Urban Matters: National Parks and Urban Settings (Featured D&D Story)

D&D stories logoWe are highlighting another example of dialogue and deliberation in action today, and this time it is a project called Engaging in Aging. This mini case study was submitted by Bruce Jacobson via NCDD’s 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!


Title of Project:

Urban Matters: National Parks and Programs in Urban Settings

Description

As part of the 2012 City Parks Alliance “Greater & Greener Conference,” 39 leaders from the National Park Service (NPS) met in New York City for an “affinity caucus” on national parks and programs in urban areas. The group identified actions to develop a national urban agenda for the Service.

Over the winter, a small group of “urban strategists” worked with the NPS Conservation Study Institute and the Collaborative for Innovative Leadership to develop engagement strategies to create and then implement such an urban agenda. I was part of the strategists group, and found it to be rewarding, both personally and professionally. As urban park professionals, we prototyped a process to foster “communities of practice” around the caucus recommendations.

The central tenet of the work going forward is, the National Park Service is relevant to all Americans. NPS must engage a broad spectrum of the country’s diverse population, 80% of whom live in metropolitan areas, with the places and narratives that have shaped America. Our strategy group recognized that an approach is needed that allows NPS staff at all levels in urban parks and programs to “step into their power.” As NPS advisor Meg Wheatley often points out, innovators within NPS already have many of the answers we need. Our task as an agency is to identify “better means to engage everyone’s intelligence in solving challenges and crises as they arise.”

On May 10, the Collaborative began the “Urban Matters Engagement Series,” a series of webinars and other engagement activities which will take place over the coming months. Approximately 65 NPS employees, and some partners, joined in the 90-minute webinar with hopes to re-engage participants from last year’s urban caucus, and to further the charge from NPS Director Jon Jarvis to craft a progressive urban agenda for the Service.

What was your role in the project?

I was one of about 8 “strategist” testing methods of engagement and innovation.

Lessons Learned

As is typical we offered the “chat” function on the WebEx, as well as access to a blog immediately following the session with hopes that people would engage in conversation. We were disappointed with the amount of interaction—almost none.

We are struggling with how to best bring together those interested in a progressive National Park Service urban agenda in a way that will inspire innovation and community building. Future sessions are tentatively scheduled for June and July. We welcome any ideas for how to proceed.

Where to learn more about the project:

“Greater & Greener Conference:” www.urbanparks2012.org

Conservation Study Institute/Collaborative for Innovative Leadership: www.nps.gov/csi/COLLABORATIVE/COLLABORATIVE.html

The 90-minute WebEx: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi2D1LJoEVM&feature=youtu.be

For more about “Urban Matters”: sites.google.com/site/urbannps/home

Healthy Democracy Wins IAP2′s 2013 Project of the Year

We hope you will join us in extending a huge congratulations to our friends at Healthy Democracy, who were just awarded with the IAP2 2013 International Project of the Year Award for their Citizens’ Initiative Review project, which we recently highlighted on our blog. Both Healthy Democracy and IAP2 USA are members of NCDD, and we couldn’t be more pleased to celebrate both organizations’ excellent work. 

You can read more about all of IAP2′s 2013 awards in their press release below. Congratulations to all the award winners, and here’s hoping that 2014 brings even more great projects and bigger successes for the field!


International Core Values Awards celebrate Excellence in Public Participation

IAP2 logo

(Salt Lake City, Utah USA) – At the IAP2 North American Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, the International Association  for Public Participation (IAP2) announced the 2013 International Core Values Awards honoring award winners from around the IAP2 Federation Presiding Member, Ms. Nomi Muthialu congratulated the winners on behalf of the Board of Directors and national affiliates. “IAP2’s seven Core Values go to the very heart of our association and guide how we think about and practice authentic public participation. The laureates of the 2013 awards represent best practice in our field, and serve as model of excellence for others to emulate.”

Healthy Democracy (Portland, Oregon, USA) was selected the IAP2 International Project of the Year for their entry, “The Citizens’ Initiative Review” which addressed the question: how can we strengthen ballot measures as a tool for public participation in government by giving voters the unbiased information they need to make informed decisions? Tyrone Reitman, Executive Director of Healthy Democracy, said, “We’re honored to see the Citizens’ Initiative Review recognized as project of the year by the leading international organization for public participation. Our moderators, panelists, and supporters have done a tremendous amount of work to develop a fair, unbiased process that improves the initiative system for Oregonians.”

Finalists for the “best of the best” international award were gathered from entries submitted by national affiliates in Australasia, Canada, Southern Africa and the United States. Other winners recognized this year include:

IAP2 International Member-at-Large Project of the Year Award winner Intelligent Futures in partnership with O2 Planning + Design (Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada) were recognized for their entry entitled, “Our Wascana”. “This project was a unique opportunity to combine creativity in engagement with long-term strategic thinking. By combining place-based engagement, creative graphic design, social media and face-to-face workshops, we were able to really understand how much the community values the Wascana Centre. This was a crucial element to planning the next 50 years of Wascana and beyond,” notes Mr. John Lewis, President of Intelligent Futures.

The City of Calgary, Calgary Transit (Calgary, AB, Canada) received Highly Commended recognition for their entry entitled, “Route Ahead: The 30-year strategic plan for Calgary Transit.”

In addition, the 2013 Project of the Year awards presented by IAP2 national affiliates include:

In Southern Africa: Sonja Pithey Consulting the “City of Cape Town S78(3) Waste Review Stakeholder Engagement” process.

In Australasia: City of Marion, South AustraliaMaking Marion – A Community Plan towards 2040.”

In the USA: City of West Hollywood, Social Services Division, “City of West Hollywood 2013 Community Study: Engaging, Listening, Learning” as well as Healthy DemocracyThe Citizens’ Initiative Review”.

“We are delighted with the response to the 2013 IAP2 Core Values Awards competition from public participation practitioners all over the world. This is a testament to the huge growth of our field of expertise”.

Special thanks were extended to the international jury members, Ms. Leanne Hartill, IAP2 Federation Director (Australia), Mr. Rodolfo Lewanski, University of Bologna, IAP2 Italy (2012 Award Winner). Ms. Patricia Munro, World Café Europe, (Germany) and Ms. Fiona Cavanagh, Centre for Public Involvement, (Canada).

Media inquiries: Iris Almeida-Côté, IAP2 International Headquarters. Email: iris@iap2.org Website: www.iap2.org

Reducing Incivility in Ohio Legislature

In the face of the ongoing government shutdown, the topic of incivility in our political sphere has, unfortunately, become keenly relevant again in our national discourse.  That is why we were especially encouraged to see a recent article from the Akron Beacon Journal featuring a new effort aimed at increasing civility in the Ohio state legislature that offers a least a bit of hope.

State Sen. Frank LaRose has partnered with our friends at the National Institute for Civil Discourse (an NCDD organizational member) to initiate a program for legislators that will emphasize them doing the people’s business with less ire. Here’s hoping it works.  You can read the full article below or find it on the NICD’s website here.


State legislators begin effort to reduce incivility in politics

NICD_logo3

Facing dismissive, even hostile, comments from colleagues, 11 Ohio legislators met in a closed-door Statehouse session Tuesday morning.

Their topic: incivility and what can be done about it.

“I think there’s a real problem in how conversations take place,” state Rep. Kathleen Clyde, D-Kent, said after leaving the meeting. “The lack of civility can be an intimidating environment to come into.”

Sen. Frank LaRose, R-Copley Township, who is working with the National Institute for Civil Discourse, called the meeting.

He described the meeting as the first of “an ongoing conversation among colleagues dedicated to improving the civil discourse in our legislature so that we can better serve the citizens of Ohio.”

LaRose said the group agreed to hold three or four meetings a year and take the following steps:

  • Form district exchanges with legislators from different parties meeting with the public in each other’s district. Lawmakers from urban districts would meet in rural districts and vice versa. LaRose said the goal is to gain greater familiarity with opposing candidates.
  • New-member orientation after the next election would include information on civility and perhaps workshops.
  • Encourage social interaction that includes members of both parties. A lack of familiarity means legislators don’t understand each other as well and are less likely to compromise, LaRose said.

LaRose previously discussed civility at a Council of State Governments regional meeting in Madison, Wis., in August and at a meeting of legislators sponsored by the Ohio Chamber of Commerce at Salt Fork State Park on Sept. 6.

He and former state Rep. Ted Celeste also will make a presentation at the Council of State Governments’ national meeting in Kansas City, Mo.

Bipartisan effort

Of the 11 who participated Tuesday, six are Republicans and five are Democrats.

LaRose said he sent two emails and a paper notice of the meeting to all legislators. He was not disappointed in the turnout, he said, because the General Assembly is not in session, a change from when he first scheduled the meeting.

Those who did come said they heard skepticism about civility efforts from other lawmakers.

LaRose said a couple of lawmakers told him they heard from some of their colleagues “at least dismissive — if not outright hostile — attitudes toward it.”

“But I didn’t hear who was saying that, nor would I really even want to know,” he said. “But I think some folks think that, ‘Well, this is just an esoteric idea, creating civility. However are you going to do that?’ ”

Principles maintained

LaRose said he will continue to argue that the project is constructive without compromising principles.

He said some people make the mistake of thinking that “civility” means lessening an aggressive defense of what a politician believes.

“You can still be an ardent supporter of a particular policy stance without being mean-spirited, or personal or negative or unfair in how you characterize each others’ views,” LaRose said.

Clyde said Ohioans are paying a price for political incivility.

She said that because of stridence between lawmakers, “a lot of legislation passes that is too extreme, that we are not together on.”

She also suggested that some witnesses before legislative committees appear to be less than open in their testimony for fear of attack and that some talented candidates might be choosing not to run because they don’t want to subject themselves and their families to incivility.

LaRose tried to put the issue into historical perspective, citing an example of a U.S. congressman who was caned on the House floor and the troubles during the Civil War.

But he added, “Things are bad and there is room for improvement.”

Safe districts

Asked about causes, LaRose cited legislative boundaries as a problem because they create candidates in “safe” districts that are dominated by a single party. He also he said term limits put legislators out of office just when they have gained experience for how to get along with political opponents.

The Beacon Journal is a participant along with three universities and the faith community in the ongoing Ohio Civility Project. Newspaper stories and a survey of area residents found a profound disgust with incivility on the part of politicians, the media and public in general.

Citizens’ Initiative Review (Featured D&D Story)

D&D stories logoIf you haven’t heard of the Citizens’ Initiative Review before, you should have!  We’ve featured it at two of our conferences, and spent a day introducing NCDDers to Healthy Democracy Oregon’s work back in August 2010. Healthy Democracy just won TWO of the core values awards presented at the IAP2 conference in Salt Lake, so their success is certainly no secret.

This mini case study was submitted by Lucy Palmersheim via NCDD’s new Dialogue Storytelling Tool, which we recently launched to collect stories about innovations in D&D. Add your story today to help spread the word about your great work!


Title of Project:

Citizens’ Initiative Review

Description

The Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR) is Healthy Democracy’s flagship program. It is an innovative method of public engagement, passed into law in Oregon in 2011, that directly empowers citizens to deliberate and provide information to their fellow voters.

During the CIR, a randomly selected and demographically balanced panel — a microcosm of the public — is brought together and given the time and resources to fairly evaluate a ballot measure. The panel hears directly from campaigns for and against the measure in question and calls on policy experts during the multi-day public review.

At the conclusion of each review, panelists deliberate and then draft a “Citizens’ Statement” highlighting the most important fact-based findings about the measure and the most relevant arguments for and against the measure. In Oregon, the CIR is overseen by an independent commission, and each statement is published in the voters’ pamphlet as a new and easily accessible resource for voters to use at election time.

The Citizens’ Initiative Review is a major innovation in democracy, and in Oregon, one of the first states in the nation to enact the initiative and referendum, we’ve successfully developed the model, passed it into law, and tested it rigorously over three iterations. Major studies of the CIR in 2010 and 2012 (funded in part by the National Science Foundation and Kettering Foundation) have conclusively demonstrated that the CIR process provides voters with a fundamentally sound and easy-to-use source of trustworthy information to make better choices.

Studies found that a majority of voters read a CIR statement in 2012, and that roughly two-thirds – over 627,000 Oregonians – found it helpful when making voting decisions (statistically significant). Additionally, voters who read a CIR statement demonstrated greater knowledge leading to greater confidence about how to cast their ballot and learned more about the ballot measures than those who read official explanatory and fiscal statements or saw equivalent doses of paid pro and con arguments.

These results are incredibly exciting, and show us that the CIR is having a major impact on improving voters’ understanding of ballot measures.

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

  • Citizens’ Juries

What was your role in the project?

Healthy Democracy provides project management and fundraising.

What issues did the project primarily address?

  • Economic issues
  • Education
  • Partisan divide
  • Planning and development

Lessons Learned

Healthy Democracy is extremely satisfied with the 2012 Citizens’ Initiative Reviews. A few factors that contributed:

Building on past success: We ran the CIR as a pilot program in 2010 and used our learnings to enhance the 2012 project. Some changes included providing feedback from campaigns to panelists on final statements and asking panelists on one side of a measure to provide feedback to those writing the statement for the opposite side. These changes ultimately improved the Citizens’ Statements produced and distributed to voters.

Assembling an effective team: We brought together a team of full-time and project-specific staff with deep experience in deliberation and project management. Our team was able to foresee potential obstacles and plan an effective program.

Planning for potential setbacks: We built contingency plans to ensure the CIR would be viable even if our original plan could not be carried out.

Maintaining objectivity: The CIR can be a very effective tool for public deliberation, but its credibility is dependent on maintaining a process that is free from bias. We built staff training, panelist selection, and expert testimony around objectivity. As a result, 96% of participants reported being satisfied with staff neutrality during the CIR process, with 76% of those reporting they were “very satisfied.” Furthermore, 89% of voters who read the voters’ pamphlet reported that they placed at least some trust in the CIR statements, which was higher than trust in paid pro and con arguments or the measures’ official fiscal statements.

Achieving media endorsements and publicity: We were pleased to receive several new newspaper endorsements in 2012, and independent research funded in part by the Kettering Foundation found that over 51% of Oregon voters knew about the CIR, an increase from 42% in 2010.

Measuring our work: We brought in researchers early in the process so that they were able to follow the 2012 CIRs from start to finish. They surveyed participants each day and followed up with broad polls of the Oregon electorate. This depth of research allows us to understand our impact, search for ways to improve our process, and will help us plan future expansion.

Where to learn more about the project:

You can find more information at www.HealthyDemocracy.org.  You can also read the 2012 report by clicking here.

Migrant Farmworkers Project (Featured D&D Story)

We are happy to share another great example of dialogue and deliberation in action, the Migrant Farmworkers Reading Project. This mini case study was submitted by Sarah Wenzlick 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:

Migrant Farmworkers Reading Project

Description

High school students from Oxbridge visit with the children of migrant farmworkers every other Friday to help them with homework and reading. The children are elementary students in the Lake Worth, FL area–an area with a large migrant population that follows the different agricultural harvests depending on the growing season. Oxbridge’s students help to encourage the elementary school students to focus on their academics, the importance of staying in school, trying your best, becoming bilingual, and show them that many people care about their progress.

We’ve seen an enormous increase in attendance from the elementary students, great enthusiasm and energy from Oxbridge’s students, and improvement in reading (aloud) abilities both in Spanish and in English from both sets of children.

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

  • Intergroup Dialogue
  • Compassionate Listening

What was your role in the project?

Organizer, Facilitator

What issues did the project primarily address?

  • Race and racism
  • Economic issues
  • Education
  • Immigration
  • Youth issues

Lessons Learned

My students have gained a better understanding of what other peoples’ lives are like, especially those of young migrant farmworkers. They have become more appreciative of what they have, such luxuries as constant transportation, parents with stable jobs, access to technology, access to food and clothing, among other things.

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

Awesome Interviews from NCDD’s 2012 Conference

looking_back_badgeDuring 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, their hopes and concerns for our field and for democratic governance in our country, and their ideas about how we might effectively combine forces to make a greater impact — questions that were very much aligned with our conference themes.

The result was a series of wonderfully rich videos focusing on the current state of public engagement in the U.S., all currently available here on Jeffrey’s Song of a Citizen YouTube channel and in our NCDD 2012 Seattle playlist on YouTube.

Over the next month or so we’ll be looking back at our fantastic event in Seattle, which brought together 400 leaders and innovators in our field. In a series of blog posts, we’ll be featuring Jeffrey’s videos along with other items from the conference. We’ll also be looking ahead to the 2014 conference, and asking you to engage with us about our next event!

This compilation video will give you a taste of the interviews and presentations that we’ll be featuring in the coming weeks…

Disaporas in Dialogue (Featured D&D Story)

Today we’d like to feature another great example of dialogue and deliberation in action, the Diasporas in Dialogue project. This mini case study was submitted by Dr. Barbara Tint 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:

Diasporas in Dialogue

Description

This project consisted of four years of work conducting assessment, dialogue groups, dialogue training, and community reconciliation capacity-building efforts in multiple African diaspora communities in Portland, Oregon, USA. Predicated on the belief that historical conflicts from home regions were travelling with migrant populations and being left unattended in the diaspora, we saw the need and the opportunity to provide a safe forum for community members to come together to address their fractured past, their difficult present, and their uncertain future.

The African Diaspora Dialogue Project (ADDP), generously supported by the Andrus Family Fund, was a collaboration between the Conflict Resolution Graduate Program at Portland State University and the Immigrant and Refugee Community Organization, serving Oregon and Washington.

The outcomes of the project included transformed communities, healed relationships, new joint ventures and coalitions among community members, newly trained in-community dialogue facilitators and a book about the work.

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

  • Appreciative Inquiry
  • Public Conversations Project dialogue
  • Sustained Dialogue
  • Technology of Participation approaches
  • Intergroup Dialogue
  • Restorative Justice approaches

What was your role in the project?

Founder and Director of the Project. Dialogue facilitator. Author of the book.

What issues did the project primarily address?

  • Partisan divide
  • Immigration
  • Youth issues

Lessons Learned

  • Dialogue was successful and transformative.
  • Participants were yearning for new skills and knowledge around these issues and often wanted teaching along with dialogue.
  • Recruitment took much longer than expected and was initially challenging due to suspicions and complicated identity affiliations.
  • We needed deeper understanding of community needs and desires. Some of our initial thinking had been challenged by what we learned in dialogue.
  • Organization and logistics were extremely difficult.
  • Everything took much more time than we expected.
  • We needed more time for planning and reflection.
  • As groups had been conducted in English, our ability to involve certain community members was limited.
  • Status differences in dialogue groups (age, gender, community role) could be both an asset and a challenge.
  • Community members felt empowered and engaged through this process, and many emerged as leaders for reconciliation.
  • Working with youth was an important and powerful dimension of reconciliation within the diaspora.
  • The elders in the communities were invaluable in contributing to the success of the project.
  • Dialogue facilitation was a deeper skill than we could effectively train for in the time we had allowed.
  • Other community and refugee groups from different regions were also interested in participating in dialogue.
  • Ripeness and readiness had a great deal to do with who engaged and benefited from the process.

Where to learn more about the project:

For more information about the Diasporas in Dialogue project and book, please see www.pdx.edu/research/profile/dialogues-deep-change and www.pdx.edu/diasporas-in-dialogue/

Palestinian-Jewish Living Room Dialogues (Featured D&D Story)

Today we’d like to feature another great example of dialogue and deliberation in action, the Palestinian-Jewish Living Room Dialogue project. This mini case study was submitted by Libby and Len Traubman 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!


Title of Project: D&D stories logo Face-to-Face Palestinian-Jewish Living Room Dialogue: crossing oceans to help others engage

Description
Since 1992 and during 254 meetings, our local handful of women and men — Muslims, Jews, and Christians — continue learning to listen and learn from one another while initiating hundreds of outreach activities across the nation and overseas to help other “adversaries” to successfully communicate and experience that “an enemy is one whose story we have not heard.”

Initial incentive came from coexistence models of the 1980s in the Middle East and Africa. Neve Shalom ~ Wahat as-Salam (Oasis of Peace) is a village where Jewish and Palestinian Israeli families live and learn together. Koinonia, Southern Africa, founded by Reverend Nico Smith during apartheid years, gathered thousands of brave Blacks and White to share meals and stories, sometimes in public at risk to their lives. Both initiatives were honored together during the San Francisco 1989 Beyond War Award Ceremony. The word Koinonia means “belonging together” or “communion by intimate participation”.

From 2003-2007, the Dialogue group partnered with Camp Tawonga over five years to bring hundreds of adults and youth from 50 different towns in Palestine and Israel to successfully live and communicate together at the Palestinian-Jewish Family Peacemakers Camp — Oseh Shalom – Sanea al-Salam.

Since 2007, six how-to documentary films have been created. The most useful has been the 2012 Dialogue in Nigeria: Muslims & Christians Creating Their Future. The films all stream freely online, and over 13,000 DVDs have been requested from from all continents and every U.S. state including citizens from 2,594 institutions, 2,601 cities, in 82 nations.

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

  • Sustained Dialogue
  • Compassionate Listening
  • Bohm Dialogue

What was your role in the project?
We co-founded and hosted the first 1992 gatherings in our home. With monthly 2-1/2 hour meetings now rotating among different participants’ homes, we continue to shepherd both the original San Mateo group (254 meetings) and the San Francisco gatherings (172 meetings).

What issues did the project primarily address?

  • Interfaith conflict
  • Race and racism
  • Education
  • Human rights

Lessons Learned
1. Time, Dedication, and Patience are required for successful Sustained Dialogue, trust, learning to listen, relationship-healing, and collective cooperation and creativity.

2. Beginning a Dialogue — finding paticipants and convening the first meeting — requires inordinate totality, time, and persistence.

3. Sustaining an ongoing group also requires a person or core team with a vision and “religious” dedication to the people.

Where to learn more about the project:
FILM — 20 Years of Palestinian-Jewish Living Room Dialogue (1992-2012)
http://archive.org/details/20YearsOfPalestinian-jewishLivingRoomDialogue

Several hundred outreach activities
http://traubman.igc.org/dg-prog.htm

Six of the Dialogue’s how-to documentary films
http://traubman.igc.org/vids2007.htm

An opportunity like no other – the Great March for Climate Action

This message and call to action was submitted by Tom Atlee of the Co-Intelligence Institute via our Submit-to-Blog Form. Do you have field news you want to share with the rest of us? Just click here to submit your news post for the NCDD Blog!


Summary: In March 2014, the giant 8-month cross-country Great March for Climate Action will be launched. I believe it has truly profound potential for personal and social change, and is worthy of our support and participation. Dialogue and deliberation practitioners, in particular, can make a significant difference.

Dear friends,

If all goes as planned, almost six months from now – in March 2014 – one thousand people will depart Santa Monica, California, on a cross-country Great March for Climate Action. It will take them eight months – walking about 15 miles a day – to reach Washington, D.C. They will speak in hundreds of communities and venues along the way and be joined by locals for days or weeks. Once they arrive in D.C., they will swarm-lobby their representatives. Equally importantly, the lives of every participant will be profoundly changed and their roles in the world will evolve in ways they (and we) can barely imagine before this adventure begins. Above all, I believe they will co-create new, far more effective forms of social change.

I want to see that happen. I want this march to succeed in boosting climate activism to an entirely new level. I want it to produce hundreds of more savvy activists and hot collaborations. And I want you to consider joining it, to think about it seriously, as I find myself doing. It is worthy of the participation and/or support of every one of us.

Why do I feel so strongly about this?

The first reason is that climate change is, as the organizers note, not an issue, but a crisis – a Very Big Crisis, with many side effects and repercussions. Along with peak oil and other resource limitations – and the wars, corruption, and social and economic disruption those limits could generate – the climate crisis may be the defining fact of life for people living through the coming decades. The time for addressing all this was yesterday, and now it is today. The longer we wait, the messier it will get. The earlier we take creative action on it, the more profound and positive the transformational impact of our efforts can be. And, as my friend John Abbe (who became Marcher #22) said, “The time to act is now before it is more too late than it already is.”

The second reason I feel strongly is that 27 years ago I spent 9 of the most intense and transformational months of my life on the 400-person LA-DC Great Peace March. As I describe in the Prologue to The Tao of Democracy, that experience gave rise to the vision of possibility that became my life’s work on co-intelligence, wise democracy, and our collective capacity to effectively self-organize our communities and societies. This leads me to believe that the potential impact of such a mobile activist community will be at least as big from the exciting things that happen in and among the marchers, themselves, as from the marchers’ engagements with the places they pass through.

Mobile Activism

Early during my life on the Great Peace March, I wrote an article entitled “Mobile Peace Activism”. I explored the interesting ways that peace marches, bike-a-thons, cruises, and caravans get attention and build community. I’ll share here some of what I wrote 27 years ago exploring the question of why someone would go to all the trouble to organize or join a complicated cross country march instead of engaging in traditional action right at home?

“Novelty plays a role in this. Travelling out-of-towners bring new life and flavor with them — the spirit of other places and a sense of connection to those other places. Stationary people seem fascinated with why mobile people are doing what they are doing….

“It is easy to get into ideological, psychological, spiritual, emotional, organizational or tactical ruts when you are always confronting a desk or a book [or a screen!] or the same faces at every meeting. There’s something about moving to another place each day or week that rubs off on your whole way of thinking and feeling. Perhaps a certain responsiveness or fluidity can develop, making it easier to break out of fixed conditions, to think in new ways…

“Many of us long for a way to transform ourselves while we transform society, to enjoy life while we are saving it from destruction. Mobile activism tends to have transformative and recreational effects on the participants while at the same time achieving external objectives.

“Most mobile activities demand a high level of cooperative living just to keep moving down the road. This stimulates the formation of tightly-knit mobile communities with strong feelings of being ‘family.’ This is both a backdrop to activism and an actively-created part of it, a laboratory for building effective, loving, non-violent lifestyles. And mobile activists, in their trips from town to town, can weave together a greater sense of community among the local activists with whom they work.”

Perhaps most significantly, when hundreds of climate activists walk down the road together every day and live in tents beside each other every night, they talk. Among the things they will talk about are climate change, activism, strategies, deeper causes, long term nuanced consequences, how their grandchildren will live, and what really needs to be done about all that. Their diverse perspectives and information will churn together in a thousand combinations and novel configurations. The march will be a hothouse of new ways of thinking, feeling, and taking action. We could even say that it will be “the other greenhouse effect” – a hundredfold concentration and enrichment of the energy, thinking, and conversations we already engage in together for a few hours or days at a time.

Carrying on such intensified interaction for eight months cannot help but generate breakthrough initiatives and collaborations, transformed lives and lifestyles, new directions for the whole climate movement and every other movement. That’s what happened to me on the Great Peace March. My life changed totally and my work on co-intelligence was born. As I noted in my “Mobile Peace Activism” article, some of the most profound effects of mobile activism are “the effects that all those activists create once they leave the mobile activity and return home or involve themselves in other forms of activism.”

During the last decade I have often wondered if and when there would be a resurgence of mobile activism — of people taking the road instead of taking to the streets. I see it happening now, with this climate action march being perhaps the most ambitious initiative among many others.

Disturbances Transformed by Dialogue

Ironically, the most important thing that happened on the 1986 Great Peace March was that it fell apart two weeks after it began. The founding organization, ProPeace, went bankrupt and told us all to go home. 800 of us did. 400 of us didn’t. Instead of going home the remaining 400 of us talked… and the March was reborn in the middle of the Mojave Desert as a self-organized mobile community that generated its own collective intelligence and collaborative functioning woven out of complex voluntary leaderful activity with nobody in charge. It was held together by purposeful determination and rudimentary but dedicated conversational processes, most especially “talking circles” (which I prefer to call “listening circles”).

Many of my readers and subscribers are practitioners of leading edge processes like Sacred Circles, Open Space, World Cafe, Appreciative Inquiry, Future Search, Dynamic Facilitation, and dozens more. The Great March for Climate Action may not fall apart like the Great Peace March, but it will surely be filled with powerful, smart, assertive, value-driven people – exactly the kind of people who can make or break a giant collaborative enterprise, who can get in each other’s way or together generate highly functional activities, breakthrough insights, and innovative projects that change the world. This polarization of good and bad possibilities will become even more intense in the potent greenhouse of living and walking together day after day after day.

Perhaps the most significant factor in whether the best or worst occurs on this march is how much opportunity the marchers have for high quality conversations designed to support the emergence of breakthroughs, healing, effectiveness, and joy. That’s why I hope that dozens of practitioners who read this essay will join this march. Together they can convene and facilitate conversations that will vastly improve the march’s capacity to govern itself effectively, resolve its internal conflicts wisely, vibrantly engage the communities through which the march passes, and ensure the march positively affects the issue that may well impact more people and more issues – from water to democracy, from justice to war – more profoundly than anything else in this century.

That’s why I invite you – I urge you – to seriously consider what role you could play in support – or as part – of this remarkable effort. Depending on how we each engage with this opportunity, it could make all the difference in the world.  Find out more about how to get involved at www.climatemarch.org.

Blessings on the Journey we are all on together.

Coheartedly,
Tom