On the negative side, the speeches were sibgularly (or doubly.) The speeches were extroardinarily patronizing and, in my mind, prove how far some leaders are from listening. Our whole community is the choir, and they were preaching the fire that awaits.
They may be right about what's happening and they are right about why, they're also part of the problem with the rest of us. The people who don't want change and who want to portray regional centers as the barriers to change can quote liberally from those two speeches. They also might point out how limited the opportunities were for input. If we're going to put petty grievances with each other aside then listening to one another, allowing each other as partners and believing in each other are fine places to start. Patronizing, dismissing and talking over are not.
If either speaker had been paying attention, they couldn't have spoken from the perspective on display today.
My review: Safe harbor was granted at lunch to those who oppose change and those who seek change were marginalized. I give it an F.
P.S. I haven't seen any conference evaluation forms. For all the good content, it's pretty clear that input and dialogue were not planned outcomes of this conference. At least not at the conference.