Laserfiche WebLink
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 15. 1996 <br />to this study being done?" Of the total polled, 45% were in favor of <br />a study, 29.2% were opposed, and 25.8% were undecided or didn't know. <br />Of City voters, 58.9% were in favor of a study, 16.4% were opposed and <br />24.8% were undecided or didn't know. Of County voters, 37.3% were in <br />favor of a study, 36.3% were opposed and 26.4% were undecided or didn't <br />know. <br /> <br />According to written information provided the Board and Council, the <br />four focus groups were recruited by Martin Research, segregating City <br />from County residents. Participants were screened into groups <br />containing those "pro", "con", and "undecided" on the need for a merger <br />study. The meetings were held at Patrick Henry Community College for <br />two hours and the agenda for all groups consisted of the following: <br /> <br />(1) introduction; (2) <br />background; (4) panel <br />presentations "pro" and <br /> <br />expectations/concerns of participants; (3) <br /> <br /> preparation for presentations; (5) panel <br /> <br /> "con"; (6) reaction to presentations; (7) <br /> <br />discussion; and (8) merger study issues summary.. The participants were <br />placed on a panel of participants labeled "pro" or "con", regardless of <br />their own opinion, to build an argument to present to the other group. <br />Each panel presented its arguments and both sides reacted to the other. <br />A discussion followed around issues related to the study on both sides. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Supervisor Buchanan, Mr. Martin stated <br />that participants in the focus groups were chosen at random through the <br />use of the telephone directory and/or City Directory. Ms. Buchanan <br />expressed concern regarding the representativeness of the focus groups, <br />to which Mr. Martin stated that focus groups that are non-paid tend to <br />contain a disproportionate number of higher income individuals. <br /> <br /> <br />