Will Friedman Interview from NCDD Seattle

At the 2012 NCDD national conference in Seattle, NCDD member and filmmaker Jeffrey Abelson sat down with over a dozen leaders in our community to ask them about their work and their hopes and concerns for our field and for democratic governance in our country.

Today we’re featuring the interview with Will Friedman, president of Public Agenda, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that helps diverse leaders and citizens navigate complex, divisive issues and work together to find solutions. A leading organization in our field, Public Agenda is a long-time organizational member and friend of NCDD. Public Agenda sponsored NCDD Seattle at the partner level last year.

Keep an eye on the blog over the next couple of months for more videos from NCDD Seattle, which brought together 400 leaders and innovators in our field.  You can also check out Jeffrey Abelson’s Song of a Citizen YouTube channel and in our NCDD 2012 Seattle playlist on YouTube.

Will Friedman Interview from NCDD Seattle

At the 2012 NCDD national conference in Seattle, NCDD member and filmmaker Jeffrey Abelson sat down with over a dozen leaders in our community to ask them about their work and their hopes and concerns for our field and for democratic governance in our country.

Today we’re featuring the interview with Will Friedman, president of Public Agenda, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that helps diverse leaders and citizens navigate complex, divisive issues and work together to find solutions. A leading organization in our field, Public Agenda is a long-time organizational member and friend of NCDD. Public Agenda sponsored NCDD Seattle at the partner level last year.

Keep an eye on the blog over the next couple of months for more videos from NCDD Seattle, which brought together 400 leaders and innovators in our field.  You can also check out Jeffrey Abelson’s Song of a Citizen YouTube channel and in our NCDD 2012 Seattle playlist on YouTube.

Report Back on Mental Health in Kansas City

As you may know, NCDD is involved in the Creating Community Solutions mental health project, and we hope you will take a moment to read a recent update that our partners at AmericaSpeaks shared on their blog.

creating solutions

On Saturday, September 21, the Creating Community Solutions effort of the National Dialogue on Mental Health hosted a successful all-day town meeting in Kansas City, Missouri. The meeting was part of the collaborative effort lead by the National Institute for Civil Discourse. It was organized and managed by a veteran of dialogue and deliberation, Jen Wilding, with the support of a small but dedicated team and a large and diverse planning committee.

The Mayors of both Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Kansas opened and closed the event and spent the entire day participating. U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius also helped open the event that generated lots of good news coverage:

Kansas City Start Article
Fox 4 News Video

Like the events before it in Sacramento and Albuquerque, the organizers successfully recruited a large and diverse audience of 360 participants with pretty good representation of the community along lines of age and race. And like previous meetings, higher educated people were over represented, but this is hard to overcome given the number of health professionals involved.

Click here for a full report on the meeting including data about the participants and the outcomes of all the table discussions.

It was a great pleasure to work with the team in Kansas City to help them produce an AmericaSpeaks 21st Century Town Meeting and support the on-going National Dialogue on Mental Health.

John Gastil Interview from NCDD Seattle

At the 2012 NCDD national conference in Seattle, NCDD member and filmmaker Jeffrey Abelson sat down with over a dozen leaders in our community to ask them about their work and their hopes and concerns for our field and for democratic governance in our country.

Today we’re featuring the interview with John Gastil, Head of the Department of Communication Arts and Sciences at Penn State University.  A long time member, friend and supporter of NCDD, John is one of our field’s most respected researchers. Many of you will remember John as our co-emcee at NCDD Seattle (with Susanna Haas Lyons). He has authored many books on deliberation, including Democracy in Motion: Evaluating the Practice and Impact of Deliberative Civic Engagement (with NCDD members Tina Nabatchi and Matt Leighninger), The Deliberative Democracy Handbook (with NCDD member Peter Levine), and Democracy in Small Groups — to name just a few!

Watch the blog over the next month or so for more videos from NCDD Seattle, which brought together 400 leaders and innovators in our field.  You can also check out Jeffrey Abelson’s Song of a Citizen YouTube channel and in our NCDD 2012 Seattle playlist on YouTube.

Collaborative Master Planning (Featured D&D Story)

Today we’d like to feature another great example of dialogue and deliberation in action, Collaborative Master Planning. This mini case study was submitted by Karen Wianecki via NCDD’s new Dialogue Storytelling Tool, which we recently launched to collect stories from our members about their work.

We know that there are plenty of other stories from our NCDD members out there that can teach key insights about working in dialogue, deliberation, and engagement. We want to hear them! Please add YOUR dialogue story today, and let us learn from you!


D&D stories logoTitle of Project:

Collaborative Master Planning – The Difference Between Consultation & Engagement

Description

We were retained to develop Master Plans for three very special and very unique communities in Ontario, Canada. In developing the Master Plans, we made a commitment to work with the community and to embrace a co-creative and collaborative mindset, at the process.

We recognized early on that whole community engagement was critical and moreover that those who called these communities home knew more about their communities than we did. We were there to learn. The process was designed with participants. Each community determined the approach they wanted to see unfold. In each case, an open, inclusive, engaging, iterative and evolutionary approach was used.

The Master Plans that emerged received broad support from the community members – full time residents as well as seasonal residents. In one case, the community offered the Mayor and Members of Council a standing ovation. A number of major milestones were put in place and some real tangible results have emerged including the infusion of funds from upper levels of government, the acquisition of a signature waterfront site, and the development of a much needed public park, boat launch and beach area.

Which dialogue and deliberation approaches did you use or borrow heavily from?

  • Appreciative Inquiry
  • Conversation Cafe
  • Charrettes

What was your role in the project?

Primary Facilitator

What issues did the project primarily address?

  • Economic issues
  • Environment
  • Planning and development

Lessons Learned

  • Engage, do not consult. For many, the only message that emerges from consultation is the ‘con’ part.
  • Engage early and often.
  • Say what you mean and mean what you say. commitments. 5. Follow up and follow through.
  • Value the voices of all.
  • Build a ‘whole team approach.’ All of us have some of the answers; none of us have all of the answers.
  • Process is as important as product.
  • Recognize that collaboration and partnership can produce results that are truly remarkable.

Where to learn more about the project:

www.e-planningsolutions.ca

New NIF Issue Guide: Who Protects Our Privacy?

Privacy_cover_blueOur partners at the National Issues Forum Institute have developed a new issue guide, this time in partnership with American Library Association, that we encourage you to find out more about.  The guide is called “Who Do I Trust to Protect My Privacy?”, and it is designed to help guide conversations about how our personal information should be protected and by whom.  In our digitized and tech-integrated world, we have to find a way to strike the right balance between information accessibility and personal privacy – this guide can help you engage participants in quality discussions on how we actually get there.

This excerpt from the introduction gets to the heart of what this newest guide is about:

In an era of social networks, online databases, and cloud computing, more and more individuals’ personal information is available online and elsewhere. The ease of communicating information in the digital age has changed the way we live, learn, work, and govern. But such instant access to information also presents new challenges to our personal privacy. We depend more and more on evolving technologies and social norms that encourage the disclosure of personal information. What are our expectations for privacy in the digital realm? Is it reasonable to expect that information by and about us remain private? Who do I trust to protect my privacy?

As with other NIF guides, three options for moving forward are laid out for further deliberation.  The guide challenges participants to deliberate and decide on which of the following entities should have the final responsibility for protecting our privacy:

  • Option 1: The Marketplace
  • Option 2: The Government
  • Option 3: Myself

For a deeper look at how we might weigh these options, check out the NIF’s full blog post about the guide by clicking here.

You can also find more issue materials, including moderator guides and questionnaires at this link.

Enjoy the guide, good luck as you move forward with deliberations on how to better protect our privacy!

Engaging Students on Policy with Choicework

We wanted to share a post from our friends at Public Agenda on the usefulness of their Choicework approach for teaching and engaging students in discussion about public policy, even when they are jaded on politics.  You can read more about the approach below or find the original post here.

PublicAgenda-logoLife on campus this fall will be very different from last year, when a forthcoming election enlivened debate from the dining hall to the lecture hall. But in an off year for national politics, how can you build your students’ interest in critical public issues?

Engaging students on public issues is not an easy task, and no wonder. It’s hard for most to connect with theoretical policy, especially when they see their political system as inept, broken, or otherwise unworthy of trust. For students enmeshed in social lives, academics, a job and, often, family responsibilities, talking about policy can seem even more hopeless. While many students may simply consider such matters as wholly theoretical abstractions far removed from the reality of their daily lives, we know they are not. Policy has the ability to change the answer to questions like: Will I have a job in my field when I graduate? Has technology forever changed the landscape of employment? What does the Affordable Care Act mean for me when I turn 26?

We’ve found that there are ways to make policy decisions come alive for students (as well as other members of the public). Together with the Kettering Foundation, Public Agenda developed the Choicework approach. Rooted in the theories of our co-founder, Dan Yankelovich, Choicework can be truly transformative for a few reasons. In the same way that storytelling can bring a news article, research or cause to life, Choicework roots policy approaches in finite and human choices, using accessible language and grounding the choices in essential values that people really connect with.

Choicework can make policy come to life. The point is not to choose one and only one approach; rather, by emphasizing the inherent choices and stakes in the issue at hand brings policy to life, Choicework helps students connect to it and envision how policy plays out in their own lives and the lives of others, and visualize other approaches and broaden the discussion.

In addition to Immigration, Public Agenda has published Citizen Solutions Guides on Jobs & The EconomyHealthcareEducationThe Federal Budget, and Energy. All of our CSG’s include introductory overviews of the topic, key facts, links to online supporting documentation, and illustrative charts and graphs.

Interested in experimenting with this approach in your classroom? Our nonpartisan Citizens’ Solutions Guides on some of our nation’s most hotly contested issues make great discussion starters in the lecture hall and are free to download. We’d love to hear your stories putting Choicework to use. Let us know how it works out!

Group Decision Tip: Credit the Group

In principle, members of high-functioning groups are focused on the success of the group as a whole rather than on who should get credit or blame within the group. Harry Truman said, “It is amazing what you can do if you do not care who gets the credit.” Similarly, groups get more done when unconcerned with assigning blame.

Group Decision Tips IconRather than spend energy accounting for past individual credit or blame, it is better to invest lessons from the past into future good group decisions. When I believe in my group I know that, over the long run, what is good for the group will be good for me—probably better for me than I could ever have achieved on my own.

Practical Tip: Give your ideas and efforts to the group without conditions, without lingering ownership. Welcome contributions from others without jealousy, without resentment. Show public appreciation for others in your group. Own your share of things gone wrong and credit the group for things gone right.

A mark of a high-functioning team is that each member wants to make other members look good.

Gathering photos of public meetings for Legal Frameworks project

NCDD is working with the Deliberative Democracy Consortium and National Civic League to “crowdsource” some great photos of public meetings.  What photos do you have that you feel depict what “bad” public meetings look like?  And do you have favorite photos that show what “good” public meetings can look like?

Send in your photos this week via email, to NCDD’s Creative Director Andy Fluke (andy@ncdd.org). Send in the highest-quality versions you have, and include a by-line (photographer name, where taken, etc.) and verifies that this is your photo to use/share.  We’ll ask more questions if we need them, and we’ll check with you before using the photos in print.

Your photo may be chosen to help promote an important project we want to bring your attention to. For the past year, Matt Leighninger (director of the Deliberative Democracy Consortium) has been spearheading a Working Group on Legal Frameworks for Public Participation with representatives of the American Bar Association, International Municipal Lawyers Association, NCDD, National Civic League, National League of Cities, and International City/County Management Association, as well as leading practitioners and scholars of public participation.

The group has developed several new tools, including a model local ordinance and model amendment to state legislation, in order to help create a more supportive, productive, and equitable environment for public participation. These open source documents will soon be released as a publication of the National Civic League (where your photo could be featured!).

Why develop new legal frameworks for public participation?

Most people dislike official public meetings. This is true for both the public officials who preside over them and the citizens who attend them. Over the last two decades, a wide range of participatory meeting formats and dynamic online tools have emerged – so why do we continue conducting public business in such an outdated fashion?

There are a number of reasons, but one is the legal framework that governs public participation.

Most of these laws and ordinances 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.

We’re looking for photos from the field to help us illustrate the need for better laws to support better public meetings.  We also welcome your anecdotes and examples that help bolster the need for more a supportive legal framework for public participation.  How have existing laws made it harder for high-quality engagement to take place in your community?  How have you worked around those laws to make sure citizens can be informed by each other and heard by public officials?  Have you help upgrade your city’s legal framework already?  Please send your responses to Andy so he can collect them for the team.

If you want to continue this discussion face-to-face, please join us at the Brookings Institution on October 12 from 9:30 to 11:30 am for “Making Public Participation Legal Again,” a session that will launch the model ordinance and the NCL publication.  Brookings is located at 1775 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC.