On June 8 and 9, 2000 I opened space for a one and a half day conference on the future of victim services in the
province of British Columbia.

We had 58 people there, 55 of whom stayed for the full 1.5 days.  35 topics were proposed and 25 were reported upon.  The first day was four 1.5 hour discussions plus opening and closing and day two was a morning featuring a one hour convergence session, during which ten topics, encompassing 20 of the original groups were moved forward.

The setting was the 31st floor of a hotel in Vancouver with a 270 degree view of English Bay, Stanley Park and the North Shore mountains as seen through floor to ceiling windows.  Absolutely breathtaking.

The group was predominantly women, (only four men including me) most of whom were people who provided services to victims and witnesses of crime.  A few victims were there too, marking the first time the government had actually consulted with "end users" (horribly sterile term).

The leader, the Director of the Victims Services Division of the Ministry of the Attorney General, was the model Open Space leader.  She struggled for weeks with the notion of "givens" and then decided that she truly didn't want any.  She opened the conference by explaining this dilemma, and how I had tried to force her to think of the boundaries (!), and she stated openly that she couldn't do it, that everything was on the table, and that she would try her best to breathe life into all that was presented.  She really had come to peace with accepting some very difficult consequences.  This opening leant a lot of credibility to the process, and I believe people kept their discussions "realistic" as a result.  There was a great deal of respect generated by her honesty with the result that defining the givens was actually a process that got transferred to the group.

The discussions proceeded smoothly, and I kept my eye on one in particular.  After 10 or so issues had come forward in the beginning, someone jumped up and proposed one dealing with a large fund that the government had set aside for support to victims.  There was a lot of controversy about this fund, and many oohs and ahhhs were heard when the issue was raised.  The general consensus seemed to be that this was the real issue, and a hot one at that.

I watched that group as it met, with nearly 20 people (by no means a majority) gathered in a tight circle.  Discussions were very respectful, very thoughtful and really effective.  The group took about two hours to deal with it and provided a report.  I noted the distinct lack of positional statements and pontificating.  One of the sponsoring group
noted that if this issue had been put on an agenda and sent out, people would have come spoiling for a fight.  The issue probably would have consumed the conference.  We both noted that, although it seemed to be an important topic, nearly 2/3 of the participants found other more important things to do.  Their time would have been wasted had the agenda dealt only with this issue.

When it came time for convergence, the topic received only four votes, three of them from one person.  To us it indicated one of two things: either the issue had been exhausted, or people realized that there was nothing they could do about it anyway, and so they spent their time more wisely.  I think it avoided a lot of frustration in the end, and the sponsor was very pleased (and VERY surprised) with how pleasant the discussion was.

Convergence was very natural and as the "voting" wrapped up the participants took it upon themselves to converge topics.  In general, totally appropriate topics emerged, and I only had to offer my opinion on the preferably conservative nature of the process once.  Despite this 10 groups formed with only five orphaned topics.

I had great success with the "Open Space Evaluation" which is just a blank piece of paper taped near the entrance for people to scrawl their thoughts on.  I'm beginning a nice collection of these.  Some of the comments were nice compliments about the process, and some had suggestions for improvements.

The closing circle was very powerful.  The First Nations participants took the opportunity to give eagle feathers to a few of the government people who had been supportive for many years.  This is sort of like bestowing the Nobel Prize for Good Work, and is an extremely high honour.  This was not lost on any of the recipients who were reduced to tears.  All of the Aboriginal people at the conference stood to honour the recipients and hug them after they were given a feather.  One of the recipients asked me why I wasn't standing with them, and I simply replied "I think I'll just sit here and keep holding the space."   Also, while this was going on two bald eagles circled around outside the windows.  No surprise to me, but some thought that it was an eerie coincidence.

I used an ending that I learned from Birgitt.  When the talking stick (a red marker) came back to me, I asked everyone to stand and turn around so they were facing out of the circle.  3/4s of the group were looking out at the spectacular view.  I said simply :"The real Open Space is out there in the world.  This group will never be together again, but it will always be behind you. When you feel ready, take a step forward and return to the Open Space of the world taking  everything we have done together with you.  Thank you."

That really captured the spirit of the moment, and I thank Birgitt for this one.  I'll use it again.

Sometimes this process is hard and trying and occasionally nightmarish, and sometimes I wonder at my good fortune for being able to make a living doing this.  Being prepared to be surprised taxes the nerves a little, but I'm beginning to think if there is really any other way.