We gained great hindsight from board's demise.

"Philosophers on the Prairie" is the name I'd give the group that Mike Jacobs assembled to serve as the community editorial board of the Grand Forks Herald.

Jacobs, the Herald's editor, said, "We wanted to have some connection with readers that was intellectually engaging and regular."

So in 1987 he invited six North Dakotans and three Minnesotans to gather once a month for breakfast and talk about the issues of the day.

On our board, we had a playwright, a political scientist, a farmer, and three business leaders from North Dakota. On the Minnesota side of the Red River, we had a retired woman who was a former mayor and a farmer who was using his Columbia Law School degree to practice in his small hometown near the Canadian border.

I was the youngest member of the community editorial board, and I was invited to serve after I moved to Minnesota to work for a private foundation. My journey into philanthropy followed five years of work as the Herald's Minnesota political reporter.

Jacobs chose board members he knew personally or by reputation. He said he was looking for people who were "thoughtful, intelligent, and civic-minded."

Almost eight years have passed since Jacobs unleashed this experiment. He and I talked about it recently. He's still the editor, and now I'm working with him as the editorial page editor.

We agree that a community editorial board is a good idea, but the benefits are greatly diminished if the expectations of board members are unclear.

The Herald's board suffered from this problem. "It would have worked better if the members had been more involved in identifying topics and in really suggesting directions," Jacobs said. "It turned out to be mostly a sounding beard, rather than a reservoir."

People who know Jacobs won't be shocked by his admission that he "talked way too much." Jacobs is smart, engaging, and can easily dominate a conversation.

Jacobs was the convener of our community editorial board meetings, so members took their cues from him. Because our gatherings were unstructured, Jacobs often would start talking about an issue and others would chime in.

The community board would have had more influence if Jacobs had directly stated that his role was one of facilitator and listener.

If we establish a board this year, the meetings should be conducted in ways that allow the community members to set the issue agenda.

The value of a community board is exposing editorial writers to new perspectives. The ideas of community board members should be viewed as a pipeline to citizens, so the editorial board does not rely so heavily on its own views and the reporting of fellow journalists.

Any daily newspaper's editorial board would benefit from public input mechanisms, such as a community editorial board, focus groups, or community meetings held around the circulation area.

The Herald's editorial board needs more contact with people who have different work and life experiences. My three colleagues on the Herald editorial board are white men in their 40s who covered North Dakota politics before becoming newsroom managers. Obviously, we are not a diverse group.

The Herald's community editorial board died in 1990 because interest diminished on both sides. No terms of service had been set, so after a couple of years attendance started to fall off. If we give the idea a second try, we would ask people to serve one-year terms.

Also, our first community editorial board lacked diversity in terms of age, income, and race. The Herald's community editorial board was not a publicly visible group, and there was no belief that it was fully representative of the readership.

By acknowledging that editorial writers can easily become isolated, Jacobs was trying to tap into the minds of other sharp people who could broaden the Herald's perspective in developing editorial policy.

Our experiment with a community editorial board was worth the effort; however, next time we'd make changes so the group would have more effect on what ends up on the editorial pages.

In addition to more grassroots agenda setting, I'd want to see meetings with focused discussions on specific topics, such as reforming agricultural policy, funding K-12 schools, and building community support for a new Grand Forks civic center.

During our meetings, we often had meandering conversations that led to few conclusions. I'd also recommend that community editorial board members be strongly encouraged to write commentaries for the editorial pages.

The thrust behind the Herald's community editorial board was an attempt to connect with readers, instead of simply reacting to the readers who contact us. It was an effort to take the initiative to have an ongoing conversation with people who care about the region, and who take the time to educate themselves on issues.

The Herald could have reaped greater benefits from our board if the idea had been more fully developed before our meetings got underway. Nevertheless, the concept of a community editorial board is a good one that's worth trying at other daily newspapers.

NCEW member Liz Fedor is editorial page editor of the Grand Forks Herald in North Dakota.