LIGHTLY EDITED CART FILE MN Outdoor Recreation Task Force Meeting WebEx Meeting February 19, 2021 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. * * * * * This file is being provided in a lightly edited format and is the work product of the CART captioner. CART is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings, nor should it be considered in any way as a certified document. Due to the live nature of the event, some names and/or terms may be misspelled, and the text may also contain environmental sounds that occurred during the event. * * * * * CART provided by Lisa Richardson, CRR, CBC, CCP Veritext/Paradigm Reporting & Captioning Inc. Captioning-paradigm@veritext.com CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT >> Hey, everyone. Welcome. We can maybe wait a minute or two more just to make sure there's not any people still waiting to log into the meeting, so just hang tight. Thanks. >> Well, it looks like we're at 21 people attending. Thanks she everyone. We're a couple minutes after. We may have a few more joining but in the interests of time and keeping everything going, I think we should just get started. Looks like we've got 22. Sort of the key meeting objectives today for the task force are to go over the recommendation document and the implementation plan that was pulled together by the whole group but the small group had kind of taken it to the next step, especially working on the executive summary. To share and discuss some of the public feedback, and then to sort of understand the next steps. So before we go on, I think maybe do we want our chairs to have an opening remarks? John or Randall? CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT >> Yeah, I can jump in real quick. This is Randolph. Just to say welcome again, like Andrew just noted, we have a jam-packed agenda so I won't take up much time. I just want to quickly off the bad associate myself with the majority of what we'll see as we get into the discussion on public engagement and the majority of engagement participants who are really supportive of the great work this task force has done over this last year. Recognizing that you've all taken a massive uniyears of potential ideas and instilled them into an inspirational vision for Minnesota's outdoor recreation future while also balancing the need to identify actual steps that can serve as a bridge to this mission. So I think that is an awesome accomplishment. This group should be really proud have. Looking forward to this conversation. Just wanted to say thanks again to all the members, special thanks to the synthesis team for their additional mowers of work over the past few months and also just wanted to call out a special thanks to great I can't, Andrew, all the people CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT at Parks and Trails who have been working on this thing for the last year and over the last week burned -- completely burned the midnight oil just to synthesize all the public input and share with the task force in a timely manner. So thanks to them. They've done a great job and with that, I'll hand it back over. >> Yea, thank you, Andrew, and thank you, Randolph. Randolph, I don't have anything more eloquent to add to your good remarks, other than say thanks, everybody, for all your work. It's hard to believe it's been almost a year that we've been working on this and there's been a lot of effort by this group in putting together this document and just want to say thank you for am your efforts. When we began this effort, we weren't really sure where it would go, we wanted to get some real grounded input on what really this means, an office of outdoor recreation, you've done some incredible work on this. So I'm looking forward to getting to wrapping this up, looking forward to the discussion on CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT what some of the public input has been, how that will be incorporated into any recommendations, and hopefully we can get into a little discussion regarding next steps, whether with this group, other groups, agencies, legislatures, Governors, whatever, I think it's really important for us to have that discussion, to take all these ideas and really make it reality because there is such great work that's been done. So thank you all very much and I'll turn it back over to you, Andrew. >> Thanks, John, and thanks, Randolph. Just to kind of a housekeeping update, you may have seen my email, Gratia has stepped away for a while, she's just started her parenthood leave. She was slated to give birth yesterday, we haven't heard anything so we're excited to hear how everything is going for her but in the meantime, we'll -- I'll be helping fill in on some of the stuff she's been doing and there are some other DNR staff that have been helpful in trying to make essential with the 1500 comments or so that we've received in the public input. With that, before it goes to anything else, I wonder if it makes sense to ask the small team -- CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT here, let gentlemen just go over the agenda. I think it's pretty straightforward. Sorry to jump here. We'll ask the implementation team to walk through the updated document. They had small group, we call them, they've been working on revisions and putting a lot of time and effort into that, as well. It's not on the agenda here and I realize we forgot this, we'll put in a also break after that to give everyone a chance to step away for a moment if they need to and then we'll go in to share and talk about the public input and the next steps after so just for an overview. So with that, small team, would you like me to share my screen and share the recommendations document or do you want me to pass over the screen sharing to you? Happy to do either. >> This is Aaron talking on behalf of mall steam and small team can say anything different but I think, Andrew, you can share your screen. >> Sounds good. I'm move this over here, then. And small is, you know, this is a big team. CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT >> I like small team. I kind of like that small team reporting to Mars, I kind of like that. [Laughter] >> Hopefully we're not at Mars here. Okay, thanks. And just tell me what to do to move through the document, if you would like. I'm going to mute now. >> >> I guess a question of order is it something where we the -- I need to read it so everyone has had a chance to read it or has the group as a whole already read it and we're moving into discussion of it or am I providing back story to what we did? >> I think -- I'll just chime in here, Aaron, I do think it's valuable to read it because I know we did that in one of our previous meetings and when you're on these virtual calls, it's sometimes nice to hear as well as see at the same time. >> Well, I will do that and I apologize for everyone that has to listen to me reading again. >> Aaron, this is Sarah. CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT I would recommend kind of a hybrid, so maybe providing a little context for folks and then reading through it. That would be great. Thanks. >> I'm happy to do that, too. So there is a back story, it will be quick, I promise. But the back story is myself, Sarah, Matt, Linnea and Mark were -- since the last time we joined as a full group in WebEx have been working through this executive summary and in an effort to embody the input of this total group, the last time we met, there was a lot of different conversations. We tried to be a sponge to take those recommendations or those thoughts or ideas into this revised executive summary and then there was also, as we proceeded, because it was a matter of weeks and it was a matter of this is like the fourth to fifth revision of just what we worked at as a small group, we were being made aware of public comment which didn't change what we did but it allowed us to see what we were missing, it allowed us to see where we had information in the CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT wrong order, it allowed us to see where we needed to change the order and be more succinct, and I think that was valuable. And some of it came also just from conversations with elected officials, like senators or representatives and seeing what they were missing and it really, I think, provided an opportunity to make this executive summary, because it's the only thing we touched, more success sync, more to the point, and in telling a preferrable story. So with that, I think that's the good back story and, Sarah, was that a good back story? Should I continue? >> Yeah, it was. I think the only thing I would add, Aaron, to that is to say that one of the things we kind of noticed was missing was the why, and what's the problem that we're solving. So imagine this being kind of the beginning of an external-facing document. We have all been immersed in the conversation but folks that will be reading this won't have been, so that was a big piece of what we were trying to accomplish, as well, was the why. >> Very good. CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT And also the executive summary is an executive summary, it wasn't to replace the recommendations. We still have those recommendations in total form and we want to allow those recommendations to do what they're intended to be more information, so this executive summary is really, like, if you have 30 seconds to explain the why, here's why. Any other comments from the small group before I go into reading mode? >> This is HANSI. I would just say we did spend a lot of time on your last point there and really understanding that we needed to make sure that people could get past the first page to get into the deeper dive in the document so there is a lot of conversation and editing around that but I would also just like to throw out kudos to you, Aaron, for writing and working on a lot of the bulk of this and getting it back to us to edit. You really did a great job on that so thank you very much. >> Thank you, HANSI. >> I would echo that, Aaron, thanks for all the hard work that went into writing this and editing CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT and making the corrections and I'll also offer as you go through and read this, if you want any of us to jump in and support or assist you on that, feel free to call on us. >> I'll read and then at any point, if there needs color commentary, I'll pause in-between headlines and you can intervene, how does that sound? [Laughter] Andrew, should I get going? >> Go right ahead. >> Okay. I will start at the beginning, and you can just scroll along, Andrew, because I have the original document on my computer, so I don't have to wait for the scrolling. So executive summary. The Minnesota Outdoor Recreation Task Force, testifies, recommends the creation, funding and staffing of the outdoor recreation office, office, within the State of Minnesota. Minnesota will join 14 other states that have already established outdoor recreation offices. Why does Minnesota need an outdoor recreation office? CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT Outdoor recreation in Minnesota currently generates 2.4 of the state's GDP, 9.1 billion and the two is to bring people to a link that proves that metric. The Task Force believes there is a greater opportunity for dynamic economic growth and access when adopting the three recommendations below. Important to note, these three recommendations are not the responsibility of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, DNR, nor explore Minnesota, thus the recommendation for a new office to focus exclusively and deliver upon as follows. Improve access, safety and peace of mind to enjoy the outdoors for all Minnesotans, with particular emphasis on black, Indigenous and people of color, BIPoC, and other populations of growing minority stakeholders-users. Number two, create the path for Minnesota stakeholders-users, industries and businesses to work together to create even more outdoor recreation opportunities and simultaneously reducing user group conflict to ensure the investments made in Minnesota's outdoors serve a CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT greater purpose than meeting the needs of one specific group. And number three, drive the economic engine for outdoor recreation in the State of Minnesota while being in alignment and balance with a conservation imperative to maintain and promote healthy land, water and wildlife in all areas which are critical to the future of outdoor recreation. And then we wanted to go into the next steps, just because we were hearing stuff like this come out of public comment and we wanted to speak to it. And the next one is accountability. The Minnesota Office of Outdoor Recreation in collaboration with all of Minnesota's stakeholders-users, industries and businesses, will be accountable for increasing Minnesota's economic growth through the above three recommendations. Mission. The Minnesota Office of Outdoor Recreation will serve as the united voice of Minnesota's outdoor recreation stakeholders-users, industries and businesses. CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT The office will create outdoor recreation-centered efficiencies between Minnesota's stakeholders-users, industries, businesses, Explore Minnesota, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Employment and Economic Development, and other public-private entities. The office will amplify, make better known and help improve the plans, policy, access and economic development of outdoor recreation created by these stakeholders. Efficiency. It is not the intention of this task force for the Outdoor Recreation Office to create outdoor policy. Nor will the Office create tourism marketing or advertising. This Office will focus squarely on ensuring the inclusion, access, policy and marketing/advertising of the State of Minnesota are in position and alignment to best drive the outdoor recreation economic engine and serve the goals of Minnesota's complete outdoor recreation stakeholders-users, industries and businesses. Diversity is an economic asset. CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT The task force sees immediate economic growth in the outdoors made possible by the population growth in Minnesota, rural and urban, coming from BIPoC communities. As Minnesota's current stakeholders-users continue to age, and, prior to COVID-19, DNR operational generating fee-based permits purchases continue to descend, BIPoC, those with disabilities and gender identity populations are growing communities currently underinvested in and underserved by Minnesota's outdoor recreation community. The State of Minnesota loses an estimated $16 billion a year in GDP due to racial disparities. This clearly demonstrates that there is a significant amount of participation and economic growth potential in Minnesota and outdoor recreation to focus upon and improve for our Minnesota residents. We the Task Force believe the Office will make the voice of Minnesota's outdoor stakeholders-users, industries and businesses to be better heard, understood, and will create enhanced access and inclusion, and improved policy for all. CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT In turn, this will strengthen Minnesota's outdoor recreation economic engine, while being aligned with conservation imperatives directly connected to our state's long-term fiscal and environmental health. The end of the executive summary. Back to you, Andrew. >> Well, thanks, I think it should be sort of open to the full group to kind of share thoughts, share input. What do you -- what does everyone think? >> Any reactions? >> Hey, this is Steve. I guess I really think it's excellent. Especially a precursor as to the why, the really describing why this is needed and -- and like you were saying, Aaron, I think it really addresses some of the concerns that were brought out in the public [indiscernible] section. So excellent job, it's great. >> This is Greg, I agree, I would second that motion that it's an added piece that really explains why, so good job. >> This is Mark, I'm just comment on behalf of the implementation group. CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT Again, Aaron, thanks so much for really leading the drafting of this updated executive summary. I think the essence of it is we would all agree is the same. It's just positioning and talking about the things of importance that are the why and how I believe this is unique and something new, because I know there were questions that came up in terms of, you know, how does this fit in with the other -- the other agencies that exist already, and is there overlap, and I think the group emphatically feels that no, there is not. While there is connection, there is an overlap and hopefully this executive summary does some of that positioning well built I would love to hear from people if there was anything unclear, if there are questions. >> Hi, this is Katy Friesz with Winnebago Industries and I just wanted to reiterate that I think it's really a great document. I can tell based on the review of the materials and the discussion so far that there was a ton of discussion and thought that went into it and really do think that this sets the stage nicely for the broader recommendations. CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT I think it's always so important to demonstrate that we are listening and have heard different points of view and I think this document does that really nicely, so excellent job, group. Does anyone else have anything they want to add or just commentary? You know, one thing to note, you know, how this is structured so there's the -- maybe you've all taken a look at this, like Aaron said, the executive summary is here at the front but this is the document that's sort of -- it's very similar to what went out for public review after it, instead of, you know, we just call it sort of the introduction and background explaining the -- and we'll maybe beef up a little bit of the public engagement, since it was so quick of a turnaround. But the recommendation details, there were a few tweaks smat small group had made through here but nothing significant as far as substance changes or anything. So the whole document is kind of, you know, meant to be one, you know, one package of information with that executive summary that can try to help summarize what the group is thinking. CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT >> Yeah, Andrew, I would just say from the small group perspective, we were really mindful of not diving into the deeper recommendations very much, just in the fact that we knew we were representing a larger group and wanted to make sure that voice stayed the same. >> Well, great. I don't want to linger if people don't have much to say but I also want to, you know, have the chance for anyone who has thoughts or -- anything to add. I mean, now is the time to just -- whatever is on your mind as far as it relates to the recommendations generally. You know, since we're ahead of time, we could move over to the public input. Conversation, as well. >> Andrew, this is Sarah. One thing that I want to name and that the is small group had a lot of conversation about was, you know, how we really represent the equity and, you know, diversity part of the recommendations, and, you know, I just want to make sure people are comfortable with that. I think what we were trying to do was to position CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT that piece of the recommendations to sort of ward off some potential pushback or questions that we were hearing around that piece, and just want to make sure that because that is such a central part of the overall recommendations and the sort of charge for this office, just make sure people are comfortable with how that's represented in that executive summary. And hopefully was clear that we put a lot of thought into it but, you know, I -- I just want to make sure that others agree. >> Sarah brought up a good point. Are there any concerns about how it's structured, right? Before it was more of a focus and there is what went out for public review was the idea that -- where is it here? That we had, you know, four sort of recommendations with the fourth being creating the Office to now restructuring it and sort of leading with the point that over-arches the Office and these are the three things that are the focus. Because that's a little bit of a change? >> I don't have a concern but I think it's a CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT good change. This is Steve, by the way. I think it's a good change because when we originally wrote that up, we thought we'd have the office to be the fourth point to kind of wrap it up, how are we going to do all these things, we're going to do it with the Office but I think that by restructuring this way, here's the executive summary, here's what the Office is going to do, focus on these three things, I think that's a better way of going about it so I would agree with how it's done. >> And it should -- we probably should have done this in the smaller group but if the broader group agrees with the reframing, the full recommendation should probably be restructured to mishor that so there's not confusion. >> This is are -- Aaron, I would agree with Sarah on that. >> Yeah, this is Hansi, I agree, too. Reading through the public comments, which we'll get to that, that the confusion was pretty imminent, part of the conversations themselves. [Silence] >> This is Mark Norquist. CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT The larger group, given this is the first time you've maybe seen it, is there anything in that reframing that we did of the -- and repositioning of things, is there anything that anyone feels got lost in that translation? We feel like we covered everything but just want to make sure that nothing got lost in that rewrite. >> This group has never been so quiet. It's awesome. Good job, Aaron. >> Andrew, is this -- I don't know if WebEx can do this or not but is this where we get a poll to support the recommendation, the slight refresh that we did so we can move ahead or is no answer approval or how do we move forward? >> Aaron, did you hear that question or did I go mute? >> I heard you, Aaron. >> Yeah, I can hear ya. Andrew? >> Andrew, can you hear me? >> Can you hear me now? >> Yeah, okay, my microphone got goofed. Sorry. CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT >> I thought you disappeared again. [Laughter] >> Okay, I know, I can do this. There we go. [Overlapping Conversation] >> When things get a little tough, I'll be gone. [Laughter] No, I'm just kidding. Sorry, I don't remember where I stopped talking. No, I was going to say, sorry, that we have -- we can -- we have a poll thing kind of to get a straw poll of everyone's view to try to understand if we have a consensus around the recommendations or if we, you know -- or if we don't, or if we need to think of other kind of ways to keep moving or to move forward or to wrap things up. But what I would suggest was maybe it makes sense to talk about the public input before doing that? Just because we don't want to -- you know, we want to -- like there may be interesting -- our conversation may evolve from some of the public input so I think it's a great point you're bringing up but maybe we can do that in a little bit. CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT >> Ten four. >> Okay. So if no one has anything else at least on this, I will pull up -- grab another screen here, the summary of -- and what we'll do just for everyone's -- like for break understanding, we'll maybe take a break at, like, 2:15 or 2:30 depending on how far we are or where we are at some time because I know we had talked about a break between these two parts but since we started, I think we can keep going. I'll kind of walk through this briefly. [Hearing sounds of typing] >> There is a lot of information here. A lot of information here and so just in summary, we had 209 people respond to the public engagement form, like survey form that we had on the DNR's engagement wish website and out of those 209 people, we had like 1544 comments and that resulted because we asked questions under each of the four recommendation areas, including the office being the fourth and in that context. And then each recommendation had a number of questions under each of them and so that's why the number of comments is a lot more than the CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT number of people so I wanted to clarify that. That's a little area of nuance in sort of interpreting these results. So to start with in the order of how it was in the survey, the recommendation to -- oops, I keep getting messages, have to mute myself. The first recommendation to advance equity, diversity and inclusivity, the question was to that -- to those 209 people, what is your overall feeling about the recommendations to advance equity, diversity and cluesivity. We had 55% say they support it, 32% say they were neutral and 22% say they were opposed. If I'm moving too fast, someone tell me to stop scrolling or to slow down. -- of the summary of the comments, there were three follow-up questions for those to the people so in aggregate, to try to make sense of all of the input we had, we went through and -- it was me, Darren Newman, Emma Squires-Sperling and then Gratia, too, before she had to step away, and took a first stop at organizing the comments, either comments that were generally supportive, comments that were generally kind of opposing, sort of maybe not applicable or maybe other kind CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT of questions and this other category that we called general comments or suggestions that maybe didn't necessarily fall in one or the other but maybe had substantive points to make. And then we went through and tried to organize those sort of general comments into some sort of categories. I'm not going to read through all the categories, I would hope that you guys have a chance to look at that, maybe -- this is a lot of information to comprehend in a short period of time so we recognize that. So, anyway, of the comments, we had 432 comments for this category and 94 were generally supportive, 44 were opposing, 59 were kind of other questions and about 235 had some substantive interesting things to say. So here's the summary kind of real high-level bullet-point summary of some of the things they had comments on, about access barriers, collaboration -- I don't want to read them all for you guys. Hiring practices, inclusivity, marketing, et cetera, no Baierers. There were a couple of people, this is what, you CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT know, you could -- you know, I think this is an area -- it's a little sensitive because of the topic but I think there is a fair amount of potential for education, because I know we received -- this is one thing Gratia received very honestly, someone had emailed very sincerely the main number and wanted to know that they were a hunter and they use WMAs to do hunting and they consider themselves wanting to not have any biases and wanting to make sure people feel welcome but they didn't understand why any one group would have -- had any barriers to go hunting or go on that WMA, and I know, you know, Asha -- was it Asha or Lynnea, I think it might have been Lynnea, of some cases of racism in the outdoors and -- so I think in this context, there is a lot of potential for all of us and I say all of us meaning all of your organization, all of your agencies to find a way to kind of communicate this situation better because there were a fair number of people that just didn't see it, it's something they don't see if their outdoor situation but it's there and people are experiencing it, so... Anyway, that was kind of an interesting take. CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT If anyone has anything to say as I go through this, just please just chime in and I'll pause and we can talk about it. But otherwise I'll just keep going. The next recommendation, unite Minnesota's outdoor rec community, we asked the question what's your overall feeling about this recommendation? For the uniting, 59% supported, this was the highest in the support category. 21% were neutral and about 20% opposed. Of the three follow-up questions, there were 322 responses of those 209 people that responded and 69 supported, there were 26 opposed, 55 other, and then 178 kind of general comments and here's the summary of the -- just the general summary of what some of those comments were. Some around implementation, questions sort of how to do that. One -- another category that kept popping up was about engaging stakeholders. A few wanted more details, more specifics of what it would mean, maybe strategies. One comment came up about power and sort of considering, you know, there's maybe unequal CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT power of the people at the table and so that was an interesting concept. Another one here, accept conflicts and then sort of messaging, so, again, I'm not going to read all of these, but... The third area -- yeah, the -- under unify communication, the general is your ray results were about 57% supported, 27% were neutral and 16% opposed. This was the one where the fewest people opposed. But you can see across all of these, you know, it's ranging, you know, the pie charts are looking pretty similar, right? As far as people's attitude about the general recommendation of the respondents, anyway. And then of the following three questions, total comments, there were about 289 comments. 37 supported, 29 opposed, 57 were other comments or questions, and 166 were sort of general suggestions and points. These fell into categories like education, inclusion, make sure everyone is included, underrepresented groups especially, marketing, you know, especially in this category an important point for comments, preservation, CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT collaboration, event, and a number of people wanted more specifics to know what this would mean. And then the fourth one, under this create and fund an Office of Outdoor Recreation, there were 52% that generally supported the recommendation. 24% were neutral and 24% opposed. Of the four sort of main recommendations, this was the one that maybe -- you know, they're all very similar as far as like 52% to 59% supporting. This was the lowest of the ones that supported but they're still pretty similar as far as support, under the general -- out of the 209 people response. The follow-up questions, the -- we had 250 comments in those follow-up questions, and there, there were a little bit more comments that tended to oppose. 53 were supportive, 75 were opposed, and 26 were sort of other or questions, and 96 with the general comments and below are the summary of the general comments. Because I know we have been talking a lot about this in the small group, you know, and I know, CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT you know -- and then maybe some conversations today, too, that when we went through to summarize the comments, we also tried to just quickly do a high-level summary of, like, what are the points people are saying that are supportive or opposing under these categories, too. So we did -- we kind of summarize it in here, the general comments as well as the support and oppose. So under the general comments, you know, they were around funding, questions about funding. Concerns about overlap, wanting to make sure that an office doesn't overlap or duplicate some of the other work that's happening in the other agencies. Inclusion in -- and this is just a general making sure everyone is involved, not just, you know, diversity kind of inclusion but also diverse uses as far as hunting and fishing, et cetera. Engage stakeholders. Politics, there was a couple comments, keep the politics out of the Office. Education, marketing, economics focus, stewardship, increase participation. CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT As far as sort of the comments -- as the comments kind of opposing the office, these were a few -- this is generally, we can pull up the Excel, it has everything, all of the numerous comments in there, but just from a high level, 10,000-foot view, you know, some of the opposing comments were that Minnesota doesn't need another agency, you know, concerns about wasting tax funding, you know, tax dollars. They maybe disagree with the premise. They think there's higher priorities than funding an office. They're worried that it would compete with the agencies for funding or duplicate, which is similar to is some other of the points. Use resources to manage, you know, they would rather have resources go to on-the-ground stuff I think is sort of one way to look at that. I mean, a fair amount of funding concern, you know, that making funds go smaller. The idea that they're taking the pie away rather than maybe growing it, some concerns there. Yeah. So then under the general comments, supportive, a lot of people said they love the idea of the CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT office, they want to help improve -- the idea of improving communication, coordination is important. They appreciate the focus and access -- focus on access and inclusion. They appreciate the opportunity to provide input and would like to be involved in the office. They like the idea that the office sends the message that we're emphasizing outdoor recreation and its economic health and other benefits. They think it's important to have a source of leadership on these issues. They also want to, you know, they supported the funding and staffing. And then also that other states have had benefits from the office, those were some of the comments. Then the last question we had was sort of an overall, do you have anything else to add, you know, after those recommendations? So here came in, you know, 37 were supportive generally, 19 opposed, 22 miscellaneous, other questions and then 67 general comments or suggestions, and these fell into the categories under collaboration, he had ration, inclusion and kind of action, you know, how to action focused. CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT Marketing, access, some more detail, preservation and other. So in addition to the public engagement website and the survey that we had, Gratia, through the MORTH.DNR email address received 30 emails. Of the emails, 25 were expressing opposition to the creation of an office. Of those 25 email, 14 were people who identified themselves off-highway motorized recreation stakeholders or motorized stakeholders and the other 10 didn't identify who they were. Generally the concerns they had about creating an office was they don't think there is a need to fix a system that's not broken. They're worried about layers of bureaucracy or red tape. They think there is a need to focus on improving existing channels as opposed to creating new ones. They're worried about additional burden on taxpayers, and they're worried about another agency that sets policy as far as it goes to the result with outdoor recreation. We had comments about a local trail project or something someone has an opinion about, they were CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT things like that, which are important but not maybe relevant to the task force. Task force is, you know, feedback request. In addition, then we received -- there are four letters from organizations and we thought it was worth highlighting those because they came as like an organization, not an individual submission, and they were from ARMCA, the Motorcycle Association, ATVAM, Minnesota United Snowmobilers Association and the Outdoor Recreation -- and this is the survey of questions that was asked, I'm not going to go -- and the letter goes are at the back of the document. That was sent to you guys. So I went through a whole bunch of information and recognize that this is quite a bit to digest. It was quite a bit to go through and I really thank Darren and Emma and Gratia for assisting and myself, you know, with myself going through this and trying to make some sense of this in a short turnaround. We had scheduled this meeting soon after the closing with the hope that Gratia was going to be around for the meeting, given her birth deadline, her due date, so... CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT But... So, anyway, any -- any initial reactions? Oh, I see J.R. has his hand raised. I'm sorry, J.R., I didn't see that until now. Go right ahead. >> Yeah, no, thanks, Andrew, and thanks for going through that. Kind of an observation, I don't know if others as you read through this document felt similar to me or not but I noticed there were some comments and, frankly, a lot of this came from the motorized stakeholders that provided commentary about a bias -- potential for bias against motorized from non-motorized recreation and I guess my own perspective of that is I think that's theoretical, perhaps. I guess I don't know -- I don't know that there's been any documented bias against motorized recreation from state agencies that I've seen in my years of [indiscernible] with the DNR and Explore Minnesota tourism and others, build I just wanted to throw that idea out there that that's one of the themes I read into some of these comments, and see if others had any thoughts themselves on the potential for bias CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT between one type of recreation and another. So I'll just throw that out there. Thanks. >> J.R., this is Aaron and I -- if -- when this Office is to be established, I would hope there would be no bias towards another group of any use or anything. I mean, am users, stakeholders, industry, business, taxpayer, visitor, whatever, should be on an equal standing and I think that change, you know, where everyone is working together might feel more difficult but I don't think it's a bias by any means, certainly would not be intentional for it to be. >> Yeah, I would kind of follow up with that, Aaron. Looking directly at the document, I'm actually -- I was sort of surprised by the ATV pushback in the fact that I don't see any specific activities or ways to go outside mentioned in the document as a whole. I feel like some of the pushback may have come more from the idea that we didn't have as Titan executive summary going into it and so there was just some initial knee-jerk reaction to it CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT without maybe even reading through it. >> This is Greg. I'm just kind of curious, you know, Andrew and others who might be more familiar with how these kind of surveys play out, you know, was this a good response? When you think of all the outdoor recreationists in Minnesota, I mean, my reaction to it is -- don't take offense but it seems small, you know, it doesn't seem like a big, you know -- and I know there was relatively short window of time and, you know, a lot of it depended on who promoted it. I know Wilderness Inquiry sent out a limited email to a couple thousand people asking them to comment and I don't know who else did that but I'm just kind of curious what you think about the call it the "M" factor, as far as who did actually respond and is this representative of the state and is this what you were expecting? >> Yeah, you know, that's a good question. I think, you know, we probably weren't expecting a huge response just because I think, generally, this is sort of the nuance of should we create an office which was kind of the crux of this, right, CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT is not maybe -- maybe generally not as many -- not -- a general recreator may not have as much interest in that or not, one way or the other, right? I think the three recommendations are interesting, the ones not related to an office because they are -- they do overlap quite a bit to a lot of our other work in other -- like I think of the legacy plan, they're really similar ideas, you know, as coming out of that plan. So those are things that people do have an interest in. So I guess, you know, it's hard -- sort of hard to say. I think 209 is not a bad response for, you know, a survey with some press release and some, you know, some social media, you know, to get people to engage. I don't think we usually, unless something is controversial, we don't usually receive a thousand responses to things like this. We can but that usually means there's something else -- you know, something else going on. Yeah, I don't know if anyone else from DNR or Explore Minnesota, either, has anything from the CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT agency side as far as level of response from past experiences. >> Andrew, this is Erika. >> Hey. >> Hi. You know, I would agree with you that I think that, you know, the likelihood that we were going to receive thousands of responses on this request for feedback is probably unlikely. I'm -- I wouldn't say pleased, I'm satisfied with 209 people responding, given the timeframe. I also think that, you know, oftentimes, many people will read through something like that and if they agree with it something -- agree with something in particular or don't really have strong feelings of wanting to add something to it or amend it, they sometimes will choose not to take the survey because they agree with it. And I think there is a lot to agree with in the recommendations document that was produced, and so I think that may factor into the level of response that we received from this tool of engagement, as well. And one thing I would want to mention again, this isn't a survey, this is a feedback tool so we're CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT not expecting some sort of scientific level of response to this and so I think -- we also-always want to be a little bit careful about differentiating between what public feedback is or public input tool, engagement tool is versus what a survey is and our expectations for response rates on surveys. They're not the same tool, so I guess that's just two cents from my perspective. Thanks. >> Yeah, thank you, Erika. Yeah, this is not a random sample survey of people of Minnesotans' opinion. This is a public input, you know, opportunity. So thanks. >> Andrew, this is Mark. >> No, go ahead. >> Sarah? This is Mark Norquist. J.R., thanks so much for weighing in on that, I was hoping you would in terms of any thoughts you might have relative to the motorized trail users, which is obviously very close to the work that you do. I think a lot of those comments are reflective CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT of, to be honest, the necessity of this office but also the challenge ahead for it, which is how to balance it in an extremely diverse group of stakeholders and, you know, while it's not something that we necessarically called out in the executive summary, I think it would be important for this moving forward that it's annual imperative, which is exactly, Aaron, like you had said, we would hope -- and I think we need to strongly state that it has to represent all the varied interests of the outdoor user and stakeholder groups, because if it doesn't, I think -- I think it's going to have a lot of headwinds because then it will, I think, reinforce certain challenges today which is, I think, certain outdoor user groups may see other outdoor user groups in opposition to their priorities, and so that is the -- I think one of the fundamental challenges ahead for the office, and I think needs to be an important part because it's also just as much a reason why this office should be put in place. >> I think that's a really good point, Mark, and I would just also say that as it says in the executive summary, there's 14 other states that CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT are doing this and some of them have some extremely strong motorized use, as well, so there is some precedent out there and some places we can learn from, too. >> Yeah, this is J.R.. Mark and HANSI, I agree with everything that the two of you have said. I think -- you know, I think that an office is, as Mark, I think, rightly put it, is -- you know, equity extends to access, as well. You know, the discussion around equity should extend to access, as well, access for motorized, access for non-motorized, hunting and fishing, biking and walking, you know. I think the underlying premise that Polaris would come at this discussion from is we have adequate resources, proper management is critical to make sure that there is a reduction in the types of conflicts that could result and where I think, you know, stakeholder input is going to be increasingly important over time as the uses in the outdoors continue to evolve and as we try to expand the type of -- and rates of participation, so, you know, I would hope that testimony people would, you know, kind of come at this with a CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT positive kind of glass half full viewpoint that this is really designed to expand, you know, maybe the traditional definition of equity to all facets of outdoor recreation, not just perhaps in the context of race or gender or anything like that but, really that everybody has or should have an equitable right to access. Regardless of the type of participation or mode of transportation or mode of engagement that you choose, so -- I appreciate everybody giving that some thought. >> Yeah, thanks, J.R. One thing to add, too, was this was kind of a heavy survey or heavy input situation in input form because, you know, it kind of expected the respondent to have read or looked at the recommendations which are not just -- are not sound bites, right, that are pretty thoughtful document. So that also could have lowered the number of people willing to -- willing to do that. >> Andrew, this is Sarah. I tried to raise my hand, I don't know if it worked or not -- >> Oh, sorry, I didn't see that. CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT Being ahead. >> That's okay. No worries, no worries. [indiscernible] things I'm thinking about and would be interested in the group's response, I think that kind of building on this conversation around, you know, opposition for motorized groups, I think it's really important for us to be exceedingly clear that this office would not be a policy-making office. Right? So the idea -- you know, the DNR, you know, is responsible for managing appropriate use of lands. This office is not going to deal with that. This is more about a unified voice around the importance of outdoor recreation and -- of all kind and around how do we, you know, really address this issue of declining use, declining participation. And, you know, -- and, you know, issues of, you know, what might be intentional exclusion at times with certain groups, et cetera. So I think that's a really important point to keep front and center that this isn't a CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT policy-making body, so... The second question and I don't -- I'm curious what -- you mentioned something in the second set of recommendations that somebody was talking about the power and I think that's Porsches this isn't a policy-making body, this isn't a body that is going to have say in terms of, like, that people have to do things so making sure that we're positioning it so that they actually have the power to be a convening body, so I just would be curious if people have thoughts about that. >> I pulled up the section on power from the -- it's on the screen there. >> Could you summarize what the comment was? Or maybe it doesn't matter. My question is really about will this -- are we going to situate this office in a way that it actually would have the power to do what we're asking it to do, I guess is my question. >> Yeah, I think there were two sides of -- like -- we can actually pull up the individual comments, too, this is just sort of the summary. I think the -- it was about kind of unequal power and sort of that -- says including some stake -- stakeholders -- so some may have different CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT values, right? And so -- and I think there's some natural dynamic between maybe, like it says, for example, industry or concern recreation or agencies so people coming in with different interests and so how does that power balance work. And this last one here maybe hits on it, the structure of the task force -- may perpetuate structures that marginalize some communities and so, you know, you want to -- someone may be at the table but maybe they don't have -- they don't really have a voice. Let me look into the actual recommendations and why don't you guys chat for a moment while I look. >> This is J.R., and Andrew, I think you know, Sarah's points are spot on. I think -- I think, um, there's also perhaps a fundamental misunderstanding about how power would be assigned to an organization like this, you know, the legislature, through legislation and ultimately enactment by the Governor's signature through enabling legislation is the only way that power could be assigned to this organization. CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT The DNR's regulatory authority is assigned to it by the legislature and the Governor, so, you know, I think that it's an important point here and my perspective is that the sentiment of this group had been, over time, is that this would be a great kind of -- hopefully this place to HANSI's mindset is a hub of the wheel to kind of bring all the stakeholders together in order -- maybe at most to provide recommendations to policy-makers about how to assign resources, perhaps, but that they wouldn't themselves have, you know, kind of budgetary authority or policy-making authority but really would just be a convenor of stakeholders from across different user groups, across different communities of our state, and so on, so forth, and I think that's really been -- I sit on the Michigan Outdoor Recreation Advisory Council and that's really the charge of that organization, too, is to do similar work, not necessarily to quote, unquote, make policy that could or could not bias against one type of user community at the expense of another. >> This is HANSI. Yeah, I would totally agree with that, J.R. CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT I think not only does it coordinate -- act as the hub built it's also magnify or scale up, you know, to really take some of the great work and great organizations that are going on or activities and projects that are going on and just help make them better. >> And Hansi -- this is Aaron, to your point and to what J.R. is putting down as a decision, that is what the executive summary does intend to say. >> You know, as something that I think we've touched on in our conversations in recent weeks maybe isn't referenced in the document but I think something Sarah mentioned a moment ago -- this is Mark, by the way. And that is, you know, some of the feedback we've seen, Andrew, you shared a website that had a post recently on some of the work and basically saying it was the reason for the office was to promote outdoor recreation and then they pointed to statistics of dramatic increases in participation during the pandemic. And I think there are a lot of currents flowing these days, there are macro declines over the long term in spaces like hunting, and other spaces where there is growth. CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT And so I think we have increases in some outdoor spaces, we have declines in others, and I think this office -- it's both twofold. Number one, it is to promote the amazing economic engine that is outdoor recreation and all of the stakeholders who are part of that. But I think to the point Hansi brought up -- Hansi brought up an example the other day out east where there are conflicts occurring and I think some of these comments, again, also illustrate the importance of the office to -- J.R., as you mentioned, sort of convene all the various stakeholder groups with different priorities so that we are minimizing conflict as we see population growth and we see certain types of outdoor recreation that were in dramatic growth. So I think it's both promoting a lot of outdoor recreation but also making sure that we minimize conflicts between user groups and that we have this unified vision for what a healthy outdoor recreation economy looks like in Minnesota. >> Yeah, this is Hansi speaking again. I would say you're right, again, Mark, and the idea that we're watching threes conflicts CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT happening in states all around us in major ways. But it's interesting to note that just in this task force already, we are working together as multiple groups in multiple activities and it's been nothing but amenable Baug we're building these connections and relationships that allow us to have these conversations in a very succinct and good way, so I think this is a key part of what the office could do. And I would also say that it's definitely reflected in that executive summary around that idea, as well. >> Sarah, your hand is -- is it raised from before or -- now I'm trying to pay attention. >> I don't know how to take it off so I'll work on that and you can move on to the next person. >> Okay, sure. >> I can take care of that for you, no worries. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Margaret. >> Any additional thoughts on the public input or further elaborations on our conversation? Any sort of, like -- yeah, anything else to add here? I mean, we can... CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT >> One thing I would like to add that really stuck out to me was on age and seniority, I know we talked about diversity in a lot of other ways but that really struck me, and we do speak to it a little bit in the executive summary, I believe, and in the recommendations but I'm not sure if that's something that we would want to speak to more, as well. >> Thanks, Hansi. >> So where do we -- do we want to take a small break here considering that we have a sort of natural silence and then when we come back from it, we can talk about our next steps and -- Aaron had mentioned that we have kind of an idea for at least a straw poll of the task force members. Before we do the straw poll, I would want to sort of go back to the list of all the task force members and just see who we have on the call because I know we're missing a few people, I know a couple people had emailed me and said they couldn't make it. But how about that? How about we take like a 5-minute break and then we come back. I think we're moving along a little faster than CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT we might have thought before. On the agenda. >> Sounds good. >> Okay. So we'll come back -- how about we'll give 7 minutes, how about at 2:15? >> Perfect. >> Thanks. [ Break] >> Hey, everyone, it's 2:16, one-minute longer break. So to bring everyone back, I wonder -- I wonder if it's worth doing a quick check-in for who all is on the call. I'm just going through the list, our membership list which is also in the recommendations document. I highlighted the people-and I can share it, too, I guess. Hold on one second. There we go. So this is straight from the document, the recommendations document, and I highlighted the members that I don't think are on the call but they might be and -- but I don't -- I want to CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT make sure -- to make sure that I have that correctly. Is Rey Aponte on the call? I haven't seen him. I don't think he's been able to make the last couple meetings. Lynnea I don't believe is on the call. Lynnea, are you here? No. And Mary, I think she emailed everyone, she's giving vaccines today. Thank her for that, that's great. J.r. is here, Elliott is here. Megan Christianson, you had emailed and said you might have to step away early. I wasn't sure if you're on the call or not. I know there's one phone number here and I'm not sure who that is. So I'm not hearing anything, so I assume Megan might not be on the call. Katie, EO33044 showing up, because that showed up earlier. >> Yeah, that's me. >> It's great. Matt and Aaron are here, Breanne, Joe, Hansi, CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT Greg, Perry, Perry May, are you on the call? Maybe Perry is not on the call. His voice is important especially with the information we've received from the motorized group, it would be nice to if he could get his input but maybe he's not here today. Sarah is here, Mark is here, Steven Regenold, I don't know if he's here. I don't think he has attended a couple of last meetings. Mollika Sajady, are you here? No, doesn't like like it. Naomi has not been able to attend for a number of meetings and Asha emailed me and said she might be able to join. Asha, are you here? She was going to be out of cell range. So I don't know -- she's not responding, she may not be here. And then Steve is here. So, you know, we're missing a few people. We have -- I think it's -- we have 12 out of 12 -- a few people haven't been attending the last couple meetings but we are missing some people. CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT Just want to put that in the context, then, when we're thinking about kind of the next steps -- where is the agenda? I've got too many things open here, guys. There we go. We have this option, so I'm going to stop sharing because we have a survey and so the way we structured the -- poll, like a straw poll -- hold on, doing too many things here at once here, guys. There we go. We... >> Andrew, this is Margaret. In order for me to open up the poll, I have to have the presenter role so that might be why it went automatically back to me. So that might be the source of the confusion. >> Great, okay. I'm not sharing anymore. We pulled together a quick straw poll. We're thinking this -- sorry, my... Stop my video because the light is shining on the computer. It's not a -- you know, we are thinking -- this is not like a vote of the group and we have -- CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT necessarily, and we have the potential to make this -- to have the poll be anonymous so people should hopefully feel free to -- to, you know, to express their views one way or the other as far as the recommendations go. And so we do, we have five questions that we pulled together for the straw poll. One for each of the recommendations. You know, the fifth -- the fourth being the Office itself and then the fifth being the kind of overall package, and in the -- the -- the questions are sort of yes -- like, yes, do you support the recommendations as they are? No, do you not like them? Or, yes, but they should be -- there should be some revisions to kind of, you know -- you know, we haven't -- you know, one thing to know, you know, we haven't necessarily had the time to fully digest all the public input but putting that aside, you know, all else being equal, we want to gauge, you know, what your full -- your whole group's kind of feelings are on the recommendations. So in one sense, we want to know, do we have consensus around the recommendations or if we -- CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT if we should move to, you know, down the path of maybe discussing informed consent where maybe we agree on most of it, for example, so consensus suggests that people generally landed on something that they agree with and are supportive of, and informed consent is more like, you know, you have been involved in this process enough to fully understand and you can at least live with the recommendations or you might be supportive of it but maybe there is some room for simply being able to live with it. So that's sort of what we're thinking. So I think -- does anyone have any thoughts before we open the -- open that poll? One thing I will just add, I'll ask -- we've created this as a meeting, not as a WebEx event so everyone who is attending has the potential to answer the poll. We ask that the agency partners do not respond to the poll or our members of the public that might be on the call not, either, because we want to get a sense of the task force members who are to respond to the straw poll. >> I guess, Andrew, this is Sarah. I think what you're laying out makes sense. CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT The thing that, you know -- I think you're implying this but that we're getting a poll of the members that are in attendance today. >> Yeah. >> And that we will give the same opportunity to those that were not in attendance and so I think, you know, that would be -- that we would sort of collect the responses from the whole group, you know, whatever, in the next week or so. I think the second thing I would say is that -- I mean, I think in general, we are acknowledging that the recommendations themselves, if people are agreeing with the way we framed the executive summary, that there will need to be revisions if -- so I think what we're saying yes to I think needs to be kind of clear. >> So, say that again, Sarah. The the yes in your min the that includes the recommendations or -- >> If we're saying, yes, that we agree with the reframing that was done in the executive summary, that would necessitate some re-ordering of the full recommendations to line up with that. >> Got it. So I guess -- the only thing, I guess my question CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT on that is what -- because I think you guys did do some reordering of that because the document I sent out was the Google Doc you guys had -- had done some of that. Like it's leading now with the Office, followed by the key core activities being -- >> Okay, okay. >> -- the three subrecommendations. So the survey is not lining up with it, I guess, that we're asking now but the document itself is. I think. But unless -- maybe I'm missing something. >> Okay. I guess I would just say, too, this is a minor point but I think the whole document probably needs, you know, a thorough edit by an editor, you know, to really clean it up and that kind of stuff, so I just -- as long as we're talking substantive. >> Andrew, this is Matt. I would agree with Sarah on that. There's -- we did kind of re-think and re-order some of those recommendations in the larger document but what we did not do was put the emphasis on the economic development opportunity CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT of that office. We might have touched on it here and there but we did not make that a focal point like we did in the executive summary. So that might be one area where we can make some adjustments. >> Okay, sounds good. Well, so with that in mind, that there's sort of some maybe potential tweaks, I -- what do you guys think about -- we can open the straw poll, recognizing that it's only the people here that are voting and then what we can also do is we could create kind of a quick snap survey with the same information and send it out to the other members who weren't here, and then ask them to respond and so we can combine the results from today with the results from the people that weren't here. Just to get a -- does that sound reasonable? >> Sounds G >> Yes. >> Yeah, sounds great. >> Good. >> Great. Well, Margaret, do you want to just open up the CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT poll? I think -- and then again to ask only the Task Force members to complete it. >> Sounds good, Andrew. >> Thanks. You should be able to see it up -- it should pop up on your screen. It did on mine. Remember to scroll --. Starting to find it. >> There's five questions, total. Margaret, do you know when the numbers -- does it tell you who all has completed it? >> Yeah, I can see it in real time right now, so right now we've got about 10 out of 23 people who are in the meeting right now. >> Got: And there's about 12 -- I'm sorry, go ahead. >> There are ten that are finished and a couple people still in progress with it right now. >> Got it. And I think there were 12 task force members so sounds like there's two finishing up? >> Yes, that sounds correct. >> Great. CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT >> Okay. Looks like we've got our 12 responses so I'm going to close the poll. >> Great. Thanks, Margaret. >> Uh-huh. And I'm not sure if you guys can see the results right now. >> Oh, there we go. I see them, I think. >> Okay. So I'll just read through them here to make sure we all kind of understand. Looks like for the DEI, the number one advance equity, diversity and inclusion, we have 11 yes -- yes, as is and -- you know, in the context of Sarah's comment, I mean, yes, and then C is yes with modification. For unite, we have 12 yeses. For unify communication, we have 12 yeses. For creating and funding an office, we have 10 yeses and 2 yes with modifications. And for the overall document, we have 9 yeses with three yeses with modifications. So I guess the one thing, then, to sort of CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT elaborate on is to make sure, you know, of those -- of the people that have yes with modification or in the context of what was just said before we voted, like what -- you know, we want to make sure that we understand what modifications should be made and so whether that's -- you know, whether that's -- maybe we continue with a small group, whether it's the same people or the same people with more people or we rotate if someone, you know -- we sort of reconvene that small group to help make those... Does anyone -- so so out of the people who said yes with modification, would anyone comment on -- I don't want to call anyone out, either, but you mentioned, Sarah and Matt, about the economic input so I want to make sure we have that down and I guess where to go with this. >> Hey, Andrew, it's Matt. I'll speak to it for a second. >> Thanks. >> Understanding that I made the comment that I can see why we would potentially make the modification, I will just say that I voted to not -- I voted the yes in that category and the rationale that I used in doing that, we talked a CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT lot about in our synthesis group. In the synthesis group, really talked about, hey, listen, we've made the right recommendations here, right? We've been doing this for a year. We know the recommendations are in line with what the group wants but ultimately the recommendation here is to staff and fund an office and the responsibility will end up on that person or that staff to make the decisions on prioritizing and the steps that they take first and that sort of thing. So I think the -- definitely the voice on what those modifications would be would be important for us to pass along but I don't know -- I mean, maybe -- just my opinion but I don't know if it changes the dynamic of these are the three recommendations that we want to make as a task force. I would throw that out as a starting point for the conversation. >> Thanks, Matt. Does anyone have any response to Matt or sort of additions or... You know, one of the questions we have -- under CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT this next steps part of our -- on the agenda we have two kind of sort of bullet points. The last one was like should we vote today, should we volt off line? I think we kind of answered this idea that we do this survey, this straw poll to get a sense of, like, do we -- where are we? But these other questions sort of like, if there are changes needed, which sounds like that there's some potential for some tweaks, how should they be incorporated? You know what I mean? So, like -- I know, Sarah, we need sort of an editing eye and, Matt, you brought up some points. Is this the, you know, the kind of questions is what changes are needed and who should be making those? So is that -- is that something that we want the small group to continue meeting on or do you want staff to take another stab at this? You know, we're a little cautious, you know, by going into it and making any, you know, sort of content changes because we want to recognize that the recommendations are yours and in your wording CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT and your language. Obviously we want to -- if it's a typo or, you know, something, we would do our best to clean that up, but... Hey, Andrew, this is Aaron, I think we have to be so direct as to ask what the modifications would be, like you have. And whether they come in through an email or post Taj-stamp envelope or we say them right now, I would prefer right now because time is of the essence. >> Yeah. >> And then the group -- I mean the small group, if the main group is fine with the small group finishing the work, I think we should stay that course and let you, Andrew, continue to facilitate when you have but not tried to be the interpreter on behalf of the group, but I think we got to get off the chest what are what are the modifications needed because we need to move this forward, I think, and still get the input from the others. >> This is Greg and I agree with that. And I had one of the modifications on establish the office and it was really very simple, I just CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT want tot make sure -- it maybe isn't even a modification but, you know, that when we talk about funding this office, that we kind of take the long-term view of it. I'm just a little worried about people framing this in this year's budget and COVID and everything else and making sure that we don't get caught in that trap but we're thinking about this over a five-, 10, 20-year period. That's my modification and I actually assume that most people will agree with this so with that, I will remove my modification. >> Well, if it's an improvement, is there a way you could just use track changes and just quick send in -- I mean, not in the meeting -- maybe we could do that offline but send in those changes and I can -- that's easy enough to incorporate. >> Sure, I can do that. >> Okay. Any other sort of clarification on what -- how things should be modified? >> This is Mark. I think I would just echo what somebody had mentioned earlier, yeah, I believe Sarah in terms of ensuring that the main body of the document CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT reflects the executive summary and that's why I had just referenced the need for edits around that. And that is something, I think it's not changing anything substantial in terms of the intent of the recommendation but it's just making sure that the language supports it properly. [Silence] >> So, what I can do, then, is I will send -- so, Greg, at least concrete-wise, Greg had some suggestions for the executive summary, if you -- a few track changes that he'll send in. I'll wait to get those, Greg, before I do anything with sending this out again. And then I will send it specifically -- I'll sends it to the whole group but I'll specifically identify those who weren't in attendance and I'll include a snap survey that has -- that's sort of similar to what you guys voted on here, and I'll share the results from what the survey is here, and then -- and just ask for their input. And also at that time ask the group if there are any changes to sort of send in the track changes. And then so the other question is, should we -- should that small group continue, like, do we CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT need-should the small group meet again? And then -- and then do any last, sort of editorial or editing kind of things, not editorial, I guess, like editing, finalizing the document so that -- then the next step would be either, like, a formal either email vote to finalize this or a follow-up meeting? I mean, I -- we're happy to support the group however you guys want to proceed. I don't know if John or Randolph have any, you know, opinions on this? Aaron or Steve? This is Aaron. I would just say maybe the executive summary as it currently is should go out to those who weren't here and ask the same questions as to what you just provided all of us? And then if the large group is okay with it, amiable to it, then any modifications that would come back from the large group could go to the small group for that final look and at that time, that final edit across the top editing meaning just making sure everything is consistent, would happen and then that would get approved with the small group and then that would go to the large CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT group for the one final meeting where we would approve all or not approve all but we would have a finality to this process. >> Thanks, Aaron, I think that makes sense. So I'll send out the executive summary as is, not with Greg's -- Greg will still work on that and then I will -- I will ask them for any tweaks to use track changes and send it back, and then also send them the survey -- everyone did receive everything because they're on the email list for the meeting so they will have received it but I'll send a special reminder with that information in the survey. And then I can -- go ahead, Sarah, sorry. >> Sorry. No, no, you go ahead, finish, -- >> No, I was going to say then what I'll do is I can -- with a small group, schedule a follow-up meeting to discuss the stuff we receive back and then -- yeah, and then we can go from there and maybe finalize the document. >> Yeah, I was just going to say, I think it will be important, Andrew, when we do the final vote to be clear about, you know, are we doing a simple majority? CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT Are we doing, you know, 75% or, you know, if -- are we asking, like, if there's somebody that just can't live with it the way it is, we're going to go back and redo it. We might have the question, you know, yes, 100% approve it, I'm not crazy about everything but I can live with it, and I can't live with it. Options. So, I don't know, if there is a normal process that you all go through but I think as we enter into that voting, we're just going to want to get that really clarified how we're going to approach it. >> Yeah. And I think -- you know, going back to -- we had something early on in the organization -- in the task force, I mean, about kind of governance questions, right? And I think we sort of landed on the idea of consensus but if there wasn't necessarily full consensus to do a vote, and, you know, what we can do is do that idea of an informed consent so where -- where if -- if the result is that the majority are in favor of the recommendations as they are, we can find maybe a place in the CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT document to reference -- to make that clear, right? So that we're not misrepresenting anyone's view and -- and so have that place to -- for someone if they don't agree with our other recommendations. A little hard now because we are missing a number of people and so we're just making a guess, you know. Maybe it would be the same as this group -- everyone's here that there is consensus, right, for the most part. >> Makes sense to me, I like that informed consent concept and -- yeah, that's helpful. Thanks. >> So, with that, I think we're -- I will send something out to the full group. It will probably be on Monday because we have to create the snap survey. And we will get their sort of overall input. Greg, and then actually anyone else, too, if you have any suggested changes, I mean, you'll get that email, too, on the document, if you could use track changes and then send it back, I can compile those for the small group. CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT And then we'll wait for the survey responses for the others who weren't here, hopefully they get their responses, and then we'll set up a time for the small group to meet so at this point I would like to open it up to, none, any volunteers of people who want to be on the small group, we want to make sure that's as open as possible. I know -- and also if people who are on it now would like to step away for whatever reason, that's fine, too. I just want to make that a fair and open process. >> This is Hansi, I'm cool with staying on it. >> Great. >> Matt here, too, I'm okay staying on it. >> Okay. >> This is Mark, I'm happy to stay on it, too. >> This is Aaron, I'll stay part of the small group. >> Great. >> This is Sarah, I'm happy too, as well, or happy to step aside if somebody else would like to take a shot at it, so... >> Well, I don't think there's any sort of limit to the number of people. You know, I know not everyone could make every CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT meeting before so more is merrier, possibly. It's not -- they haven't been group editing sessions for the most part so they've been good conversations, I think, so... So... So if anyone else would like to either they can say it now or if you would like to email me afterorder was, that's fine, too. I'm happy to -- I'll send out a Doodle poll or something to see when the next time the small group can meet, we'll work with their calendars. Do we think, then, this is sort of a follow-up question, that after we go through that process and the small group does some more kind of final tweaking based on the input, do we want to have another full big group meeting to kind of have the final, formal, like this is it? I know we had titled today the final meeting but we knew with the public input and everything, there was some -- you know, that was maybe a little ambitious. Or the other option is we can do a vote over email. However -- to what the -- >> Andrew, I'm going to make a suggestion or CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT recommendation and I'm going to try to be as politically correct about this as I can. >> Okay >> But I think if you can stress the importance of people attending the meeting -- >> Okay. >> That's going to be critical. We can't continue to, you know, like you said, this was the final meeting and because there is a whole bunch of people that aren't here, it can't be the final meeting. So let's do what we can to get them there and if they're not there, we vote and we-I think we move forward. My opinion, my two cents. >> I would agree with you, Matt. I think we need to just be very frank on the next round of, you know, this is the final vote on it and if you're not in attendance, you know, you won't be able to have that vote cast, so... >> Do we want -- it's tricky when you're trying to get 21 people's calendars to line up in a timely way. Do I, you know -- should we offer the option of an email vote for someone if they -- CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT >> I was going to suggest that. I think yes. >> Absolutely. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> I agree with that. >> Okay. So I'll send out a Doodle poll for everyone for the next big meeting and say this will be the final one and maybe it will be at least a three weeks to a month out, I imagine, just in order to give that small ground and everything enough time to really finetune that -- you know, any changes that need to happen. And then also logistically, I'm sure it's hard to get everyone's calendar to line up that soon, so -- so we'll do that. And then when I send out the notice for the last meeting, I'll let people know that, Matt, like you said, it's very important you attend if at all possible and if you can't attend, we welcome your vote by email and the vote will be sort of this -- to approve the document as is. And we can talk about that with the small group, too, some logistics to figure out how if there is a wording of that that you guys would prefer. CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT >> It would be helpful, Andrew, maybe at that meeting for you all to have, you know, put some thought together, like, once these are finalized, like, where do they go and what happens? >> Yeah, yeah, thanks. That's a good point. And that's a good question. I know we've -- that's been brought up, you know, in the conversations with -- between the agencies, you know, exactly where -- what are the steps, right? Some things, you know, like those -- especially the three recommendations that are not east just around the Office are a lot of things that the agencies already value and are important and so, you know, are there bridging things that could be done, too? I think we -- one concern about -- you know, we kept going, this balance between full details on the recommendations or leaving it open for kind of how it evolves and so it's hard to know, like -- you know, exactly what it would mean because if there is an office created, that probably would need some legislative direction and so that's a wild card. CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT I don't know if anyone -- if John or Randolph have anything to add there or anyone else from the agencies. >> Yeah, I think you're right, Andrew. We would certainly have to -- we'd have to get together as agencies and see what the final recommendations are and see what we can -- see what looks practical right now, and what we might have to, like Greg said, what would be the sequence of getting things done in this and talk to that. It might take some time for the agencies to come to a consensus on that but just talking about it would be a first step, as well. >> Well, thanks, everyone. I'll, -- as sort of a follow-up to this meeting, I'm going to jot down some notes and next steps and I'll email it out to everyone, including those who weren't here, and then the more formal kind of like survey I'll send out to those that weren't attending, I will -- we'll have to get that next week. My survey -- I'm not sure I can get my survey person ever the chance to pull that together before then. CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT So that's what I'll do, I'll try to recap some of these next steps so then it doesn't get lost over the weekend, either, and then I don't know if anyone has any additional things to add. I -- I -- I think we've covered it all for today. We have public comments. Excuse me, that's the last part of the agenda. Do we -- [Overlapping Conversation] >> Andrew, I would just say even though we're short on people here and I agree with Matt's comment, I think it was, that we need to get [indiscernible] to vote, I'm impressed everybody voted yes. I mean, there seems to be, you know, widespread consensus that this is the document we want so I think we should just take a second and recognize that, that that's a really positive thing. Thank you. >> Yeah, thanks, Greg. It's true and there is a lot -- you guys have put a lot of work into this and, you know, through our -- going back to our SWOT analyst and the breakout groups and to the whole process here so a lot of your guys' work and good thinking has CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT resulted in something... [Background noise] >> Hello, this is Holly Larson with the National Park Service. I do have one comment. Could you make that executive summary available to the public on your website? It sounded like there were some changes to the direction of the recommendations so it would be good to be able to see it. >> Sure, yeah, I think -- the only concern with that, I'll just -- I mean, I'm happy to share anything, but I wouldn't want -- it's still draft so, like, we shared that sort of officially on the website when it was ready for kind of that public input. So I guess -- that would be my only caution, I don't want to -- especially if the small group is in the middle -- is close to wrapping it up, I don't want to put something out there -- I don't know if anyone else has any thoughts. >> Andrew, this is Aaron, I would just one person speaking on behalf of himself but I would really prefer to have that executive summary through the process of what we just talked about CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT and then the next thing that comes out is the final document so that there isn't a reaction to a step in-between, there's just reaction to the final body of work. That would be my hope. >> Yeah, I completely agree with both of you on that. >> And so that being said, Holly, I would, you know, I would be happy to share with you the document. I don't think -- you can be the 2nd member of the task force so I like the -- public information, nothing is hidden, it's just maybe, like they're saying, doesn't make sense to broadcast it. >> Sure, yeah, I understand that. My one other comment, I would agree with somebody on the task force who said that that -- I think it is a low number of responses you got for the survey or for the whole recommendations considering it's statewide. That really does point toward the need for an office like you're proposing because the people you are reaching through your current avenues of communication are kind of the usual suspects and CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT there are a whole lot more people who do outdoor recreation in the state that -- DNR and NPP and other agencies are doing a good job of reaching. >> Andrew, this is Hansi. I guess I would just like to make one last comment on the implementation side of things. We had a long discussion in small group about how to signal an implementation sides of it and really came to the idea that, you know, as citizen volunteers, our job was to truly make these recommendations. And then to push them forward and, you know, allow the agencies or administration or legislatively, you know, people who can help solve that implementation problem do those -- do that work and do that job. But I would certainly, as a person who's put a lot of time into this and I can't speak for everybody else, would love to get some relevant and timely feedback once we do make the recommendation. >> And this is Aaron, too, I want to amplify what Hansi said, the executive summary was written to be a summary, not, you know, every detail of implementation or next step or funding CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT but we believe as a bunch of task force members from very varied industries and part of the state that if we could come together and have alignment this solid on these recommendations, then we're going to hand them to the State and then allow the State to do what you've been appointed to do and we look forward to your step next. >> I would agree with that, as well. Well said. >> Agreed. >> All right. Well, thanks, great comments. Is there anyone else from the public who would like to say anything? Before we wrap up the meeting? Hearing none, if there's any last comments from anyone on the task force or Randolph or John, anything to add? >> Let me say, I think it's a great conversation. I think you managed to get the wheels out from under the airplane and the landing strip is fairly close. And so -- and I do agree with everyone and Hansi's sentiment that this group has worked CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT really hard, and you do deserve relevant and timely feedback on the implementation side and I can promise you that we will continue to work towards that, and so I just want to thank everybody and I look forward to our final meeting in the coming weeks. >> Thanks, Randolph, and with that I think we're done, unless inch else want to chime in quickly. Otherwise we'll see you in about a month or so and small group, we'll be in touch. And I'll send an email to everyone. >> Thanks, everybody. Bye. Be >> Bye. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Bye. >> Bye, have a nice weekend. >> Enjoy the weather. It won't be crazy cold. >> Feel like summer. DISCLAIMER "This text is being provided in a lightly edited CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT draft format and is the work product of the CART captioner. Any reproduction, publication, or other use of this CART file without the express written consent of the CART captioner is strictly prohibited. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility, and this lightly edited CART file may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings, nor should it be considered in any way as a certified document. Due to the live nature of the event, some names and/or terms may be misspelled. This text may also contain phonetic attempts at sounds and words that were spoken, and environmental sounds that occurred during the event. CART Captioning file - NOT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT