Why we need better public participation: Complex issues and how structure makes us think better

Why we need better public participation: Complex issues and how structure makes us think better. | EngagingCities:

• Our conventional way of doing public participation in this country tends to fall at one end of the freedom/constraint spectrum or the other.  We either present people with a pre-determined, pre-endorsed plan (or a couple to make it look more like a choice), or we just  throw open the microphone and say "what do you think?"  I don't know why we're surprised when we get protest, or most likely apathy, in the first case, and crazy or irrelevant feedback in the second. 
• We have to find the right balance of openness and structure, of inviting feedback and keeping people on track, of getting people as deeply and constructively involved as they can be instead of settling for a lousy experience on both sides of the table.  If the only people who are benefiting from public involvement are the list-checker-offers and those who came to hear their own voice resound, then we are wasting our limited time and our more limited money.  Period. 

'via Blog this'

Politics as Usual? New Kind of Talk Needed

Politics as Usual? New Kind of Talk Needed | Voice of San Diego:

• The process of deliberation requires a safe place for citizens to come together, with fair information to help structure the conversation, and skilled facilitators to guide the discussion. But this is rare in our polarized political culture. We need to develop “passionately impartial” resources, based on democracy and the values it entails such as freedom, equality, inclusion, transparency, trust and mutual respect.    The skilled facilitators must strive toward impartiality on the topics under discussion, lest participants dismiss the process as biased and partisan. Developing that capacity in our community is where we can begin.

'via Blog this'

Beginning September 23, 2013: Dialogue, Deliberation, and Public Engagement Certificate Program

National Issues Forums: News:

• The Institute for Civic Discourse and Democracy at Kansas State University is pleased to announce the award winning Dialogue, Deliberation, and Public Engagement Certificate Program (DDPE) beginning September 23rd.
• This distinctive program focuses on developing mastery in making wise choices for bringing dialogue, deliberation, and engagement into situations where they are most effective.

'via Blog this'

It is unclear if Dr. Gallup's favored govt. reforms will ever become reality on a nationwide basis, but Americans still largely view them as worthy ideas

Americans in Favor of National Referenda on Key Issues:

• A majority of Americans back three political reform ideas, including 68% who favor national referenda on key issues if enough voters sign a petition to request a popular vote on the issue. Roughly six in 10 favor a shortened presidential campaign lasting five weeks in the fall of an election year and a nationwide primary election to select each party's candidates for president.
• Americans have long supported specific reforms to the political system that would increase the influence of average citizens and decrease the sway of elected representatives, political parties, and special interest groups. These reforms include national issue referenda, campaign finance reform, and basing the presidential election outcome on the popular vote. Perhaps it is not surprising Americans would favor steps that would make their voices more influential in determining government policy.
• However, nearly 40 years after Dr. Gallup proposed several reform ideas, few of these have become reality in the U.S. political system. Certainly, it is difficult to amend the constitution to change some of the basic ways the system operates, or even to pass legislation to change long-standing practices. Legal challenges have also thwarted or weakened legislative attempts to reform the system, such as campaign finance reform laws. In some cases, such as with the presidential primary system, the government and political parties have made reforms but stopped short of more radical change along the lines of the nationwide primary Dr. Gallup advocated. And although the federal government has not adopted referendum or term limits, many U.S. states have in recent decades.

'via Blog this'

Political Fix: How Do We Get American Politics Back on Track?

NCDD Resource Center » Political Fix: How Do We Get American Politics Back on Track? (NIF Issue Guide):

• One of the National Issues Forums Institute’s issue guides, Political Fix: How Do We Get American Politics Back on Track? outlines this critical public issue and several choices or approaches to addressing the issue. National Issues Forums do not advocate a specific solution or point of view, but provide citizens the opportunity to consider a broad range of choices, weigh the pros and cons of those options, and meet with each other in a public dialogue to identify the concerns they hold in common.

'via Blog this'

September 22-24, 2013 Social Good Summit

Social Good Summit 2013 - Social Good Summit:

On Sunday September 22, 2013, we are going to make history. On that day (or around that day if it works better for you) we are inviting people all over the world to create and join Meetups to connect with people to discuss the biggest challenges facing our world. We’re all answering the same big question: "How can new technology and new media create solutions for the biggest problems facing my community and create a better future by the year 2030?"

'via Blog this'

How should the Dialogue and Deliberation (D&D) community respond to the crisis in Newtown? And beyond?

NCDD Community News » How should the D&D community respond to the crisis in Newtown?:

• In collaboration with Newtown, Connecticut resident and NCDD member Ben Roberts, NCDD has created a space on Hackpad where we can talk about last Friday’s tragedy and how our community might respond.
• I’m especially interested in using this moment to encourage us to think about how we can equip our community to respond quickly and effectively to crises like this in the future.  I hope we can think together about the infrastructure NCDD and others need to be building to enable us to respond together to future crises that cry out for dialogue in a timely, productive, and meaningful way.

'via Blog this'

Not just about abortion: The reproductive rights issues missing from the debates

Not just about abortion: The reproductive rights issues missing from the debates - Viewpoint with Eliot Spitzer // Current TV:

“What I think was also missing from last night was not just making this about abortion and personal morality — although abortion rights are extremely important — but also pointing out how much Republicans have tried to limit access to contraception, which we can scientifically agree is the best way to limit unplanned pregnancies”

'via Blog this'

No Mention of Record Inequality in the debates

No Mention of Record Inequality - The Demos Blog - PolicyShop:

With the flood of corporate money elevating the deficit as the most important challenge facing this country, it's worth reiterating that economic and political inequality form a vicious cycle, prioritizing the policy preferences of the rich.

'via Blog this'

Why isn't anyone talking about climate change in this election?

Why isn't anyone talking about climate change in this election? - Viewpoint with Eliot Spitzer // Current TV:

“It would be great if a member of the media actually asked even one question on what most of us think is the story of the century: which is that we are in the process of ruining this liveable climate of ours. And we can still solve the problem if we act now, but obviously if no one talks about it, it’s very hard to solve the problem”

'via Blog this'

The political "power grab": Is it legal? Is it moral?

The power grab is arguably the most divisive and controversial move in politics.  The Republican governors of Wisconsin, Michigan and Florida have attracted the ire of Democrats and others since 2011 to the point of attracting large, sustained protests.

Some legal advocates have claimed some power grabs as unconstitutional; state and federal courts have been busy addressing the issue.  Some reformers question the morality of most power grabs; they claim the denial of compromise inherent in the moves deny other stakeholders' voices.

Below are instances in nonprofit NGO websites of so-called "power grabs" that have happened in the last couple of years:


"[1] House Committee Approves Controversial Data Retention Measure"
EPIC
August 2, 2011

Judiciary Chairman Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) was "not convinced [the bill] will contribute in any meaningful way to prosecuting child pornography." Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) stated that it is an "unprecedented power grab by the federal government - it goes way beyond fighting child pornography." Rep. Scott said that the data would be available for many other uses, including copyright prosecution and divorce cases, while Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) stated that retained data will be made available to law enforcement officers without a warrant or judicial oversight. Rep. Lofgren went so far as to propose an amendment to rename the bill the "Keep Every American's Digital Data for Submission to the Federal Government Without a Warrant Act." The amendment failed.

"Statement - Mal Warwick"
ACLU
April 20, 2006

I see developments during the present administration as largely an extension of disturbing trends that have been evident under both parties. One of those developments in particular is central to the increasing difficulties our nation and our society are experiencing both at home and abroad.  I am referring to the relentless accumulation of power by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.  In itself, the arrogation of warrantless surveillance powers by the National Security Agency is frightening. As an extension of the increasing power of the presidency, it is profoundly disturbing. I do not believe our democracy can survive if this latest power grab is left standing.  What is left of American democracy if an agency of the United States Government, acting under the direction of the White House, can monitor our telephone and e-mail communications without notice, without prior clearance by the courts, and without any recourse in law?

"Obama Team on Right Track in Defending Health Care Reform, Policy Expert Writes"
American Constitution Society
January 9, 2012

Lazarus defends the administration’s case for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), saying before the current high court it looks best in the “Commerce-Clause format.” Lazarus concludes, in part, that a string of “eminent conservative appellate judges have blown off opponents’ demands to overturn this allegedly ‘unprecedented’ federal power-grab. On the contrary, Republican appointees have concluded that upholding the ACA mandate is compelled by the text of the Commerce Clause and Supreme Court precedent, that it is no more ‘coercive’ than other measures, such as dedicated taxes and tax write-offs undergirding major existing health-insurance laws, and even, that the ACA’s approach could be a valuable model for conservative designs to privatize other components of the social safety net.”

"Florida Bar Must Prevent Gov. Scott’s Judicial Power Grab"
Brennan Center for Justice
January 17, 2012

Last year the Florida legislature failed to pass a proposal to give the governor sole authority over naming the members of the state’s judicial nominating panel.  Currently, the governor appoints five members of each judicial nominating commission on his own, and the other four are chosen based on recommendations by the Florida Bar. Now, a bill advancing in the Florida House seeks to revise the state’s judicial merit selection system, including by allowing the governor to replace some members of the nominating commissions.  A Pensacola News Journal article highlights contrasting views on the proposal.  According to the Journal, Democratic Representative Marty Kiar fears the change would get rid of the independence of the commissions. In contrast, the bill’s sponsor Matt Gaetz, believes it would permit the governor to hold panel members accountable.

"The GOP War on Regulations"
Public Citizen
October 20, 2011

It’s hard to imagine a worse time for big business to conduct a full-blown attack on regulatory protections. The country continues to suffer from a deep recession caused in large part by financial deregulation and underenforcement of existing rules. A string of corporate disasters—the BP oil gusher, the Massey coal mine explosion, unintended acceleration in Toyota cars, leaded toys, killer cantaloupes—all tied directly to inadequate regulatory protections, are fresh in the public mind.  For the US Chamber of Commerce, however, the facts shouldn’t get in the way of a stupendous power grab. The Chamber and its allies on Capitol Hill have launched an unprecedented antiregulation campaign, with the goal of blocking new safeguards against corporate wrongdoing and rolling back environmental, health, financial and other regulatory protections.

"U.S. Rep. Conyers Blasts Mich. Gov.’s Bill as ‘Opportunistic Power Grab’"
American Constitution Society
March 21, 2011

The measure touted by Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder as a way to ensure local governments can effectively respond to dire financial situations is "an unconstitutional swipe at minority communities and hardworking public workers," writes U.S. Rep. John Conyers in an op-ed for the Detroit Free Press. Gov. Snyder (pictured) who is backing the bill, which would give him the power to dissolve local government entities and nullify collective bargaining rights or workers, has attracted increasing attention nationwide for his effort and sparked massive protests at the state capitol. Conyers said the bill is being pushed "under the guise of Michigan's temporary financial distress," and amounts to "an opportunistic power grab by Republican state legislators and now the governor."

Read New Book on Deliberation and Democracy

From:  Democratizing Deliberation: A Political Theory Anthology  |  NCDD

• This book addresses many of the most common challenges to the theory and practice of deliberative democracy.

• Chapters and Authors…

• Foreward by David Mathews

• Introduction by editors Derek W. M. Barker, Nöelle McAfee, and David W. McIvor

• Public reason and beyond: broadening concepts of deliberation

• Deliberation in complex systems: everyday talk and de-centered

• From talk to action: democratic practice and public work

• Resource Link: http://kettering.org/publications/democratizing-deliberation/

• Ordering Info:  Call 1-800-600-4060 to order your copy of the 184-page book, or email your order and mailing address to info@ait.net.  The list price is $15.95, but there is a 20% discount in effect until October.

• Note from NCDD…  Soon after Democratizing Deliberation is officially released, NCDD will be running our first online book club on the book, using the NCDD blog and other communication tools to engage NCDDers in the book’s contents chapter by chapter.  See www.ncdd.org/7863 for the full announcement of the book club and sign up now!

Read Timely, Free Articles from the Latest Journal of Public Deliberation

From:  Latest Issue of the Journal of Public Deliberation  |  NCDD

• 14 manuscripts are published in this issue, and authors hail from 8 countries.

• This issue contains research articles, essays, and a symposium.

• The symposium is an essay series that respond to Larry Diamond’s recent work on liberation technologies.  Guest editor, Damien Pfister, coordinated these essays to explore the potential for “de-liberation technologies” to sustain democratic movements.

• The articles in the current issue (Vol 8, Issue 1) can be downloaded from http://services.bepress.com/jpd/

A good introduction to deliberative public politics

Kettering Foundation
Entire article: WE HAVE TO CHOOSE: DEMOCRACY AND DELIBERATIVE POLITICS

We Have to Choose is a working draft Kettering report designed primarily for civic organizations, centers, and institutes that sponsor deliberative forums and/or prepare people to conduct such forums. This report attempts to help these organizations find a pedagogy or way to explain deliberation, which has to be learned but can’t be taught through instruction alone.  

Public deliberation can’t be confined to formally organized forums. And democracy can’t be confined to collective decision making, even if it is done by deliberative means. Kettering has realized that democracy exists at two levels. The more obvious one is at the institutional level, where there are legislatures, executive agencies, and courts.  

Underneath, there is an organic foundation of ad hoc associations and civic organizations. At the institutional level, citizens are defined by their relationship to government. They are voters, taxpayers, and school board members. At the organic level, citizens are defined by their relationship to other citizens. They are the people who join with others to create a neighborhood watch, to organize a campaign to protect the environment, or to conduct rescue operations after a hurricane. 

The democracy that public deliberation serves is primarily organic, yet it isn’t indifferent or antagonistic to representative government. At the organic level of democracy, collective efforts are made to deal with problems that can’t be solved unless the citizenry acts. This collective action requires a particular kind of decision making because the problems aren’t just technical; they have a normative or moral dimension. Protecting the health of the American people is an example; citizens have an important role to play, and issues like the care of the terminally ill raise all kinds of moral questions.  

Such problems grow out of a discrepancy between what is happening and what people want to happen. What makes these problems especially difficult are disagreements about what should be happening. There aren’t any experts who can tell citizens what should be; they have to exercise the best judgment they can. And the best way to make sound judgments is by weighing possible causes of action against the various things people consider valuable or believe should be. That is deliberation in a nutshell.  

Although a means of making decisions, public deliberation can’t be isolated from what happens before and after a decision is made. Before citizens will make decisions, they have to see a connection between their concerns and political issues. This begins to happen (or doesn’t begin) with who names the problems and the way they are named or described.  

If the name of a problem doesn’t resonate with what people consider valuable, they lose interest. The same happens, or fails to happen, when options are put forth to deal with a problem. Unless all the options are put on the table and each is presented fairly, with both the pros and cons spelled out, people back away, feeling manipulated. And if the options for action don’t include anything for citizens to do, they feel sidelined—they feel that they can’t make any difference.  

All of this, including the way citizens implement their decisions and evaluate the results, are deliberative public politics, writ large. Because this kind of politics involves more than decision making, forums can’t be understood without taking into account what happens outside the rooms where they are held. That is true even if the purpose of the forum is purely educational. Forums are a staging area, not the whole stage. 

And public deliberation also introduces distinctive values into politics. Deliberation has to be nonpartisan, yet it is not value neutral. It values democracy and assumes that citizens have the capacity for effective collective action. It not only puts a premium on respect for the opinions of others but also on fairness and the good of all.  

TO ORDER PUBLICATIONS
E-mail 

Phone: 1-800-600-4060

Fax: 1-812-333-4218

Book is to be published on public deliberation as a part of democratic politics

National Issues Forums
From: A message from David Mathews
The following is a reflection by David Mathews, president of the Kettering Foundation in Dayton, Ohio.

• Deliberation is a term for the collective decision making that has always been integral to politics. Deliberative decision making is not a special or separate technique but rather a component of collective action, which nearly always involves coming to terms with disagreement and conflict. Similarly, public deliberation is an integral part of democratic politics.
• In the near future, the Kettering Foundation Press will publish a new book, Democratizing Deliberation: A Political Theory Anthology, on the nature of deliberation and its role in politics. Derek Barker, Noëlle McAfee, and David McIvor are coeditors.

This National Issues Forum post was published in July, 2011.  As of today, Democratizing Deliberation doesn't appear to be on the market, yet.

Collaboration for social change

NCoC- National Conference on Citizenship
When addressing public problems, is our goal always building consensus or finding common ground? Should it be? A Civic Connector Commentary by Bobbi Silten; Comments allowed.

• Collaboration can be powerful in developing solutions for community challenges, but it also requires an investment of time, a willingness to find common ground, the patience to work through differences, and leadership. Lots of leadership.
• I have found that the best way to have collaborations work is to understand both the collective goal as well as the individual goals of the people and/or organizations that are involved. While we all work toward our shared goal, the leadership of a collaborative also needs to be mindful that all the partners are getting something they need out of the collective effort as well. For some, the motivation may purely be the shared objective and for others it may be a balance between the collective and their own organizational goals.
• Collaboration is not always easy, but it plays an important role in realizing social change. And if we need to change the system, we need to work together.

This is an open forum question for their post.

"Public deliberation" poems

As we debate in our nation's capital, let us take a moment to reflect on the inherent wisdom of our higher selves.  Life is always a sign of hope; let life sustain us to a just and right solution.


Public deliberation
by David Weller



about doubt!
no doubt about it!
we all have it!
we must move on, though,
human beings require work...



in fullness of doubt
does one turn about
and remain
true to
oneself



honesty, without
eternity to believe,
means nothing to me



hearts are one when we
go each our own way, when we
never make th' other stay



breaking the sweetness
with vapors of great feats, lest
we grow eliteness



doubt that you own the
moon and all of its brightness, and
you will be right less



it doesn't matter
"how" it's done,
just get "wise"
in how it's
never quite won...



love denies pain and
glory and foresight and all
that's left of what's right



Love hates sinning and
likes you without winning, so
that's selfless giving!

Read up on the budget deal. Demand transparency. Weigh in. Democracy demands it.

The purpose of Activism News is to offer tools to assist citizens in engaging in the democratic process; in addition, we provide the latest news applicable to the average political activist. This means culling the latest from the source-- over 150 different NGO blogs-- and presenting that information with due attribution. An entire post from OMB Watch today deserves our immediate attention-- it reminds us of our civic duty during this time of critical debt deliberations to be both aware of Washington's happenings and to engage with fellow Americans and our federally elected officials. Thanks to OMB Watch for this very timely public participation request.

The Biggest Loser in the Debt Ceiling Deal: American Democracy
August 9, 2011

Like everyone else in the country, at OMB Watch, we are trying to find a sliver of hope in the outcome of the debt ceiling debacle. We are relieved that default was avoided, since the immediate repercussions could have been worse than the volatility we've seen in recent days. But the debt deal effectively steals the instruments government has to try to heal our wounded economy. Financial analysts across the globe have noticed, and anxieties about the effects of sputtering U.S. consumer demand are deepening.

As critical as the economic impacts of the deal are, the debt ceiling game of chicken was a political earthquake, and its aftershocks could keep us reeling indefinitely. America’s style of democracy, admired (or sometimes criticized) for its stability, is looking shaky.

Effective democracy requires an informed, engaged citizenry; honest debate; and elected representatives working in the public interest. These elements were not in evidence last week.

The American people are angry that big banks were rescued but not local businesses or homeowners. Americans told Congress they wanted jobs, but the only proposals under discussion were cuts to Medicare and Social Security. Our debt piled up because we gave huge tax cuts to the wealthy, went to war on borrowed money, and then revenues tanked when the housing bubble burst. The stimulus created or saved up to three and a half million jobs, but it wasn’t big enough to fill the 8 million-job hole created by Wall Street’s meltdown. Corporate taxes are at an all-time low; businesses have trillions to invest but won’t until demand returns.

A majority of Americans of both parties believe revenues should be part of the budget deal. The public wants a debate on what the federal government can do to create jobs and right the economy. Instead of addressing these crucial issues, a determined minority is doing its best to undermine the government’s ability to provide assistance to vulnerable Americans in this challenging economy and during future crises.

Anti-government ideologues have taken away a frightening lesson: that radical truculence by a small faction is a winning strategy. When elected officials fail to respond to the public’s concerns, faith in government plummets. When unemployment benefits are held hostage to tax cuts for the rich, public cynicism about who our democratic institutions serve grows. When elected officials who vote their conscience or the values of their constituents are threatened with primary challenges financed by outside special interests, the principle of representative democracy erodes. And when public trust in government bleeds out, anti-government forces gain strength.

Those of us who believe in democracy and know that public structures play a crucial role in life have to push back on the cynicism. We need more participation, more citizens scrutinizing the process. What’s at stake is too important to give in to cynicism and disillusionment. Twelve people cannot possibly represent the unique needs and diverse interests of the American populace. The potential for special interest pressure on the Committee of Twelve will be enormous. The American people need to be vigilant; they need to make themselves heard.

Even if our party structures and congressional rules are stuck in the 19th century, our technology is not. We have digital video and cell phones. We have the Internet. We have the ability to live-stream every hearing of the Committee of Twelve to libraries, college campuses, and school rooms across the country. Reports and documents can be posted online.

Every meeting a committee member has with a lobbyist or powerful interest group should be posted online. Financial disclosure statements of the Committee of Twelve and their staff should be posted online. Campaign contributions should be publicly posted within 24 hours of receipt. The committee’s final report should be posted 72 hours before it is voted on. A running public comment should start now. Let’s have a giant civics lesson in public budgets.

Government of the people requires an electoral system that produces responsible, rational representatives who care more about people than ideological purity. Government by the people in the modern world mandates modern communication tools that invite people into decision making instead of shutting them out. Government for the people only happens when citizens fiercely defend their right to know and to participate. So read up on the budget deal. Demand transparency. Weigh in.

Democracy demands it.

Video: An example of a good petitioner endorsement for a candidate

Source: DemDash Blog
The Power of an Endorsement

• This [post's video clip] is a succinct and powerful reminder of the real power of a well-crafted endorsement. This is the power of deliberative democracy that we're tapping into with the current version of Democracy Dashboard.

Check out the post for a video of a petitioner and his great presentation for a local city candidate.  Democracy Dashboard will show many more presentations from others in the future, including those for San Francisco, CA.

On the nature of public deliberation

On the Nature of Public Deliberation - A Message from Dr. David Mathews, President of the Kettering Foundation

One, possibly the primary, obstacle to acting together wisely is that people disagree, sometimes to the point of violent conflict, about what kind of action is appropriate. Dealing with conflict is inescapable. The most difficult disagreements are about what is the right thing to do; that is, the conflict is more normative than simply factual. Early on in human history, people learned that making decisions to act under these conditions requires exercising the best judgment possible. Such judgment requires, in turn, carefully and fairly weighing various options for action against the many things people hold dear, which is deliberation.

America must come together and deliberate on the top issues of the day.  Presently there is too little trust between the two major political parties.  Debates within open and respectful environments move the issues forward.