Monthly Archives: February 2015

Social Security: How Can We Afford It? (NIFI Issue Guide)

Posted on by
Reply

The National Issues Forums Institute published Social Security: How Can We Afford It?, a 13-page Issue Guide in December 2014 to offer information for deliberation on the future of social security.

From the guide…

Projections in 2013 showed that the Social Security Trust Fund could run out of money in 2033. Growing federal deficits and a rising national debt have made many wonder whether Social Security will soon become too great a burden on the workers who have to pay for it…

Many Americans are reexamining the principles on which Social Security is based and are thinking anew about the nature of individual responsibility. What does the government owe the elderly? Should saving for retirement be strictly an individual responsibility? Is it fair to require succeeding generations to shoulder the increasing burden of supporting retirees?

The question we must face is this: how can we best provide for Americans’ retirement?

The Issue Guide presents three options for deliberation:

NIF-SocialSecurityOption One: Shore Up and Reaffirm Social Security
Social Security benefits represent a promise made to Americans, symbolizing a shared commitment to one another that is a fundamental value of our country. The program has earned its near-universal support, and the promise should be kept by doing whatever it takes to keep these benefits as they are.

Option Two: End Reliance on Social Security for Retirement
Government has been taking too much responsibility for the well-being of its older citizens, undermining the nation’s traditional emphasis on self-reliance. We should phase-in a privatized system of retirement savings accounts, which could be regulated by the government, but controlled and managed by individuals.

Option Three: Reinvent Retirement and Social Security
It is unrealistic to continue to support a plan that enables people to retire in their early-to-mid-60s when the average life span is now 78. The compact that Social Security represents should be adjusted to take that change into account.

More about the NIFI Issue Guides

NIFI’s Issue Guides introduce participants to several choices or approaches to consider. Rather than conforming to any single public proposal, each choice reflects widely held concerns and principles. Panels of experts review manuscripts to make sure the choices are presented accurately and fairly. By intention, Issue Guides do not identify individuals or organizations with partisan labels, such as Democratic, Republican, conservative, or liberal. The goal is to present ideas in a fresh way that encourages readers to judge them on their merit.

NIF-Logo2014

Issue Guides are generally available in print or PDF download for a small fee ($2 to $4).

All NIFI Issue Guides and associated tools can be accessed at www.nifi.org/en/issue-guides

Resource Link: www.nifi.org/en/issue-guide/social-security-how-can-we-afford-it-updated-edition-2014

Infectious Disease Outbreaks: How Should We Keep Our Communities Safe? (NIFI Issue Advisory)

Posted on by
Reply

In January 2015, the National Issues Forums Institute released the four-page Issue Advisory, Infectious Disease Outbreaks: How Should We Keep Our Communities Safe? The Issue Advisory is not a full NIFI issue guide, though provides a basic outline of options for participants to use in deliberation on handling infectious disease. It can be downloaded for free here.

From the introduction…

The outbreak of Ebola has reached the United States and this has raised concerns among many about how to respond to international outbreaks of contagious, potentially deadly diseases for which vaccines are not yet available.

Ebola spread so rapidly in parts of Africa—and its effects are so dramatic—that many Americans are understandably frightened that isolated cases in this country could turn into a more widespread epidemic. While contracting Ebola requires direct contact with body fluids from an infected person who is showing symptoms, health-care workers who had apparently been following precautions have contracted it.

Health experts say it is important to remember that the number of Ebola cases in the U.S. is minuscule, while according to the Centers for Disease Control more than 200,000 Americans are hospitalized for the flu each year. And as we work through how best to respond, many are mindful that the lack of sanitation and health-care resources is largely to blame for Ebola’s deadly toll in impoverished areas of western Africa. Recovery by patients treated in the U.S. has been promising. But at the same time, what many see as obvious gaps in protection by a variety of institutions in the early stages of the U.S. outbreak have people wondering how ready we are as a society for other, similar problems. While Ebola is one example used in this issue advisory, these considerations might apply to many other infectious diseases, as well.

The issue advisory presents three options for deliberation:NIF-IssueAdvisory_Disease

Option One: “Enforce Safety Rules”
We must institute strong measures to contain any incidence of a deadly communicable disease.

Option Two: “Stamp It Out at the Source”
The world must vastly increase its efforts to address public health crises in the location where diseases first occur, such as the African Ebola Zone.

Option Three: “Emphasize Prevention and Preparation in the Community”
We should get serious about prevention and preparation.

More about the NIFI Issue Advisory
This Issue Advisory is meant to support deliberative forums in communities of all types. In productive deliberation, people examine the advantages and disadvantages of different options for addressing a difficult public problem, weighing these against the things they hold deeply valuable. The framework outlined in this issue advisory encompasses several options and provides an alternative means for moving forward in order to avoid polarizing rhetoric. Each option is rooted in a shared concern, proposes a distinct strategy for addressing the problem, and includes roles for citizens to play. Equally important, each option presents the drawbacks inherent in each action.

NIF-Logo2014

All NIFI issue guides and associated tools can be accessed at www.nifi.org/en/issue-guides

Resource Link: www.nifi.org/en/catalog/product/infectious-disease-outbreaks-how-should-we-keep-our-communities-safe

Update on Pastor-Scientist Dialogue Series from PA

Posted on by
Reply

We have been watching the development of a fascinating series from the good folks with NCDD member organization Public Agenda wherein they are bringing together evangelical Christians and scientists for dialogue. We’ve shared their latest blog posts on how the dialogues have gone, and we encourage you to read it below or find the original here.

Diffusing Tension Through Dialogue – and a Touch of Humor

PublicAgenda-logoPublic Agenda is partnering with AAAS to facilitate a series of dialogues between scientists and evangelical Christian pastors throughout the summer and fall. The purpose of the project is to improve dialogue, relationships and collaboration between these two communities, often viewed as staunchly divided. This blog is one in a series from our public engagement team, who write to reflect on their experiences moderating the dialogues. Read more about this project here and here, and download the discussion guide used during these conversations here. For more information, email Allison Rizzolo.

A few weeks ago in Atlanta, I found myself in a room surrounded by church pastors, evolutionary biologists, theology professors, mathematicians and a former Vietnam veteran turned evangelical Christian. I was there for the third dialogue in the Perceptions Project, which brings together individuals who self-identify as belonging to the evangelical Christian community or (though in some cases “and” is more appropriate) the scientific community.

Many of the participants seemed nervous at the start of the dialogue. Though I served as a co-facilitator and was not technically a participant, I admit that I too approached the conversation with a hint of reticence. Before boarding my plane to Atlanta, a friend told me to “watch myself” since he claimed that there was “no way those two groups could manage to be civil toward one another, especially down in the Bible belt.”

What I found, however, was quite the opposite of that presupposition.

The group certainly tackled some tricky topics – evolution, stem cell research, and abortion, to name a few. Still, the group my colleague Susan and I led was filled with some of the most empathetic, curious, and kindest people I had met in quite some time.

For example, one of the scientists in the room brought up the Institutional Review Board process. Through this process, scientists present their research projects to a group of their institutional colleagues, who determine whether or not that project is ethical and can proceed. The board is responsible for deciding whether the welfare of human participants is protected, among other things.

One pastor was shocked to learn that all scientists must go through this process, saying, “I had no idea that scientists actually cared about the sanctity of life.”

A biologist quipped, “We have morals too!”

Within a moment, laughter filled the room. The participants began to ease up, and suddenly the stage was set for true, honest, and constructive dialogue. Everyone in the room seemed to start abandoning their preconceived notions of the “other’s” theoretical identity and began to view one another as real people who deserved credit for having their own unique perspectives, all varying in scope and range. Not one person in that room fit the mold of a cookie-cutter stereotype. And the truth is, no one ever does.

One of the biggest takeaways of Public Agenda’s partnership with AAAS is that no barrier is ever too big to break down. Participants exchanged business cards across communities and made plans to continue the conversation after the workshop was over – a true sign of a successful event. While some participants agreed to disagree, they did accomplish one major feat, as the beloved Aretha Franklin would put it:

“R-E-S-P-E-C-T, find out what it means to me…”

And that, in my opinion, is exactly what happened in Atlanta.

You can find the original version of this piece by visiting www.publicagenda.org/blogs/diffusing-tension-through-dialogue-and-a-touch-of-humor#sthash.VEdpzNjV.dpuf.

The Campaign for a Presidential Youth Council

Posted on by
Reply

Case: The Campaign for a Presidential Youth Council

Feb 20 '15
Author: 
Kathryn Bussey
The Campaign for a Presidential Youth Council is a youth-led, non-partisan initiative that seeks to have the President of the U.S. establish an advisory youth council composed of students aged 16-24. The proposed Presidential Youth Council will advise both the President and Congress on the youth perspective; suggest how best...

Aligning Engagement with Function Over Form

Posted on by
Reply

We recently read a commentary by the Davenport Institute  – an NCDD organizational member – on their Gov 2.0 Watch blog remarking on an insightful article we think NCDD members would appreciate. The article has key insights about the importance of aligning engagement with the functions of government rather than its ever-shifting administrative structure, and how online engagement can help. We encourage you to read more below or find the original post here.

DavenportInst-logoContinuity in the Face of Change

One of the most common criticisms of government – especially in the age of technology – is a perceived resistance to change.  But change does bring disruption. As governments seek to become more innovative, as fiscal realities demand continue to require organizational restructuring, and as technological advances require flexibility with platforms and design, this can have real impact on a government’s community engagement.

Recently the Australian public sector blog The Mandarin took a look at how governments can keep well organized and clear channels of communication open in the face of such disruptions. The article notes:

Traditional face-to-face engagement processes are largely project based and the impact on the community is limited to some bewilderment at the new logos, and muttering about the cost. There may also be a knock on impact if there are major staff changes, if there is a hiatus in progress, or if the new department has changed priorities.

But the article goes on to describe how changing the focus and organization – not of the government but of the engagement – can lead to stronger, more sustainable relationships between governments and residents even in the face of change.  The solution focuses mainly on online strategies, but the general organization strategies could also apply in face-to-face engagement efforts, especially as those become institutionalized as part of a new culture:

Let’s face it, the community doesn’t actually care, by and large, which department they are talking to. It’s the issue that matters, so don’t align engagement efforts with administrative structures. Instead, align your engagement, and specifically online engagement efforts, with functions that you know will continue to exist regardless of the brand applied to them or the structure of their delivery in future governments.

If you are, for example, a state government department with responsibility for the environment, heritage, and primary industries, then establish an online engagement portal for each of these functions. Perhaps break them down further.

You can read more here.

The Accidental Admiral

Posted on by
Reply

Today, I had the pleasure of attending a talk by James Stavridis, Dean of Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Previously, Dean Stavridis, a retired Admiral in the U.S. Navy, served as the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.

So he’s kind of a big deal.

Dean Stavridis discussed a range of issues, including his book, The Accidental Admiral. As the name implies, the book traces his unexpected life journey.

So much of our lives are accidental, Stavridis mused as he described his rise to “Supreme Allied Commander of NATO” – a title which doesn’t sound like a role a real person would have.

Someone asked him how – before he found himself in a position of such power – he dealt with that sense of individual effort being futile in the face of such great challenges. How did he answer the question, what can I do when I’m just one person?

Stavridis responded with a Russian proverb – it’s better to light a candle than to curse the light.

One person can make a difference, he argued. But for one person to make a difference it takes collaboration. We each have the power to generate change, but to do so effectively, to do so in a good way, we need to work together.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

A New Alignment of Movements?

Posted on by
Reply

In September 2014, the Commons Strategies Group convened a three-day workshop in Meissen, Germany, of 25 policy advocates and activists from a variety of different economic and social movements.  The topic of the "deep dive":  Can leading alt-economic and social movements find ways to work more closely together?  Can there be a greater convergence and collaboration in fighting the pathologies of neoliberalism? 

The activists hailed from movements devoted to the Social and Solidarity Economy, Degrowth, Co-operatives, Transition Towns, the Sharing and Collaborative Economy, Peer Production, environmental justice, and the commons, among others. While most came from Europe, there were also participants from Canada, the US, Brazil, Ireland and the UK. The workshop was organized by the Commons Strategies Group, which gratefully acknowledges the indispensable support of the Heinrich Böll Foundation (Germany) and the Charles Léopold Mayer Foundation (France and Switzerland).

Before this workshop, roughly a dozen of the same participants had deliberated on the topic of "open co-operativism" a few days earlier at a separate gathering in Berlin. The report synthesizing those conversations, "Toward an Open Co-operativism," were released three weeks ago and can be found here. 

Below, the Introduction to the report, "A New Alignment of Movements?" which synthesizes the salient points of discussion from the Meissen workshop. The 39-page report, by David Bollier and Pat Conaty, can be downloaded as a pdf file here.  

Despite the deepening crisis of neoliberalism in Europe, no clear alternative critiques or philosophical approaches have emerged that could catalyze a united response or new convergence of movements. Indeed, the traditional left has not only not profited politically from the ongoing crisis, but, with a few exceptions, its popularity has actively declined. With the notable exception of the Greece, recent European elections have shown a marked move to the radical right among major segments of the European electorate.

But if the classic political expressions of resistance may be wanting, that does not mean that there have not been positive developments.  Amongst these are the “growth”of the degrowth movement and other ecological/sustainability oriented movements; the emergence of a commons orientation amongst political groups in countries like Italy; the creation of thousands of alternative solidarity mechanisms in Greece and Spain; a revival of co-operativism as an economic and social alternative; ongoing work by the Social and Solidarity Economy movement; and movements ranging from Transition Towns to “shareable cities” to local food.

Interesting political expressions include the massive mobilisations of youth around the 15M “real democracy”platform in Spain, the success of left parties with a transformative agenda such as Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain, the emergence of parties expressing digital culture such as the Pirate Parties (in more than two dozen nations), and platform parties calling for direct democracy like the Partido X in Spain. These efforts have been accompanied by many constructive efforts by precariously employed youth to create alternatives for their livelihoods, also expressed in the emergence of the “sharing economy.”

Is it possible to imagine a convergence of movement practice and goals – blending constructive, social and political movements –in ways that advance the idea of “unity in diversity”? Is it possible to imagine the reconstruction of socially progressive majorities at the local, national and European level?

read more

Job Opening with the William D. Ruckelshaus Center

Posted on by
Reply

We are excited to share that the William D. Ruckelshaus Center – one of the wonderful co-sponsors of our NCDD 2014 conference – is hiring! The Ruckelshaus Center is seeking a Development and Communications Coordinator to work with them in Washington state, and will be accepting applications until February 25th.

Ruckelshaus works to foster collaborative problem solving across the Pacific Northwest, and we know that many of our NCDD members could be a great fit for the job. Here’s how the position is described:

The Development and Communications Coordinator is a development professional with strong written, oral, visual and interpersonal communications skills. The position supports the work of the Project and Development Lead by overseeing preparation of grants, contract proposals and reports for the William D. Ruckelshaus Center Foundation, as well as coordinating development-related events. The position assists in research, refinement and implementation of Center fund raising strategy including relationships with the Center’s Advisory Board Development Committee, university development staff and current/potential donors and funders, and coordinates donor stewardship. The Development and Communications Coordinator also supports the work of the Communications Specialist by coordinating the design, writing, editing and publishing of Center printed and electronic communications including outreach materials, brochures, newsletter, eNews, website, reports, etc.

We encourage all who are interested to check out the full job listing by visiting www.wsujobs.com/postings/16810. You can also learn more by visiting the Ruckelshaus Center’s website at http://ruckelshauscenter.wsu.edu.

Good luck to all the applicants, and thanks again to the Ruckelshaus Center for supporting NCDD!

Prison Labor

Posted on by
Reply

A new story emerged from Boston’s never-ending snow fall yesterday: first there was a call for people to help shovel the MBTA tracks at a rate of $30/hour. Not long after that, came a clarification: the offer was only open to union members.

Then, at last, an additional observation: state prison inmates were also clearing the tracks.

Presumably, with plenty of snow to go around, these inmates weren’t taking any union jobs, but there are still plenty of concerns with this approach.

For one thing, just how much are the prisoners getting paid for their work? The Department of Corrections hasn’t released those details, but with the median wage of state workers coming to  a meager 20 cents, I’m going to guess they weren’t paid very much.

I was really taken with the reaction to this news. The comments on Universal Hub offer a pretty diverse range of views, coupled with a somewhat hilarious attempt at citing various acquaintance as sources.

Some people were appalled, calling the use of prison inmates “slave labor.” Others were supportive, explaining that the program is voluntary and that it support re-entry.

And then, of course, there’s that old canard:

These are men who commented crimes and have lost the right to be part of society. In order to be invited back into society they’re being punished accordingly…When you commit crimes and are found guilty you give up some of your basic rights.

But how are we to evaluate these conflicting views?

Well, first, I think it’s important to realize this is not anything new. In 2011, Middlesex County inmates went out shoveling with little fanfare. Suffolk County has operated a Community Works Program for years.

That program has a particularly engaging description, reassuring citizens that inmates are under the constant watch of an armed Sheriff’s deputy and that the end result of the program is quite simply a win–win. The inmates give back a measure of the cost of their incarceration while learning the skills needed to conduct themselves as responsible, contributing members of society and the law enforcement community benefits by breaking the cycle of inmate recidivism.

There’s even a happy logo of people with shovels to be extra convincing.

To be honest, I know nothing about this program, and I don’t have enough information to make an informed decision. But I am skeptical.

Maybe shoveling snow in sub-zero temperatures is more enjoyable than being locked in cage, but that doesn’t seem to be saying much.

Perhaps we should go all Roman and have inmates engage in Gladiatorial combat. After all, that would be a way more interesting way to live. I’d bet we’d volunteers.

But these individual, probably well-intentioned, programs are not my problem. The problem is deeper than that.

Today’s Boston Globe reported that the the idea to use inmate labor “came after Mayor Marty Walsh’s office asked all city departments to more efficiently use their resources.”

Because inmates are resources.

Not people.

And that’s the problem. It’s not a problem specific to Boston or to Massachusetts, but to our whole, national, prison system.

The 13th amendment states:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States

As much as I disagree with the commenter who argued that criminals have lost the right to be part of society, who argued that punishment is the only atonement for their sins, that’s really what this issue comes down to.

I don’t know much about people in prison, but I do know this: they are people.

They aren’t resources to be used efficiently. They aren’t three fifths of a person. They are people.

Living, breathing, feeling, people.

Regardless of their crimes, regardless of their wrongs, regardless of what sins we may see upon their soul – perhaps it’s time we started treating them like that:

Like people.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail