The tiny turnout was disappointing. Ramon Strong, in charge of river management at Horizons, recalls 100 people at both meetings, but it's not clear whether that includes the staff and councillors from Horizons and Whanganui District Council who attended. Estimates from people at the meetings put the total at considerably less - I recall counting just 17 people, not including officials, at the first meeting.
But those damn tokens are the biggest problem. If you're indicating what charity you'd like your supermarket to support, no problem, but it's no way to conduct serious research, especially when you make significant decisions based on the results.
The opportunity to cast a token was available at the meeting venues and the market but also unsupervised at the Davis Library. I've heard several reports of people casting multiple tokens in their preferred option. Mr Strong watched one resident, who felt particularly passionate about the need for more flood protection, tip the entire token container into the "Yes" receptacle. So Horizons' first mistake was not preventing multiple votes being cast.
In the end, the tokens weren't even counted.
"They were intended as a visual representation of community sentiment," Horizons communications adviser Cara Hesselin explained to me. "However, the end result was more tokens in the 'No' container."
Tokens weren't a "formal tool" on their own, she said but just one of the indicators used to judge public sentiment. But what other indicators were there? There was not even a simple running tally kept of how many people stopped to talk to Horizons representatives at their market stall.
Mr Strong's presentation to the Whanganui District Council included such "data" as the (tiny) number and tone of comments on this topic on the Chronicle Facebook page, and comments by flood-prone residents quoted in news stories.
Mistake No 2: Not quantifying your data, especially if you are going to claim overwhelming support on an issue ... any issue, but especially one with extremely large ramifications for stakeholders.
The third mistake was how the question was posed.
Presenting the second option in the form of "Increase rates to pay for ... " significantly biases the response.
Such is the sensitivity to rates increases in this town, if any change were proposed by way of asking: "Do you want to pay more rates to fund ... " a majority of people would instantly say 'No'. It's a knee-jerk reaction.
And isn't it a bit premature to ask a vague question about unspecified rates increases without presenting more detailed information? Is that a $5 increase in rates each year - or $500?
I respectfully suggest Horizons seeks better advice about how to research the views of its constituents - or at least understands what not to do with unrepresentative, unquantified anecdotal responses.
Despite the flawed process, I think Horizons is heading in the right direction - but that's a discussion for next week.
So, how do I find the optimist's view of this - "The Glass Half Full".
There is a slim possibility that managed retreat from the flood plain could be negotiated well in Whanganui, providing a precedent for all the other places in New Zealand that are - and will be - threatened by climate change and sea level rise.
That would require our community to rally, resurrecting the idea of a common good, some common sense showed by insurance companies and a central government that will work for the sake of ordinary New Zealanders.
-Rachel Rose has a MA (Communications) from RMIT and managed quantitative and qualitative research programmes for a leading Australian business - www.facebook.com/rachelrose.writer
