As postscripts go, it spoke volumes.

Leaving the council chambers last Thursday, minutes after the Bainbridge Planning Commission sidetracked proposed changes to local shoreline policies and

regulations for further study, one attendee asked another:

“So, what exactly did they just do?”

That question might fairly be asked of the process itself, which elicited relatively little fanfare or participation until a series of somewhat nebulous recommendations, buttressed by the science of an impressive new “nearshore assessment,”

provoked the ire of local shoreline owners and property rights advocates.

One might argue that those who now belittle the process – which included a series of advertised meetings and presentations, all of them open to the public – weren’t paying close enough attention. At the same time, those who find in that process the product itself can’t see the school for the fish. A few observations:

The process worked…: The draft revisions to the island’s shoreline policies and regulations came from a mayor-appointed steering committee, by way of city planners who were integral to the work. Public meetings were advertised and held throughout the year.

…But it failed: Even one of the steering committee members now says the group was stacked with scientists, to the exclusion of others oriented toward law or economic impacts.

The process worked: In the end, the public did participate – big time. Three consecutive planning commission sessions on the shoreline documents were packed to the rafters with “concerned citizens.”

…But it failed: By that time, rational discussion of the issues was impossible. It didn’t help that no one was able to articulate the difference between existing policies and regulations and those being proposed, or even say to what extent current regulations have been enforced. Those questions still confound planning commissioners and citizens alike. (And if “old” regulations are just now going to be enforced, we would suggest that makes them “new.”)

The process worked: The recommendations were guided by “best available science.”

…But it failed: That proved no match for “best available rhetoric,” much of it ridiculous. (The island is not, we would like to point out once and for all, a totalitarian state.)

Wherever one falls on the regulatory continuum – the “save our environment” camp, or the “leave me the heck alone” school of property ownership – it seems fair to say that the goals of the shoreline revisions were never clearly or meaningfully conveyed to the public. Local officials might take away a few lessons on effective communication.

At the same time, those who are generally content to ignore the dynamic public discourse that goes on around them every day might consider paying more attention. The gentleman who said, “I hope I never have to come to a meeting like this again” missed the point. That’s democracy, friend – you’re supposed to get involved once in a while.

So what exactly did they, er, we just do?

In our efforts to find the best in both process and product, perhaps we really just made a little progress.