you and JohnRo just did, right?

To JohnRo and Publicus:
If you had bothered to read the above, you would have learned that the meeting when smoothly before _and_ after the incident, with none of the attributes you ascribe to the participants.

RE: Jay Thorwaldson, editor of the Palo Alto Weekly saying "And in the interest of completeness, Moran might have mentioned his own history of apparently mutual animosity with Forte."

I would have been happy to have mentioned such, but didn't because I fully expected it would have been "[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff]". Most recently, when I mentioned this background in a posting to an earlier article on this meeting, it was removed (post of Feb 14, 2009 at 12:20 pm to "Fight erupts at California Avenue meeting" Web Link

If one is interesting in trying to infer this information, you can search TSForums for postings under my registered name "Douglas Moran" (I do not use pseudonyms) and then examine the surrounding postings, paying attention especially to what was removed. Trust me, it isn't worth the effort.

Personally I think its amusing to see a main instigator of the uncivil behavior on this thread trying to mascarade as a neutral observer.