Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Survey topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Concord task force splits over proposed public survey; members agree to pause and review draft
Summary
Task‑force members were divided on a proposed knowledge‑attitudes‑practices survey: proponents sought baseline, random‑intercept data; opponents said a public meeting and full disclosure should precede any survey. The group tabled further survey work pending member review and returned the item to the next meeting.
Members of the Warner’s Pond Task Force debated whether to proceed with a proposed knowledge‑attitudes‑practices (KAP) study intended to establish baseline public knowledge and measure the effectiveness of outreach.
Allison Ailey, a resident, told the panel: “this task force has no legitimate business purpose conducting a survey at this stage in the process,” arguing that the town should hold a public meeting and make available missing information before asking residents for preferences. Several other members echoed concern that surveys can embed bias and that running one before broad public outreach would set a poor precedent after a recent town‑meeting vote.
Proponents — including Malcolm and Liz, who drafted the instrument — said a properly designed interview‑style, random‑intercept study could produce a baseline that compensates for the selection bias of public meetings. They noted a prior online survey (Feb. 2023) had low response (251 respondents, ~2% response rate) and was not statistically robust. Malcolm outlined logistical questions the group must resolve, including sample size, data collectors and qualitative‑analysis tools; he recommended aiming for a 5% margin of error if the task force pursues a statistically meaningful sample.
The task force debated operational details — whether to hire a professional survey firm, how many data collectors would be needed, whether to conduct the survey in multiple waves (before and after outreach) and how to analyze open‑ended responses. One practical suggestion from members was to circulate a concise, one‑page brochure for each alternative ahead of the planned public meeting so residents have consistent, accessible information.
After extended debate the group agreed to pause further work on the KAP instrument, asked members to read the draft materials, and tabled the decision for the next meeting (the planning team proposed a dedicated discussion or virtual session before the December meeting). The task force also discussed the possibility of doing interviewer‑based sampling at random locations around town to reduce selection bias if it later approves the study.
Next steps: members will review the draft KAP materials, staff will schedule a follow‑up discussion, and the task force will revisit the survey decision at its next convening ahead of the planned public meeting in late January or early February.
