It’s full steam ahead for the Participatory Budgeting Project!

I’m happy to share some great news from our friends at the Participatory Budgeting Project.  PBP is an organizational member of NCDD, and I’m proud to serve on their Advisory Board and to have attended both of their conferences in New York and Chicago.

PBP-logoEarlier this month, PBP announced that they’re embarking on a new collaboration with one of California’s foremost foundations, The California Endowment (TCE). As part of a new grant, PBP will support local organizing for Participatory Budgeting in 14 low-income communities across the state, through the foundation’s Building Healthy Communities (BHC) program.

BHC is a 10-year initiative focused on empowering residents in these 14 communities to eradicate health inequalities through community organizing and policy change. PB presents a unique opportunity to channel public resources toward services and infrastructure that promote health and foster community economic development.

Already, PBP is are working with groups in Merced, San Diego, Long Beach, and Oakland to launch PB in neighborhoods, cities, and school districts. In addition to their technical assistance work, PBP will hold the first California-based conference for PB practitioners and advocates in September 2014 at TCE’s facilities in Oakland.

In addition to THAT big news, here’s another whopper:

It was announced a couple days ago that Mayor Rahm Emanuel is planning to take Alderman Joe Moore’s Participatory Budget efforts citywide in Chicago!  As many of you know, Alderman Moore of Chicago’s 49th Ward is known for being the first public official in the U.S. to institutionalize PB.  For five years now, Moore has put his annual $1.3 million discretionary budget in the hands of community residents, allowing them to weigh in on capital projects they want done.

Now the idea is going citywide with the proposed creation of a manager of participatory budgeting in Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s 2014 city budget.  Read more here.

Congratulations, Josh Lerner, Maria Hadden, and everyone else responsible for the Participatory Budgeting Project’s success!


Interested in learning more about PB?  A good place to go is the “participatory budgeting” tag in the NCDD Resource Center, where we’ve indexed 31 great articles and other resources on PB.

“Crowdsourcing” in politischen Entscheidungs- und Gesetzgebungsprozessen in Finnland

Author: 
In einem Experiment der Bürgerbeteiligung, das vom finnischen Umweltministerium und dem Komitee für die Zukunft innerhalb des finnischen Parlaments initiiert worden ist, wurde ein neues Gesetz zum Verkehr außerhalb befestigter Straßen auf einer Online-Platform ge-„crowdsourced“. „Crowdsourcing“ in politischen Entscheidungs- und Gesetzgebungsprozessen zielt darauf ab, Bürger in einer öffentlichen Diskussion zu...

37 Papers on Transparency

HEC Paris has just hosted the 3rd Global Conference on Transparency Research, and they have made the list of accepted papers available. Judging from the amount and quality of papers from this year’s and last year’s conference in the Netherlands, it seems that, despite its short history, the conference is likely to become the place for transparency research (to further establish itself as the global reference in that domain, maybe the conference organizers could consider a 4th conference in a developing country).

As one goes through the papers,  it is clear that unlike most of the open government space, when it comes to research, transparency is treated less as a matter of technology and formats and more as a matter of social and political institutions.  And that is a good thing.

This year’s papers are listed below:

***

Also read:

The Uncertain Relationship Between Open Data and Accountability

Does Transparency Lead to Trust? Some Evidence on the Subject


Making Public Participation Legal launched at Brookings

Most of the laws that govern public participation in the U.S. are over thirty years old. They do not match the expectations and capacities of citizens today, they pre-date the Internet, and they do not reflect the lessons learned in the last two decades about how citizens and governments can work together. Increasingly, public administrators and public engagement practitioners are hindered by the fact that it’s unclear if many of the best practices in participation are even allowed by the law.

MakingP2Legal-BrookingsPicMaking Public Participation Legal, a new publication of the National Civic League (with support from the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation), presents a valuable set of tools, including a model ordinance, set of policy options, and resource list, to help communities improve public participation.

We released the publication at a launch event on Wednesday (October 23rd) at the Brookings Institution in D.C. Download this free — but extremely valuable — publication today at www.tinyurl.com/p2law.

The tools and articles in Making Public Participation Legal were developed over the past year by the Working Group on Legal Frameworks for Public Participation — an impressive team convened and guided by Matt Leighninger of the Deliberative Democracy Consortium (DDC).

In addition to DDC, NCL and NCDD, the Working Group also includes representatives of the American Bar Association, International Municipal Lawyers Association, National League of Cities, Policy Consensus Initiative, International Association for Public Participation, and International City/County Management Association, as well as leading practitioners and scholars of public participation.

Wednesday’s launch event was opened by Darrell West, Brookings’ VP and director of Governance Studies and the director of the Center for Technology Innovation. Members of an expert panel described the overarching problem as the lack of guiding principles to govern civic engagement. The panelists included moderator Matt Leighninger, executive director of the Deliberative Democracy ConsortiumLisa Blomgren Amsler, professor of public service at Indiana University, Mike Huggins, former city manager in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, and Kevin Curry, Program Director for the Code for America Brigade.

MakingP2Legal-coverThe main remedy the panelists proposed was the Model Municipal Public Participation Ordinance. Prof. Amsler said it would be a starting point to set the ground for whoever wants to innovate. The way public participation is defined in the ordinance allows for increased freedom of discussion and innovation. She also advocated for local government offices to appoint an individual to learn about public engagement, pass on that knowledge, and bridge the gap between the local government and the people in regards to public participation.

Leighninger described the situation created by the ordinance as “a model which … does not require public participation in any particular format but enables and supports what we hope will be better public participation.”

Huggins also supported the ordinance because it would create a positive definition of public participation as a public good. He saw it as an important way to foster more communication between the government and the public. To Huggins, the ordinance would build a capacity for local elected officials to have support from the community through discussion and innovation.

See the Brookings Institutions’ full overview of the event here, or download the audio archive here.

Download the publication from the National Civic League site at www.tinyurl.com/p2law.

Discussion of stakeholder and citizen roles in public deliberation

Here’s a warm invitation from a team of top deliberative democracy scholars and practitioners (David Kahane and Kristjana Loptson from Canada and Max Hardy and Jade Herriman from Australia) to join in an important exploration they’ve embarked on together…

Some public participation exercises bring together people who formally represent different constituencies, other exercises focus on ordinary or unaffiliated citizens, and others combine these.

We’re a team of deliberative democracy researchers and practitioners who wanted to explore the distinction between ‘citizens’ and ‘stakeholder representatives’, and how these groups are brought into public participation exercises. A conversation that began at a workshop in Australia early in 2011 led into a virtual Australia-Canada workshop, and now to a paper in the Journal of Public Deliberation at www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol9/iss2/art2/.

Here’s the abstract for the article:

This paper explores theoretical and practical distinctions between individual citizens (‘citizens’) and organized groups (‘stakeholder representatives’ or ‘stakeholders’ for short) in public participation processes convened by government as part of policy development. Distinctions between ‘citizen’ and ‘stakeholder’ involvement are commonplace in government discourse and practice; public involvement practitioners also sometimes rely on this distinction in designing processes and recruiting for them. Recognizing the complexity of the distinction, we examine both normative and practical reasons why practitioners may lean toward—or away from—recruiting citizens, stakeholders, or both to take part in deliberations, and how citizen and stakeholder roles can be separated or combined within a process. The article draws on a 2012 Canadian- Australian workshop of deliberation researchers and practitioners to identify key challenges and understandings associated with the categories of stakeholder and citizen and their application, and hopes to continue this conversation with the researcher-practitioner community.

We’re hoping that the conversation can continue here on the NCDD blog: we invite you to read the article and chime in with your stories, questions, comments, objections, and qualifications.

Here are a few prompts, to get you thinking:

  • Do you or others in your practice community distinguish between ‘citizen’ and ‘stakeholder’ processes (perhaps using other terminologies)?
  • The article explores reasons to involve stakeholder representatives in public deliberation and some cautions (pages 9-14): is there anything you’d want to add, modify, or challenge in this analysis?
  • The article does the same for citizen involvement in deliberative exercises (pages 15-18): what rings true to you there, or needs to be added or modified?
  • In the table on pages 18-19 and the text on 19-26, we look at different ways of designing deliberative exercises to include citizens, stakeholders, or both: how does this typology fit with your experience?
  • Overall, what’s helpful to you in the analysis we’ve offered? How could it be made more useful to practitioners or researchers? Is there something that you can add from your perspective?

David, Kristjana, Jade, and Max, the authors of the article, are very interested in your perspectives. We’ll watch this space and add our voices to the conversation (though there may be a bit of a lag to our responses, as we have lots going on!).

If there’s strong interest in this conversation, we may work with NCDD to find other ways of connecting with you and the broader community (e.g. a webinar, a session at the next NCDD gathering); suggestions welcome here too.

We know that our analysis so far is just the beginning of a conversation and exploration with the much broader D&D community. We’re grateful to Sandy and NCDD for this chance to keep talking.

Helping Community Voices Be Heard

We all would like to see communities having more say in their governments, but as many of us know, making our communities heard is not always easy.  That’s why we were touched by a story recently shared by our friends at Everyday Democracy about a New Mexico group that, despite challenges, persevered in not only making the voices of their community heard, but also in making those voices into local policy.

You can read the story below or find the original post on ED’s blog.  We also encourage you to watch the inspiring video about Families United for Change and their efforts by clicking here.


Creating school policy for the community, by the community

EvDem LogoCandelaria Patterson joined Families United for Education after seeing her son unfairly pushed out of high school.

“I knew that what happened to him was not right, and I wanted to make sure that other students didn’t have to go through the same situation,” she says.

Educators, community members, and parents like Patterson are now part of Families United for Education, a group working to improve the experience of students in Albuquerque schools. The organization quickly is becoming a symbol of unity and perseverance in Albuquerque.

In organizing parents and community members to advocate for its children, Families for United Education developed a new family engagement policy and pushed it through the Albuquerque Public Schools system to adoption.

The policy is centered on eliminating the often-adversarial relationship between schools and communities by replacing it with a more open process that engages parents and communities as key and valued resources.

The policy was in the works for more than two years and officially adopted last August. Implementation is scheduled this year.

It addresses community and parent demands for ending racism, discrimination and the alienation of people of color and marginalized sectors of student population.

Other goals include closing the academic gap that exists between European-American students and other students, as well as increasing parent participation within the school system.

Families for United Education also is advocating for training the school system staff in “understanding the root causes of inequalities,” as well as requiring the school system to “utilize the histories and cultures of our families as a foundation for education.”

The road these community members have taken to replace the older, ineffective policy was anything but easy.

Tony Watkins, an Albuquerque Public Schools coordinator and key organizer with Families for United Education, praised Everyday Democracy, a national organization based in Connecticut that provides resources for community engagement, for supporting the organization’s work.

“Everyday Democracy helped us to start our sessions of dialogues, which gave us a process for bringing together several communities and building relationships and generating data,” says Watkins.

Families for United Education then analyzed and organized the data and used it as a basis to develop the comprehensive engagement policy eventually adopted by Albuquerque Public Schools.

The policy and advocacy-styled strategies allowed Families for United Education to build bridges and eradicate barriers using methods rarely employed by local communities to address their discontent with the school system.

“There is something unique about (the leaders of) Families United for Education,” says Lorenzo Garcia, Albuquerque Public Schools board member and chair of its District Relations Committee. “They are articulate, they know how to use data, they are disciplined, and they can congratulate administrators when they do a good job.”

With its success in Albuquerque, Families for United Education is becoming a valued and requested ally in the quest to make public education in New Mexico more open and equitable.

Recently the organization contributed to two pieces of legislation introduced by Democratic state Sen. Linda M. Lopez. Senate Bill 579 would“require state agencies to review their policies and practices to ensure that they do not contribute to institutionalized racism.” Lopez also introduced a memorial (a form of legislation in New Mexico) calling for a “Student Bill of Rights,” initiated by two young people from the Southwest Organizing Project, an organization that supports Families United for Education.

Families United also played a supportive role in a memorial introduced by Democratic state Rep. Antonio (Moe) Maestas calling for a diverse school curriculum in New Mexico. The bill includes support for books that support Native American and Latino culture, such as Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire, and Rethinking Columbus: The Next 500 years by Bill Bigelow. These books were among several banned last year by school officials in Tucson, Ariz., when state lawmakers passed a law that removed Mexican-American Studies from its public schools.

Earlier this year, Families United also organized an Albuquerque Public Schools candidates’ forum and created report cards for each candidate based on key educational issues.

“I see this fight as being on a boat where everybody has to row to reach our destiny,” says Hanh Nguyen, a community member who has been involved with the group since its early stages. “Along the way, people will leave the boat, and others will get on and take their places. But as long as you are in the boat, you have to keep rowing,” he added.

talking about talking about controversial issues, on talk radio

This is the audio of my conversation yesterday with John Gambling, a self-described moderate conservative radio host on WOR in New York City. Gambling is concerned about civic education in schools, by which he primarily means teaching students to understand and appreciate the Constitution. I said that students must also learn to discuss current issues with civility and good information. He seemed to agree on the grounds that (1) he is a civil and substantive person who talks about issues on the air, and (2) political correctness is at fault for blocking good conversations in schools.

I would agree that Gambling is a good participant in public debate, even though he and I would probably vote for different candidates and policies in many cases. One way you can tell is that Gambling invites a wide range of guests onto his show and lets them talk, in marked contrast to people like Rush Limbaugh, who dominate with their own views.

I also share his concern about political correctness, as long as we define that right. According to CIRCLE’s recent survey for the Commission on Youth Voting and Civic Knowledge , about one quarter of high school American government teachers believe that parents would object if political issues were discussed in their classes. That resistance has a chilling effect, the teachers told it. It discourages them from talking about current events.

Some of the pushback probably comes from conservative parents who don’t want their kids talking about sex or race, or who worry that teachers (unionized public employees) may expose their children to views they disagree with. But the resistance also comes from the left. I have talked to parents in northeastern urban districts–people I am sure vote liberal–who explicitly resist discussions of controversial current issues in their kids’ schools. I think John Gambling and I agreed that this is wrong.

The post talking about talking about controversial issues, on talk radio appeared first on Peter Levine.

Our field’s readiness to engage people online

As part of the Online Facilitation Unconference that’s going on right now in the midst of IAF’s International Facilitation Week, I’d like to engage people around a compelling report produced by our friends at AmericaSpeaks, an NCDD organizational member.

AmericaSpeaks_LogoThe report is nice and short (just 5 pages long!), and focuses on how we might use new forms of media, digital platforms, and citizen engagement principles to reengage the center and those who have turned out due to apathy and disgust.  Download it here.

It’s a good read, but I wanted to encourage us to reflect on / respond to a few points made in the article that question our field’s readiness to move into the online realm.  For those new to NCDD who might be coming in from the unconference, by “our field” I’m talking about the community of practitioners and innovators whose work centers on participatory practices like dialogue and deliberation.

The authors make a compelling and troubling statement about the readiness of dialogue and deliberation practitioners to move into the online realm:

Many resources exist within the field of “deliberative democracy” about ways to create effective and meaningful citizen engagement that is linked to policy making. However, this field is historically linked to in-person, face-to-face engagement and has been challenged to successfully translate to online and digital engagement….

Some efforts have been made from within the dialogue and deliberation community to create online dialogue forums, but they have not been able to attract participants and have not yet proven that they would be effective with large numbers of participants. Could some form of online tool that combines a reputation system, peer monitoring, language processing, sentiment analysis, and targeted interventions by human facilitators overcome this challenge? This is an area that requires considerable experimentation along with some research and development.

Practitioners of citizen engagement have been hampered by their inability to separate methodology from the principles discussed above. It is difficult for experienced practitioners to set aside their traditional methods. In order to find new ways of achieving these principles in online engagement, extensive collaboration with those experienced in digital engagement will be necessary.

Do these statements ring true to you?  A lot of it certainly rings true to me, but I’m curious whether others will disagree.

And if our community needs to separate our allegiance to specific face-to-face engagement methodologies in order to be more successful engaging people online, how can we best do that?  What principles and practices do we need to hold onto, and what can we let go?  Do you agree with the principles the authors cited as needing to be upheld whether engagement happens face-to-face or online — linked to decision making, diverse representation, informed participation and facilitation?  What else would you add?

Cartographers of the Commons

How far we’ve come in ten years!  In 2004 a number of us at the Tomales Bay Institute – the predecessor to On the Commons – tried to get a number of small communities to conduct what we called “local commons surveys.”  The idea was to encourage people to make their own inventory of the many overlooked commons that touch their everyday lives, and especially those that are threatened by enclosure.  By making commons more visible, we reasoned, people might begin to organize to defend them.  It was a great idea, but only one or two communities actually got it together to survey their local commons.  A valiant experiment with modest results. 

Now we are the midst of a veritable explosion of commons mapping projects.  In October alone, there have been two loud thunderclaps of activity along these lines -- the MapJams organized by  Shareable.net and Ville en biens communs in France. 

The MapJam took place this month in over fifty cities in the US, Europe, Australia and Arab nations.  The process consisted of people meeting up to share what they know about sharing projects in their communities.  They ten categorized the results, co-created a map and spread the word.  It’s all part of the new Sharing Cities Project launched by Shareable.

Many of the new cartographers of the commons are overlaying specific sharing projects and commons on top of Google Maps.  Here, for example, is a map from Share Denver. And here is the map from Sharing City Berlin.  

As if by cosmic coincidence, hundreds of self-organized commoners in dozens of communities in France and Francophone nations recently participated in a similar exercise. Hosted by Villes en biens communs, many communities produced maps while others hosted workshops, experiments or convivial meet-ups.  All of them focused on the commons.

read more

Making Participation Legal

This is pretty much how “public participation” looks when it takes the form of a meeting with officials at the head of the table defending their policies, and their fellow citizens lining up to speak:

The “Parks and Recreaton” satire hits so close to home because public forums usually use awful formats and methods. As Matt Leighninger writes:

The vast majority of public meetings are run according to a formula that hasn’t changed in decades: officials and other experts present, and citizens are given three-minute increments to either ask questions or make comments. There is very little interaction or deliberation. Turnout at most public meetings is very low – local officials often refer to the handful of people who typically show up as the “usual suspects.” But if the community has been gripped by a controversy, turnout is often high, and the three-minute commentaries  can last long into the night. On most issues, the public is either angry or absent; either way, very little is accomplished.*

One reason is the laws that allow or require public participation: they are poorly structured. The Working Group on Legal Frameworks for Public Participation has developed frameworks for better state and local laws. Their model legislation and other materials are presented in a new report, Making Public Participation Legal, available from the Deliberative Democracy Consortium (DDC).

*Making Public Participation Legal, p. 3.

The post Making Participation Legal appeared first on Peter Levine.