Meeting Objectives

•  To Review and Adopt Meeting Procedures and Guidelines

•  To Review Meeting Scope

•  To Review Identified Conflicts Between the Codes

•  To Propose Conflicts for Evaluation by the Joint Fire TAC

•  To Evaluate, Rank, and Refine Proposed Options for Resolving Conflicts

•  To Consider Public Comment

•  To Adopt Recommendations for Submittal to the Commission

•  To Identify Any Needed Next Steps

1:00 Welcome and Introductions (J. Blair)

1:05 Agenda Review and Approval (J. Blair)

1:10 Meeting Decision-Making Procedures and Meeting Guidelines (J. Blair)

1:15 Overview of Meeting Scope

1:20 Review and Discussion of Member Identified Code(s) Conflict(s)

2:00 Issues Identification and Initial Evaluation of Options to Resolve Conflicts

2:30 Evaluation of Options—Ranking and Refinement of Options to Resolve Conflicts

4:30 General Public Comment

4:40 Consensus Testing and Agreement on Recommendations for Commission Submittal

4:50 Overview of Next Steps and Delivery Schedule

5:00 Adjourn

Contact Information: Jeff Blair; 850.644.6320; jblair@mailer.fsu.edu ; http://consenus.fsu.edu

Fire TAC (FBC): Tony Apfelbeck, Hamid Bahadori, Joe Belcher, Nick D'Andrea,

Jim Goodloe, Dale Greiner, Jeff Gross, Joe Holland, Michael Kravit, Brad Schiffer,

Jim Schock, and Peter Schwab.

Fire Code Advisory Council (DSFM): Anthony C. Apfelbeck, Marguerite Atkins,

Raymond Cicero, Jeff Collins, Claudio Grande, Jon Hamrick, Michelle Humphries,

Bradley Schiffer, Richard A. Seidel, and Andrew Valente.
COMMISSION WORKGROUP

PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES

MEMBER'S ROLE

• The Workgroup's meeting process is an opportunity to explore possibilities. Offering or exploring an idea does not necessarily imply support for it.
• Listen to understand. Seek a shared understanding even if you don't agree.
• Be focused and concise—balance participation & minimize repetition. Share the airtime.
• Look to the Facilitator to be recognized. Please raise your hand to speak.
• Speak one person at a time. Please don't interrupt each other.
• Focus on issues, not personalities. Avoid stereotyping or personal attacks.
• To the extent possible, offer options to address other's concerns, as well as your own.
• Represent and communicate with member's constituent group.

FACILITATOR'S ROLE

• Design and facilitate a participatory meeting process.
• Provide consensus-building and conflict resolution guidance.
• Assure that participants follow ground rules—Assist participants to stay on task.
• Facilitate public participation and input.
• Prepare agenda packets and provide meeting summary reports.

GUIDELINES FOR BRAINSTORMING

• Speak when recognized by the Facilitator.
• Offer one idea per person without explanation.
• No comments, criticism, or discussion of other's ideas.
• Listen respectively to other's ideas and opinions.
• Seek understanding and not agreement at this point in the process.

THE NAME STACKING PROCESS

• Determines the speaking order.
• Members raises hand to speak. Facilitator will call on participants in turn.
• Facilitator may interrupt the stack (change the speaking order) in order to promote discussion on a specific issue or, to balance participation and allow those who have not spoken on a issue an opportunity to do so before others on the list who have already spoken on the issue.

ACCEPTABILITY RANKING SCALE

During the meetings, members will be asked to develop and rank options, and following

discussions and refinements, may be asked to do additional rankings of the options as refined. Members should be prepared to offer specific refinements to address their reservations. The following scale will be utilized for the ranking exercises:

MEETING PROCESS

During the meeting, members will be asked to develop and rank options to resolve identified Code(s) conflicts, and following discussions and refinements, will be asked to do additional rankings of the option as refined, if requested by a member. Members should be prepared to offer specific refinements to address their reservations. A four-point ranking scale will be used, and in general, 4's and 3's indicate support and 2's and 1's indicate opposition to the option. A 75% threshold of 4's and 3's will be required for an affirmative recommendation to the Commission. The following scale will be utilized for the ranking exercise(s):

MEETING OPTIONS REVIEW PROCESS OVERVIEW

The following process will be used for the Meeting:

•  Overview of member identified conflicts/options,

•  Identification of new conflicts/option(s) (if any),

•  General discussion of the conflicts and options,

•  Public comment,

•  Acceptability ranking of options,

•  Identification of member's reservations regarding ranked options,

•  Second ranking if any member(s) wishes to change their ranking based on the discussion(s),

•  Consensus testing on package of recommendations for submittal to the Commission.

Option —

Member's Comments and Reservations (December 2006):

Option —

Member's Comments and Reservations (December 2006):