In June 2

decided t

year. The

in part, o

facilitatio

August a

Twenty-o

For each 

Needs Im

each que

in this ar

All quest

misspelli

pertinent

factors in

1. F

ap

d

ag

W

2011, the Gle

to employ th

e TWG agre

on that evalua

on at our me

and Septemb

one TWG m

question, re

mprovement,

stion, respon

ea?” 

tions and res

ings. At the 

t information

ncluding fina

or each TW

ppropriate to

eveloping an

gendas has b

Very Goo

Good 

Needs Im

Poor 

Don’t kno

applicable

What could sh

Glen Cany

TWG F

en Canyon D

he facilitation

ed that we w

ation, the TW

eetings. The 

er of 2012. 

members and 

espondents w

, or Poor. Th

ndents were 

sponses are r

October TW

n the TWG w

ancial issues

G meeting, M

o understand

n agenda tha

been: 

od 

provements

ow/not 

e

he do to imp

on Dam Ad

Facilitator E

Sept

Dam Adaptiv

n services of

would evalua

WG would d

evaluation w

alternates re

were invited 

here was also

invited to an

reported belo

WG meeting,

would like to

s will be disc

Mary works 

d the TWG’s

at will meet t

Re

s

prove in this 

daptive Man

Evaluation S

tember 2012

ve Managem

f The Mary O

ate those serv

determine wh

was conducte

esponded, ea

to rank Mary

o an option o

nswer the qu

ow. Text res

, we will con

o consider re

cussed regard

with the Ch

s goals for th

those goals. 

esponse Perc

61.9%

33.3%

0.0%

0.0%

4.8%

area? 

nagement Pr

Survey Resu

2

ment Program

Orton Comp

vices after th

hether to con

ed through a

ach of whom

ry Orton’s w

of “Don’t kn

uestion, “Wh

sponses were

nsider these 

egarding faci

ding facilitat

hair and othe

hat meeting. 

Mary’s wor

cent R

rogram 

ults 

m’s Technica

pany, LLC fo

he year was 

ntinue to use

an online que

m answered a

work as Very 

now/ not app

hat could she

e edited only

responses an

ilitation serv

ation for the n

er group mem

She then ass

rk developin

Response Cou

13 

7 

0 

0 

1 

al Work Gro

or the follow

complete. B

e professiona

estionnaire i

all 10 questio

Good, Good

plicable.” Fo

e do to impro

y for 

nd any other

vices. Other 

next year. 

mbers as 

sists in 

g the meetin

unt 

oup 

wing 

Based, 

al 

n 

ons. 

d, 

r 

ove 

r

ng 
TWG Fa

Septembe

2. M

in

p

qu

T

gr

W

3. A

en

co

ju

cilitator Eval

er 2012 

 Agend

from w

Mary will wo

nformation b

ossible. For 

uestions on t

TWG membe

roup’s faceVery Goo

Good 

Needs Im

Poor 

Don’t kno

applicable

What could sh

(No re

At TWG mee

nvironment 

ontribute. Sh

ust let the gro

Very Goo

luation Surve

da’s have be

what Mary d

ork with the C

before meetin

example, sh

the FY 13-1

ers came pre

to-face time

od 

provements

ow/not 

e

he do to imp

esponses rec

etings, Mary 

in which eve

he strives to 

oup discuss 

od 

ey Results

een very goo

does, but the

Chair to dev

ngs so that th

he assisted in

4 Budget an

pared to disc

 efficiently h

Re

s

prove in this 

ceived.) 

will often fa

eryone feels 

listen deeply

freely. Mary

Re

od. It is not p

e agenda proc

vise ways to 

he group’s f

n gathering a

nd Workplan

cuss the com

has been: 

esponse Perc

57.1%

33.3%

4.8%

0.0%

4.8%

area? 

facilitate grou

comfortable

y and help g

y’s facilitatio

esponse Perc

71.4%

possible for m

cess works

distribute, g

face-to-face t

and distribut

n before the J

mments. Mar

cent R

up discussio

e speaking b

guide the disc

on of group 

cent R

me to tell wh

gather, or exc

time is used

ting the TWG

June TWG M

ry’s work on

Response Cou

12 

7 

1 

0 

1 

ons. She aim

by encouragi

cussion whe

discussions 

Response Cou

15 

hat Shane do

change 

d as efficientl

G comments

Meeting, so t

n using the 

unt 

s to create an

ing everyone

en appropriat

has been: 

unt 

2

oes 

ly as 

s and 

that 

n

e to 

te or 
TWG Fa

Septembe

W

4. A

to

d

gr

h

ar

b

d

W

cilitator Eval

er 2012 

Good 

Needs Im

Poor 

Don’t kno

applicable

What could sh

 Appea

 At tim

oppos

At TWG mee

o help the gr

ecision. If T

roup reach r

as said, ask 

reas of agree

efore and du

ecisions and

Very Goo

Good 

Needs Im

Poor 

Don’t kno

applicable

What could sh

 There

the me

 See no

luation Surve

provements

ow/not 

e

he do to imp

ar to be a bit

mes appears t

sed to being 

etings, Mary 

roup discuss,

TWG membe

resolution as

clarifying qu

ement or dis

uring meetin

d resolve con

od 

provements

ow/not 

e

he do to imp

 are times w

ember discu

ote on #3 

ey Results

s

prove in this 

t more “neut

to try to dire

neutral. 

sometimes 

, explore, cre

ers are in con

 appropriate

uestions, hel

agreement. S

gs to help re

nflict has bee

Re

s 

 

prove in this 

when Mary in

ussion. 

23.8%

4.8%

0.0%

0.0%

area? 

tral” about is

ect the dialog

assists the g

eate, and eva

nflict, Mary 

e. For examp

lp individual

She will also

esolve confli

en: 

esponse Perc

66.7%

28.6%

4.8%

0.0%

0.0%

area? 

nserts herself

ssues discuss

gue in one di

group in their

aluate option

employs me

ple, she migh

ls test their a

o speak one 

ict. Mary’s w

cent R

f and her per

5 

1 

0 

0 

sed. 

irection or a

r decision-m

ns before com

ediation skill

ht rephrase w

assumptions,

on one with 

work helping

Response Cou

14 

6 

1 

0 

0 

rspectives an

another as 

making. She a

ming to a fin

ls to help the

what someon

, and identify

individuals 

g the TWG m

unt 

nd over shad

3

aims 

nal 

e

ne 

fy

make 

dows 
TWG Fa

Septembe

5. M

h

W

6. L

m

m

m

cilitator Eval

er 2012 

 See ab

Mary Orton’s

as been: 

Very Goo

Good 

Needs Im

Poor 

Don’t kno

applicable

What could sh

 At tim

has a 

Linda Whetto

minutes and a

meeting notes

minutes has b

Very Goo

Good 

Needs Im

Poor 

luation Surve

bove 

s neutrality i

od 

provements

ow/not 

e

he do to imp

mes it appear

contract with

on drafts the 

at the Octobe

s which the g

been: 

od 

provements

ey Results

s crucial to h

Re

s

prove in this 

rs that she is 

h for facilita

minutes afte

er 2011 mee

group adopt

Re

s

her role as fa

esponse Perc

61.9%

23.8%

14.3%

0.0%

0.0%

area? 

aligning her

ation. 

er each TWG

eting, she pre

ed for future

esponse Perc

47.6%

33.3%

0.0%

0.0%

acilitator and

cent R

rself with th

G meeting. M

esented a con

e meetings. M

cent R

d mediator. M

Response Cou

13 

5 

3 

0 

0 

he stakeholde

Mary Orton 

ndensed form

Mary’s work

Response Cou

10 

7 

0 

0 

Mary’s neut

unt 

er group that

edits these 

mat for the 

k on the mee

unt 

4

trality 

t she 

eting 
TWG Fa

Septembe

W

7. M

dr

m

ef

W

8. M

ex

n

fo

cilitator Eval

er 2012 

Don’t kno

applicable

What could sh

 I appr

Mary assists t

rafted the Cu

meeting, and 

ffectiveness 

Very Goo

Good 

Needs Im

Poor 

Don’t kno

applicable

What could sh

(No re

Mary assists t

xample she h

ew consensu

or the TWG 

Very Goo

luation Surve

ow/not 

e

he do to imp

reciate an ab

the Ad Hoc 

ultural Reso

she helped t

in assisting 

od 

provements

ow/not 

e

he do to imp

esponses rec

the TWG in 

helped desig

us approach 

has been: 

od 

ey Results

prove in this 

breviated fo

Groups (AH

urces AHG 

to plan and f

the AHGs h

Re

s 

 

prove in this 

ceived.) 

designing p

gn the Core M

to decision-m

Re

19.0%

area? 

rm 

HGs) as appr

report origin

facilitated th

has been: 

esponse Perc

61.9%

28.6%

0.0%

0.0%

9.5%

area? 

processes tha

Monitoring P

making at T

esponse Perc

47.6%

ropriate in th

nally present

he Budget AH

cent R

at help the gr

Plan Worksh

TWG. Mary’

cent R

4 

heir tasks. Fo

ted at the Jun

HG meeting

Response Cou

13 

6 

0 

0 

2 

roup achieve

hop in March

s work desig

Response Cou

10 

or example, s

ne 2012 TW

gs. Mary’s 

unt 

e its work. F

h 2011 and o

gning proces

unt 

5

she 

WG 

or 

our 

sses 
TWG Fa

Septembe

W

9. O

W

10. S

cilitator Eval

er 2012 

Good 

Needs Im

Poor 

Don’t kno

applicable

What could sh

 Don’t

Overall, what

Very Goo

Good 

Needs Im

Poor 

Don’t kno

applicable

What could sh

(No re

hould the TW

Yes 

luation Surve

provements

ow/not 

e

he do to imp

t care for the

t is your opin

od 

provements

ow/not 

e

he do to imp

esponses rec

WG continu

ey Results

s

prove in this 

e color cards

nion of Mary

Re

s 

 

prove in this 

ceived.) 

ue to have fac

Re

42.9%

4.8%

0.0%

4.8%

area? 

y’s work wit

esponse Perc

81.0%

14.3%

4.8%

0.0%

0.0%

area? 

cilitation? W

esponse Perc

95.2%

th the TWG?

cent R

Why or why n

cent R

9 

1 

0 

1 

? 

Response Cou

17 

3 

1 

0 

0 

not? 

Response Cou

20 

unt 

nt 

6
TWG Fa

Septembe

P

(A

cilitator Eval

er 2012 

No 

lease explain

All response

 Havin

meetin

 The g

track a

 Takes

 I have

as fac

 It real

 To he

 Becau

 With t

the TW

situati

 I have

solely

and I t

 She ha

and th

luation Surve

n why or wh

es received a

ng a facilitato

ng. You don

roup needs f

and on agen

s some pressu

e noticed a m

ilitator for T

lly has helpe

lp spread wo

use of the ab

the diversity

WG, it is imp

ion from the

e long felt th

y upon Shane

trust his view

as the backg

heir personal

ey Results

hy not. 

are from thos

or provides s

n’t feel like a

focus and ne

da. Mary do

ure off the c

marked differ

TWG. 

ed the chair k

orkload for T

ove. 

y of interests

portant to ha

e outside and

hat the TWG 

e’s views tha

w on this. 

ground to und

lities. She ke

4.8%

se who respo

some indepe

any one grou

eeds to have 

oes a great jo

chair and hel

rence in mee

keep the mee

TWG chair.

s that are ofte

ave a facilita

d guide the g

did not need

at one is nee

derstand the

eeps the TW

onded “Yes,”

endence to th

up is trying t

someone wh

ob at that. 

lps meetings

eting effectiv

eting focused

en at conflic

ator that is ne

group toward

d to have a f

eded, I suppo

e issues. She 

WG focused o

1 

” above.) 

he operation

to push their 

ho will keep

s move along

veness prior 

d, and saves

ct with each o

eutral and ca

ds resolution

facilitator. H

ort it. He sho

is familiar w

on the issue a

n of the TWG

agenda. 

p the group o

g. 

to Mary ser

s time. 

other, presen

an see the 

n. 

However, bas

ould really kn

with the play

at hand. 

7

G

on 

rving 

nt at 

sed 

now 

yers