Evaluation of Public Meetings

1. *Were members uninterested or bored with the agenda, reports, or discussion?
   

* Did members withdraw or feel isolated

* Was attendance low?  If so, why?

* Were people arriving late or leaving early?  If so, why?

* How was the overall tone or atmosphere?

* Was there an appropriate use of resources?

* Were the logistics (such as date, time, or location) acceptable?

* What was the most important experience of the event?

* What was the least important experience of the event?

* What was the high point?  What was the low point?

* What did you learn?

* What expectations did you have at the beginning and to what degree were they met? How did they change?

* What goals did you have and to what degree were they accomplished?

* What worked well? Why?

* What did not work so well?  How could it have been improved?

* What else would you suggest be changed or improved, and how?

* What was overlooked or left out?

* Was attendance at the meeting consistent with the meetings goals?

* Did the staff provide written background materials?

* How long was the program?  Was the agenda followed closely?  Was the program the right length?  Did the audience remain attentive for the entire program?

* Did the meeting precede and relate to a key decision point?  Was the audience aware of this fact?

* Was the moderator, speakers, and supporting staff appropriate for meeting the session’s goals?

* Was the informational program well presented?  Was the speaker well informed?  Did any audio-visual material contribute to the information aspects of the program? 

* Was the meeting formally evaluated by the attendees?  If so:

* Were the attendees representative of the affected community?

* Did the attendees seem to understand the purpose of the meeting?

* Did the public receive complete answers to their questions?

* Was the purpose of the hearing stated to the public in attendance?

* Were hearing notices sent out 30-45 days in advance?  Did the public indicate they were notified well in advance?

* Were notices sent to a cross section of the population?

* Were the issues clearly stated to the public?

* Were any significant groups omitted?

* Were communication efforts beyond public notices used to reach people?  What techniques?

* Were background information documents available to the public at least 30 days before the hearing?

* Did participants at the hearing seem to have a sufficient knowledge of the issues discussed?  Had the public read the materials?

* Where and what time were the hearings held?  At convenient times and places?

* Were the hearing examiners attentive to the various speakers throughout the Was the hearing organized so that there was advance scheduling of speakers?  Did all those who wished to speak have an opportunity to do so?  Did the speakers seem to represent a balance of perspectives

* Was a hearing transcript prepared?  Was it accurate reflection of the event?

* Was an open record period announced and explained to the public?

* Was the hearing record made available to the public?  Was a summary of the record also made available?

* Did the agency prepare a responsiveness summary following the rehearing?

* Did the staff or participants have a good reason for holding this meeting?  Was the goal clearly stated?  Did the goal of the agency match that of the audience?  Was the goal of the meeting attained?

General Guidelines for improvement

* Improve the process by analysis of what happened, why it happened, and how it might be improved

* Examine how certain attitudes and statements might have caused various problems and take special care to prevent them from recurring

* foster a greater understanding of group dynamics and encourage a method of group learning or learning from each other

* allow the free expression of feelings

* expose unconscious behavior or attitudes which interfere with the process

* encourage the sharing of observations and acknowledge associations with society

* check the usefulness and effectiveness of techniques and procedures

* Acknowledge good work and give appreciation to each other

* Reflect on the goals set for the meeting and whether they were attained

* examine various roles, suggest ways to improve them, and create new ones as needed

* provide an overall sense of completion and closure to the meeting