Category Archives: From the Community

Introducing The Transpartisan Review

Posted on by
Reply

In case you missed it in all the commotion of the past month, I want to encourage you to check out an important project launched on Inauguration Day 2017 by a handful of members and friends of NCDD – The Transpartisan Review.  I had the pleasure to join the team behind this new publication a few months ago, lending my skills as designer and editor, and I’d like to share a bit more about it.

Originally introduced to the NCDD community last fall at our NCDD 2016 conference, The Transpartisan Review is a new digital journal dedicated to sharing thoughts and insights from the growing transpartisan community.

In its inaugural issue, The Transpartisan Review explores the “transpartisan moment” we find ourselves in after the latest presidential election. Executive editors Lawrence Chickering and James Turner posit that we have reached a turning point in the history of our democracy – a transitional phase – which is offering us an opportunity to replace the “partisanship” splitting our country with a new form of political engagement incorporating the best features of left and right.

Alongside this assessment of the current political climate, this first issue of The Transpartisan Review shares several articles on a variety of topics, including contributions from distinguished NCDD members Joan Blades, Mark Gerzon, and Michael Briand (who also served as managing editor). It examines perspectives from the political side of NCDD’s #BridgingOurDivides campaign with articles contemplating how to be a better neighbor, an alternative approach to foreign policy, and even a different way to look at terrorism – all from a perspective that seeks to go beyond the traditional left-right divide.

Not only are they effective conversation starters, but these features represent the beginning of a dialogue the editors of the journal hope to encourage with and between its readership as we all gather to discuss the impact the new administration will have on the United States and the rest of the world.

You can read the entire issue online or download it for free at the journal’s website, www.transpartisanreview.com, and while you’re there, you can also check out Chickering and Turner’s Transpartisan Notes, a series of short-form articles on current issues viewed through a transpartisan lens.

You can look forward to more critical contributions to the work of bridging our nation’s divides in future issues of The Transpartisan Review and from this great team of NCDDers and transpartisan leaders.

Free NIFI Community-Police Relations Discussion Guides

Posted on by
Reply

We want to encourage our network to learn more about the new Safety & Justice discussion guide from the National Issues Forums Institute. As NIFI and the Kettering Foundation – both core NCDD member orgs – prepare for their yearly A Public Voice event in DC, they are collecting reports from deliberative forums on community-police relations and criminal justice reform to show policymakers that deliberation is more than “bumper sticker talk” and media representations.
NIFI is inviting all those hosting discussions on this critical issue to share their data and learnings with them so that they can be included in the conversation in DC, even if those conversations don’t use NIFI materials. You can learn more about how to participate and get free discussion guides in the NIFI blog post below or find the original here.

Special Spring ’17 Offer: Free Safety & Justice Materials to First 100 Moderators

Recently, the relationship between police and the communities they serve has become the focus of intense scrutiny, conversation, and even protest. The issue is difficult to talk about – and yet, we must, or this
issue could tear our communities apart.

A problem like this requires talk, but not just any talk. We need deliberative forums where  community members of all ages, races, ethnicities, religions, and professions can get beyond the talking points and bumper stickers. Forums where they can share not just what they think, but why. Places where we can consider tensions and tradeoffs and see where we may have common ground.

But in order for there to be forums, there have to be conveners and moderators.

And that’s why your community needs YOU. To get people started, NIFI is offering 20 FREE hard copies of the Safety and Justice issue guide + copy of the starter video to the first 100 moderators who can convene a forum between January 1, 2017 and March 15, 2017.

Sign up for your free materials HERE.

NIFI is offering these materials in partnership with the Kettering Foundation. Kettering will analyze participant questionnaires and other forum information for a report to policymakers at the A Public Voice event on May 9, and in a full report on the entire forums series at the end of the year.

To qualify for this special offer, you must:

  • Host a forum on Safety and Justice between January 1, 2017 and March 15, 2017.
  • Ensure that each participant and moderator complete a post-forum questionnaire.
  • Send all questionnaires back within a week of hosting the forum (all questionnaires must be sent by March 15, 2017).
  • Collect participant contact information for additional A Public Voice and NIFI opportunities.

I am asking each of you to consider offering a forum to a group with whom you have contact and who you feel is interested in this issue – your church, a book club, a class you are teaching, a civic organization to which you belong, etc. You can make a significant contribution to spreading awareness of public deliberation and to helping to find a solution to this significant public issue.
– NIFI President Emeritus Bill Muse

You can find the original version of this NIFI blog post at www.nifi.org/en/2017-safety-justice-offer.

The Challenge of Populism to Deliberative Democracy

Posted on by
Reply

As populism sees a global resurgence, it is critical for our field to examine what this phenomenon means for our work. That’s why we encourage our network to give some thought to the insights offered in this piece from Lucy Parry of Participedia – an NCDD member organization. In it, Lucy examines the way citizens juries in Australia might violate core tenets of populism, and encourage us to consider how deliberative democracy – especially approaches using mini-publics – may need to evolve to avoid being delegitimized by populist challenges. You can read the piece below or find it on Participedia’s blog here.

When is a democratic innovation not a democratic innovation? The populist challenge in Australia

The following article by Participedia Research Assistant Lucy Parry was originally published by The Policy Space on October 11, 2016.

Democratic innovation is burgeoning worldwide. Over 50 examples from Australia alone are now detailed on Participedia, an online global project documenting democratic innovations. In some states, ‘mini-publics’ proliferate at local and state level. South Australia in particular has wholeheartedly embraced the notion of deliberative democracy and has embarked on an ambitious raft of citizen engagement processes including several Citizens’ Juries.

According to Graham Smith (2009) a democratic innovation must (a) engage citizens over organised interests and (b) be part of the wider political process. Mini-publics operationalise these aims through convening a group of citizens who are at least broadly representative of the wider population to deliberate on a given topic.

Despite fulfilling Smith’s criteria, democratic innovations in Australia run the risk of becoming neither democratic nor innovative. Scholarly debate over mini-publics peaked over a decade ago – isn’t it time to move on? Moving on necessitates moving with the times and dealing with contemporary challenges. One such challenge is the rise of populism. Australian democratic innovations typically rely on premises that are fundamentally opposed by populism: random selection and expert knowledge. This populist challenge cannot be ignored, and theorists and practitioners must meet it together.

Inside the room

A Citizens’ Jury is a well-known mini-public format: a small(ish) group of randomly selected citizens who meet several times to deliberate on a given topic. Random selection underpins the process in two ways. It aims to produce a descriptively representative sample, making the jurors literally a ‘mini public’ (Fung 2003; Ryan and Smith 2014): a microcosm of the wider population. Random selection also relates to deliberative quality: bringing together a group of random citizens reduces the likelihood of the loudest voices dominating. As Australian research organisation newDemocracy Foundation points out, ‘governments inevitably hear from the noisiest voices who insist on being heard’; lobbyists, Single Issue Fanatics (SIFs), Not-in-my-back-yards (NIMBYs) – call them what you will. Mini-publics are designed to foster a less adversarial, more nuanced debate with a group of random citizens.

I have observed Citizens’ Juries in the flesh and it is quite an extraordinary experience. Watching a room of disparate and diverse people evolve into a committed team negotiating technical topics like wind farm development leaves me feeling almost jubilant (I don’t get out much). When you are inside the room, watching the deliberative process at play, it really is wonderful. Australia is home to a number of practitioners including newDemocracy Foundation, DemocracyCo and Mosaic Lab, and it is undeniable that some great work is going on in Australia in this area.

But alas, the path of democracy never did run smoothly. Suffice to say that cracks begin to emerge when you are outside the room. If decisions are legitimate to the extent that they have been deliberated upon, then the decisions made by a mini-public suffer a legitimacy deficit, given the typically small group involved (Parkinson 2003). And although some recent Citizens’ Juries have sought to expand the number of participants, this diminishes the quality of dialogue (Chambers 2009). Furthermore, in the past 15 years a growing number of scholars have sought to move beyond the mini-public paradigm in deliberative democracy to tackle deliberation at the large scale – through deliberative systems (Dryzek 2009; Parkinson and Mansbridge 2012), deliberative cultures (Sass and Dryzek 2013) and deliberative societies.

Yet, the practice of deliberative democracy (in Australia at least) clings to the mini-public approach. South Australia is notable for its extensive citizen engagement yes, but is it really innovative? The Western Australian Department of Planning and Infrastructure undertook a similarly ambitious program of mini-public style engagements over a decade ago. This critique is not a reflection on the quality of democratic practice in Australia, nor is it a criticism of what goes on inside the room. It is instead a concern that further underpins the need for deliberative theorists and practitioners to work together.

Outside the room: the populist challenge

Remember those NIMBYs and SIFs that mini-publics aim to exclude through random selection? Their exclusion rests on the assumption that the quality and outcome of deliberation is better without those insistent voices. The aim is that through a process of deliberation, people will become ‘more public-spirited, more tolerant, more knowledgeable, more attentive to the interests of others, and more probing of their own interests’ (Warren 1992, p8). Producing deliberated public opinion involves weeding out weak and poorly informed arguments. Again, this is all very well if you are inside the room. If you’re outside the room, you may very well object.

And let’s face it, those objectionable voices are not going away. As Ben Moffit points out, ‘Populism, once seen as a fringe phenomenon relegated to another era or only certain parts of the world, is now a mainstay of contemporary politics across the globe’. The voices that a Citizens’ Jury wants to keep out of the room now have the room surrounded. If we continue down the mini-publics road, the very thing that allegedly legitimises mini-publics will also be its downfall. The assumptions underpinning random selection are that it is representative of the wider community; and that it facilitates better quality deliberation by bringing together everyday citizens rather than insistent voices. Whether these things are accurate or not is a moot point – what actually matters is how they are perceived by broader publics. It is sad but possibly true that for those outside the room, what goes on inside the room doesn’t matter. And I suspect that the argument that a Jury is representative and very well informed is simply not going to cut it.

Trust in the Australian political system is at a staggering low with very little trust in any level of government; mini-publics in Australia are almost invariably associated with a government body or statutory authority. Mini-publics rely on information presented by experts; populism rejects the knowledge of experts. With all the will and most independently-recruited-and-facilitated process in the world – people may just not trust it. And yet, even if there were greater trust in politics, the justification of random selection explicitly rejects populist public opinion – and vice versa. Bridie Jabour’s Guardian interviews with One Nation voters exemplifies this disconnect. One Hanson supporter is quoted as saying:

“I’m not a politician, I’m not an accountant, I’m not anybody who knows anything but I see stuff and think ‘that doesn’t look right to me’, the average Joe Blow feels things more than they actually understand or know, they feel things, they know stuff.”

The logic of randomly selected mini-publics goes against this. The question is how to respond; the populist challenge cannot simply be ignored or sneered at. Yet in a way, this is exactly what mini-publics can be perceived as doing.

The time is right

We are at a critical juncture in Australia. One option is to continue plying the mini-public trade and make extra efforts to engage more people in the process, and to better explain mini-publics to a wider audience. The question is whether we simply need to work on explaining ourselves better, or whether the populist challenge requires deeper reflection on the practice of democratic innovation and deliberative democracy. I am inclined toward the latter.

The challenge that populism poses should be seized as a catalyst to re-think the practice of deliberative democracy in Australia. Mini-publics are one of many worthy options; deliberative democracy is a far broader church – and democratic innovation even more so. Randomly selected mini-publics are not a cure-all. At best, they are an important piece embedded in a broader democratic process. At worst, they are a viable threat to the practice of deliberative democracy itself.

You can find the posting of this article on the Participedia blog at www.participedia.net/en/news/2016/11/13/when-democratic-innovation-not-democratic-innovation-populist-challenge-australia.

Lessons on Long-Term Participation Efforts from PBNYC

Posted on by
Reply

We wanted to share an insightful article from NCDD member org the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation that shares lessons we can learn about avoiding pitfalls of long-term public participation projects from participatory budgeting in NYC. The piece focuses on PBNYC, but breaks down universal issues in engagement like waning interest from politicians and the ever-important problem of scaling up. We encourage you to read the piece below or find the original here.

How can PBNYC reduce the resource strain – without threatening its inclusive process?

To engage those often left out of democratic decision-making, Council Member district staffs and their volunteers rely on resource-intensive outreach work. They hand out flyers, knock on doors, staff booths at neighborhood events, and host information sessions at community centers.

Each district runs at least three events targeted to areas with less mobile populations or marginalized communities, such as NYCHA housing developments or senior centers. These face-to-face interactions have built trust – and proven crucial to engaging a rich cross-section of the city.

Behind the scenes, the City Council Speaker’s office offers centralized resources and guidance to help each participating district run its process. Meanwhile, nonprofit partners such as the Participatory Budgeting Project and Community Voices Heard spend hours building resources, running volunteer trainings, and evaluating the results of the process.

All of this work adds up to a voter base that is more representative of New York’s diverse population than general elections or other political processes. In 2014-2015 (the last cycle to produce detailed demographic data), 57% of PB voters identified as people of color, compared to 47% of local election voters.

Nearly a quarter of PBNYC voters would have been ineligible to vote in general elections, including 12% who were under 18 and 10% who were not U.S. citizens. It’s a dynamic and inclusive process that more and more Council Members want their districts to join.

Yet as PBNYC continues to grow to more districts and more voters, the long hours and large volunteer commitments become less and less sustainable. It would be tempting to use digital outreach to reach more residents more efficiently. But analysis of past PBNYC cycles shows that tactics like social media and emails from Council Members engage a disproportionately white, highly-educated, and high income group, to the detriment of more diverse voices.

The city faces the challenge of including more residents in the process without drowning out the voices PB was meant to raise up.

In meeting this challenge, PBNYC has rightly put its values first, continuing to emphasize the type of face-to-face outreach that pulls in new participants. The task going forward is to translate those values into new outreach tactics.

For instance, the city should explore digital technologies that expand participation rather than limiting it: using SMS texting rather than online applications, and providing communal digital resources at libraries and community centers. Central staff should continue streamlining their processes and reducing resources needed on the back end. Partnerships that let grassroots organizations continue to take the lead will allow PBNYC to bypass red tape and avoid getting stuck in bureaucratic slowdowns.

Now that the initial excitement has worn off, how can PBNYC continue to improve?

City Council districts vary widely in their demographics, physical characteristics, and needs. Each district’s staff and volunteers must decide what a successful PB cycle looks like. Should they provide translated ballots for those who speak the 5th most common language in the district? The 6th? The 10th? In a world of limited time and resources, how much outreach is enough?

In addition to this district variation, the devolution of decision-making to the district level makes it challenging for central staff to oversee performance or hold districts accountable to any particular standard. In the past, central staff have worked to ensure accountability and consistency through personal relationships. Districts that strayed from best practices were given extra attention and guidance. But as more districts participate, this level of oversight becomes difficult.

Meanwhile, political incentives have inevitably shifted. The original flurry of media attention and public praise has died down. And while there are plenty of incentives for a new Council Member to set up a PB process in her district, doing it well – engaging more voters and ensuring the process is truly inclusive – may seem to offer diminishing returns and little public recognition.

How can PBNYC build structures and incentives for accountability? One promising approach would be to provide more transparency for the public, in the form of open access to PB data. Central staff have considered posting a PB project tracker online to help the public track the progress of projects that have won funding.

The tracker would serve as a focal point for district-by-district praise or analysis, both of which would incentivize districts to continue improving their process. Publicizing yearly statistics on vote counts and other metrics would also help the public judge their districts’ performance and encourage improvement over time.

With the initial excitement worn off and longer-term results not yet visible, the program risks entering a dead zone of usefulness to politicians. As a particularly resource-intensive process, PB needs to start demonstrating tangible benefits or risk being on the chopping block.

Tracking and sharing longer-term results could provide evidence for the broader benefits that advocates have touted – benefits like more equitable government spending, happier communities, and more engaged citizens. Such results have started to come in from PB processes that began several years ago in Brazil. Evidence of longer-term benefits to communities would help re-engage politicians in the process, and would bolster New York City as a national leader in the civic engagement space.

The PBNYC example reminds us that pilot programs are useful testing grounds, but promising experiments are unlikely to translate into large-scale successes without careful effort. Such a transformation requires shifts in strategy and tactics, matched with steadfastness in mission and values. Those interested in government innovation can learn a lot from watching PBNYC as it charts this course for participatory budgeting processes around the world.

You can find the original version of this piece from the Challenges to Democracy blog at www.challengestodemocracy.us/home/pbnyc-the-challenges-and-opportunities-of-scale/#sthash.Hp0uKvoD.dpuf.

ILG Releases Results of CA Public Engagement Survey

Posted on by
Reply

We encourage our members on the West Coast to take note of the results of a survey of local public engagement in California recently conducted by NCDD member organization the Institute for Local Government. The survey results show that local governments need more support in key areas that many of our members work in, which hopefully means more opportunities are on the horizon! We encourage you to read ILG’s post about the survey results below, or click here for more on their effort.

ILG Public Engagement Program Releases Findings from Self Evaluation Effort

“When citizens are actively involved in their civic and democratic institutions, their community and nation are stronger, more just, and more prosperous.”  — Alan Solomont, Dean, Tufts University

As public engagement is a foundation of our democracy, the Public Engagement Program has been a foundation of the Institute for Local Government (ILG).  A key component of our organization’s vision is to work toward a future where “all segments of the community are appropriately engaged in key public decisions.”

We’ve been working on this vision for more for a decade. But last year we decided to pause, assess our effectiveness and look at how we can best assist local governments. We retained outside consultants to help us undertake an ambitious, objective assessment of where we stand, what our local government partners need and how we can help them achieve their goals. The result was an in-depth evaluation resulting in informative infographics and accompanying narrative reports: “What We Did and What We Learned” and “Electronic Survey Results.”

These reports provide insight into the process used and input considered to assess the effectiveness of our program, while a complementary document, “The Future of Public Engagement Work,” outlines 10 recommended steps for the Public Engagement Program to take in order to better engage communities and local governments.

What We Did & What We Learned

ILG engaged with stakeholders across California to discuss what our public engagement program is doing well, how it can better serve local governments, and the challenges that local governments often face in making policy decisions. The result was a number of key observations, for example:

  • The public engagement field is still developing;
  • While local governments in California have made strides towards more inclusive public engagement in decision-making, they continue to report significant challenges; and
  • ILG is uniquely positioned to expand training and technical assistance to local governments in California.

The Program also completed a resources inventory that includes the publishing of more than 500 resources and 200 conference sessions since 2005. In addition, we interviewed 11 similar organizations, providing a nationwide scan of the field. During these interviews, many key themes were expressed, including the importance of a practitioner support network and the need to share lessons learned at a national level.

Statewide Electronic Survey Results

In conjunction with our consultants, we also conducted an extensive survey that was completed by more than 250 stakeholders representing counties, cities, special districts, and public engagement champions in 42 of California’s 58 counties. The survey provided ILG with insight on the impact of the Public Engagement Program; for example, 83 percent of those who had participated in an ILG learning opportunity reported that it increased knowledge and/or capacity to engage people.

The survey also provided many insights into the challenges that local government officials face in making local policy decisions. Among the most cited problems were “it’s the same people who always participate” and a “lack of staff and/or financial resources.” Participants stated that they believed a public engagement model for policy decision making is best applied to the following areas: parks and recreation, land use and planning, transportation, and infrastructure.

The Future of Our Public Engagement Work

Additionally, the consultants recommended 10 possible “next steps” for the Program to consider pursuing. Highlights included:

  • Increasing in-person outreach to discover local government needs and how ILG can assist;
  • Establishing new cross-sector partnerships to expand effective public engagement practices; and
  • Expanding the Public Engagement Program’s training opportunities and developing new tools.

The evaluation was conducted by our project consultants: Deb Marois, Converge CRT, and Adele James, Adele James Consulting. We thank The James Irvine Foundation for their generous support in making this assessment a reality, as well as in sharing our vision regarding the value of effective public engagement.

At ILG, we are excited about the future of our Public Engagement Program, and we are ready to put our consultants’ recommendations into practice.

You can find the infographics and their accompanying narrative reports on the Institute for Local Government’s website at: www.ca-ilg.org/PE2015Evaluation.

Committing to Building Our Nation’s Capacity for Democracy

Posted on by
Reply

Today is Inauguration Day, and the scene in the nation’s capitol is one of stark differences. The country’s new administration is officially taking power amid both large protests and large celebrations, and the picture clearly reflects to us that, over the next four years, we in the field of dialogue and deliberation have our work cut out for us. A functioning democracy depends on people who disagree, often deeply, still having the capacity to listen and talk to one another and make decisions together. And today in DC, the need – and the opportunity – for the D&D field to work on building that capacity is on full display.

To help us reflect on the work ahead we wanted to share a piece penned by NCDD member Kyle Bozentko of the Jefferson Center that, though it was written shortly after the election, still holds much truth for today as well. We encourage you to read the piece below or find the original here.

The Future of Our Democracy

Regardless of your feelings about its outcome, this election has brought the divides in our country into sharp relief – divisions that threaten the health and vibrancy of our shared democracy.

Together, our country faces serious challenges. These challenges take different forms in different communities. We know, though, that communities have the capacity to address these issues and advocate for themselves.

That’s why our work envisions a different kind of democracy. A democracy where civic participation extends beyond the ballot box. A democracy that empowers citizens to solve problems, develop policy, meaningfully influence decision making, and inspire action. A democracy where all citizens, regardless of their differences, join together to create stronger communities and a thriving nation.

Today, we reaffirm our commitment to an inclusive democracy. We will continue to strive for accountability in our democratic institutions, for action and policy that responds to the ambitions of all Americans, for a unified expression of our power as citizens to shape the course of our lives…

Whether you’re feeling excited about the possibilities for change in America, or anger and despair at the uncertainty of our shared future, or both, there’s work to do today. Let’s get to it.

You can find the original version of this Jefferson Center blog piece at www.jefferson-center.org/the-future-of-our-democracy.

Addressing Power in Dialogue Across Difference

Posted on by
Reply

In honor of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, we thought we would share the piece below from Katie Hyten of NCDD member organization Essential Partners. In it, Katie reflects on the reality and impact of power differences in dialogue, pointing out that even if we don’t acknowledge it, power is there in our conversations. Especially if we’re to effectively bridge divides and cross lines of race, class, gender, and so on, we cannot ignore the fact that power dynamics will need to be managed. We encourage you to read the piece below or find the original here.

How Does Power Affect Our Conversations?

Essential PartnersIn a recent conversation with activists on a college campus, student leaders informed our practitioners that student protesters showed little interest in dialogue because they assumed that “dialogue” was an attempt to placate them by the administration. The power of the administration carried both weight and assumptions.

In another of our dialogues, a participant assumed he would have to begin speaking with an apology for his privilege before even participating in the conversation. In both of these instances (and in so many more), real and perceived power differences created profound barriers to meaningful conversation. Perhaps nowhere has that felt truer than following the results of the 2016 election.

When we create spaces for groups to communicate across differences, we run head first into questions of power. Indeed, it is impossible to have effective conversations around differences without first having often clumsy conversations about power – conversations where we step on toes and say the wrong thing because we want to do better. And because we know that having diverse, cohesive, engaged members of a community or institution is not only the right thing to do – it also increases innovation, profit, and community safety.

So here’s what we know.

Power exists.

As we bring communities together in conversation, power emerges – both universally and in unique ways. And while we don’t want to unintentionally reinforce or effect existing power structures, seriously addressing power imbalances in dialogue can also feel risky. Acknowledging power might actually result in more upfront tensions as people speak to their experiences relating to one another.

Power is dynamic.

It can coalesce around knowledge, gender, race, sexuality, personality, age, experience, communication, class, language, education – and so much more. Power exists when the newest employee in the office sits in meetings furiously googling unfamiliar acronyms. It exists in older generations struggling to adapt to the newest iterations of office technology. Power exists when wisdom is seen as equivalent to age, when a show of emotion redirects an entire meeting, when a young black man pulled over for texting while driving shakes in fear for his physical safety.

If we aim to have truly effective conversations in our communities, we have to set aside our personal assumptions and design processes specifically to address the concerns we hear around power – real and perceived. And if we aim to have conversations that build understanding and resilience, we also have a responsibility to listen to the experiences of those concerned about how dialogue addresses issues of power and adapt our model as needed to meet those concerns.

As we discuss issues of power and privilege in our work, we first think about how to structure a conversation that invites engagement from everyone involved. We have to ask genuine questions and listen to what we hear.

Additionally, we have to address the fact that we don’t all communicate the same way – and certain types of communication invite or encourage some people, inhibiting or discouraging others. Often (and largely without malice or ill-intention), those who have the most power decide how conversations happen in their communities or institutions. This can be as simple and automatic as “we’ve always had the administrator present first in meetings.” When thinking about how to help all participants feel welcome and fully included in the conversation, we should not assume to know how people from other cultures or positions of power will show up and participate.

Are interruptions rude or a signal of respect? How do people prefer to convey emotion? In some situations, equal speaking time may convey equality of voice. In others situations, equality of voice may mean ensuring everyone has the time they need to speak or write, whatever that might mean for them. If we want to address the real issues and divisions in our communities – and reap the benefits of truly diverse thinking and perspectives – we need to design conversations that value the dynamic power of participants.

Ultimately, conversations across identity cannot take place just once. In a one-time conversation, it’s challenging to respond to unexpected hurdles or differences in styles of communication and make adjustments accordingly for the next meeting.

We can also recognize that every community relies on many different conversations to meet different needs. As we help communities invest in conversation with each other, we must be intentional about the range of opportunities we provide for people to engage. We need to listen to voices of those who feel unheard, and respond in a way that serves the group and the purposes.

Most of all, we need to create conversations that help people bring forward their unique sources of power, shaping a path towards a resilient community that embraces complexity and value of each person. Because when the conversation itself incorporates ways of addressing power and privilege, those clumsy conversations about power in your community become just a little bit easier.

You can find the original version of this Essential Partners blog piece at www.whatisessential.org/blog/how-does-power-affect-our-conversations.

2017 Frontiers of Democracy Conference Call for Proposals

Posted on by
Reply

We are happy to announce that once again, the Frontiers of Democracy conference organizers at Tufts University are accepting session proposals for their annual gathering. The 2017 conference will take place, as always, at the Tufts University downtown campus in Boston, this time from June 22nd – 24th.

The annual Frontiers of Democracy conference is a key gathering for our field that brings together leading deliberative democracy thinkers, public participation practitioners, and civic educators to explore ideas at the forefront of advancing democracy. NCDD’s leadership attends almost every year, and many of our members are staples of the conference, so mark you calendars to join us!

This year, the Frontiers gathering’s framing statement highlights the global rise in authoritarianism and the challenge it poses for continuing to expand democracy:

In 2017, the frontiers of democracy are threatened around the world. Leaders and movements that have popular support – yet are charged with being undemocratic, xenophobic, and illiberal – are influential or dominant in the Philippines, Russia, Turkey, Hungary, South Africa, France, Britain, and the United States, among other countries. Meanwhile, many peoples continue to face deep and sustained repression. Social movements and networks are confronting this global turn to authoritarianism. Please join us for a discussion of what we must do to defend and expand the frontiers of democracy.

If this theme speaks to work you do or conversations you are eager to have, consider applying to host  workshops or learning exchanges of your own! You can find the form to submit proposals by clicking here.

More details about the 2017 gathering are forthcoming, so make sure to check back frequently to the Frontiers of Democracy conference website at http://activecitizen.tufts.edu/civic-studies/frontiers for news and updates. We look forward to seeing many of you there!

New IAP2 Trainings Schedule for 2017 from TCP

Posted on by
Reply

If you are looking for D&D trainings to kick off your year, we encourage you to check out the new calendar of trainings offered by NCDD member organization The Participation Company. TCP offers certification in the International Association for Public Participation‘s model, and dues-paying NCDD members get a discount on registration! We encourage you to to read more about the trainings in the TCP announcement below or learn more here.

The Participation Company’s 2017 Training Events

If you work in communications, public relations, public affairs, planning, public outreach and understanding, community development, advocacy, or lobbying, this training will help you to increase your skills and to be of even greater value to your employer.

This is your chance to join the many thousands of practitioners worldwide who have completed the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) certificate training.

Foundations in Public Participation (5-Day) Certificate Program:

Planning for Effective Public Participation (3-Days) and/or *Techniques for Effective Public Participation (2-Days)

  • Jan. 23-27 in Phoenix, AZ
  • Feb. 6-10 in Arlington, VA
  • Mar. 27-31 in Austin, TX
  • Apr. 24-28 in Oakland, CA
  • May 1-5 in Orlando, FL
  • Jun. 5-9 in Denver, CO
  • Jun. 26-30 in Chicago, IL

*The 3-Day Planning training is a prerequisite to Techniques training

IAP2’s Emotion, Outrage and Public Participation – Moving from Rage to Reason (2-Days)

  • Apr. 27-28 in Austin, TX
  • Jul. 20-21 in Phoenix, AZ
  • Aug. 17-18 in Chicago, IL

Register online for these trainings at www.theparticipationcompany.com/training

Introducing TPC’s newest course offering “FP3”

Facilitation for P2 Practitioners – FP3 (3-Days)

Building on best practices from both the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) and the International Association of Facilitators (IAF), this course introduces the basics of facilitation in the public arena. Participants learn how to design and conduct successful facilitated public involvement events. It is designed as a small, intensive interactive learning opportunity. For more information go to: www.theparticipationcompany.com/training/facilitation.

Is your organization interested in hosting a training event? Host discounts are provided. Contact us at melissa@theparticipationcompany.com.

Please check our website for updates to the calendar.

The Participation Company (TPC) offers discounted rates to NCDD members. 

TPC can also assist you and your organization in other endeavors! Our team of highly experienced professionals help government and business clients manage public issues to accomplish client’s objectives. We can plan and manage your participation project from start to finish. We can provide strategic advice and direction. We can coach and mentor your staff and managers. We help you build agreements and craft durable and defensible decisions.

NCDD Members to Lead Deliberative Democracy Consortium

Posted on by
Reply

We are so pleased to share that three of our great NCDD members – Wendy Willis (who is also an incoming NCDD Board member), Bruce Mallory, and Kyle Bozentko – have been named as the new leadership of the Deliberative Democracy Consortium starting in 2017. The DDC has been a key organization in the D&D field for years, and we are excited for these three heavyweights to revitalize it. You can read more about the change in DDC’s announcement below or on their Facebook page here (while their website revamp is in the works).

The Deliberative Democracy Consortium’s New Leadership

DDC logoDear Friends of the DDC:

We are pleased and proud to announce that DDC has new leadership! Starting January 1, Wendy Willis will become DDC’s Executive Director, while Bruce Mallory and Kyle Bozenkto will begin their terms as co-chairs of the Executive Committee.

Wendy succeeds long-time director Matt Leighninger, who will continue to serve on the Executive Committee and assist Wendy with the transition. Wendy will attend to immediate tasks such as restoring the DDC web presence, communicating with Committee members and institutional partners, and reaching out to potential sponsors interested in advancing our mission. Her appointment comes at a critical moment for deliberative, participatory democracy in the US and around the world. DDC is honored to have Wendy help us set our course in these rough seas.

Wendy Willis joins DDC from Kitchen Table Democracy, where she has served as Executive Director for the past five years. Wendy will also continue as Director of Oregon’s Kitchen Table in the National Policy Consensus Center at Portland State University. Prior to joining Kitchen Table Democracy and the National Policy Consensus Center, Wendy served as Executive Director of City Club of Portland, as a Federal Public Defender in the District of Oregon, and as a law clerk to Chief Justice Wallace P. Carson, Jr., of the Oregon Supreme Court. She is also a widely published poet and essayist. Her first book of poems, Blood Sisters of the Republic, was published in 2012, and she has had poems and essays published in Utne Reader, Poetry Northwest, New England Review, Oregon Humanities, ZYZZYVA, and numerous other places. Wendy holds a J.D. from Georgetown Law Center, an M.F.A. in poetry from the Rainier Writing Workshop at Pacific Lutheran University, and a B.A. from Willamette University.  Wendy is an incoming board member for the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation and is the incoming chair of the board for Tavern Books.

Bruce Mallory is a professor of education at the University of New Hampshire. He was appointed Provost and Executive Vice President at the University of New Hampshire in July 2003 and served until July 2009. Previously, he served on the faculty and as Dean of the Graduate School at UNH. From 2011 to 2014, he was director of the Carsey Institute. He teaches in the areas of higher education, education and poverty, and social change.  He is co-founder of New Hampshire Listens and The Democracy Imperative, and serves on the Paul J. Aicher Foundation (Everyday Democracy) Board of Directors. Dr. Mallory received the Ph.D. in Special Education and Community Psychology from Peabody College of Vanderbilt University.

Kyle Bozentko is the Executive Director of the Jefferson Center in St. Paul, Minnesota. His work on citizen participation, democratic reform, and civic engagement has been published in GOVERNING Magazine, MinnPost, and InDaily (Adelaide, South Australia) and on the Independent Sector blog. He received his BA in Political Science and Religious Studies from Hamline University in Saint Paul and his Masters of Theological Studies from the Boston University School of Theology with an emphasis on sociology of religion and politics. He currently serves on the Board of Directors of International Association of Public Participation USA (IAP2 USA) and on the Advisory Board of Forum dos Cidadaos (Portugal).

Please join us in welcoming Wendy and Bruce and Kyle!