The following was written by Matt Leighninger Executive Director,
A report on the learning exchange between the Deliberative Democracy Consortium and the Democratic Governance Panel of the National League of Cities
Washington, DC
March 8th, 2008
At the National League of Cities spring conference in Washington, members of the Deliberative Democracy Consortium (DDC) joined the members of the NLC Democratic Governance Panel for a discussion of the overlapping interests and priorities of the two groups.
The intent of this learning exchange was to allow the local officials and the DDC contributors to share what they’ve learned about involving citizens in deliberation, decision-making, and problem-solving. Tzeitel Paras-Caracci (city councilwoman, Duarte, CA) led the meeting as Chair of the Democratic Governance Panel, and Carolyn Lukensmeyer (AmericaSpeaks) facilitated the learning exchange. Thirty-one people attended, including 16 local officials and 15 representing organizations in the DDC.
One of the first segments of the meeting was a candid conversation about the role of local officials, and of deliberation practitioners, in this work. Local officials were encouraged to air the preconceptions and stereotypes they held about the DDC participants, and vice versa. This was a very interesting discussion in which people on each side shared some of the frustrations they had with their own colleagues, as well as their concerns about those on the other side of the room.
|
“Masters of the Illusion of Inclusion” and the “Esoteric Theorists from Another Galaxy” |
For example, both local officials and deliberation practitioners expressed the frustration that some local officials see democratic governance as “a threat to their power and discretion.” The Panel members see themselves as the “primary disciples within NLC” of this approach. As one official put it, “Too many electeds don’t understand” that the true role of local government is to “facilitate the implementation of a community vision.” There was also some criticism, both by Panel members and DDC participants, of officials who organize superficial kinds of public participation intended merely to make them look good. These officials were characterized as “Masters of the illusion of inclusion.”
There was also some frustration, both by Panel members and DDC participants, with practitioners in deliberation and democracy who are “out of touch with what really happens” and “naïve about the way government can and must function.” Some democracy advocates were criticized for advancing grand, “self-serving” visions of how citizens and local officials ought to deliberate. “Esoteric theorists from another galaxy” was the stereotype put forward (somewhat humorously) to describe these practitioners.
One of the conclusions of this discussion seemed to be that the democratic governance efforts of public officials could use a more rigorous, hard-headed analysis by deliberation practitioners, and that the proposals of deliberation practitioners could use a more rigorous, hard-headed analysis by public officials and other political veterans. In other words, efforts to engage citizens must reflect 1) an awareness of successful democratic principles and 2) an awareness of the political context and how the project will contribute to community change.
The most popular topic of the meeting, however, was communications. Both the panelists and the DDC participants lamented the inadequate, outdated way in which officials and citizens communicate about public issues. “Communication is limited – basically one way – top-down rather than lateral or bottom-up,” said one participant. Several officials complained that journalists made the problem worse rather than better: “The media doesn’t adequately represent what we do.”
|
“The hook for public officials is that this work rebuilds trust.” |
Democratic governance was seen as a kind of antidote to this lack of communication, but both the officials and the practitioners expressed great frustration with their inability to describe democratic governance in plain, compelling terms. Neither journalists nor citizens seemed to “get” this work until they had actually been inv lved in it.
For the local officials, the main motivating factor underneath these concerns was trust. Officials often mentioned their desire to “build an environment of democracy and trust.” Involving citizens in “hot-button” issues, they felt, wasn’t just important for dealing with key public problems: it was a means to the end of strengthening the relationship between citizens and their elected representatives. “The hook for public officials is that this work rebuilds trust,” said one panel member.
Two areas emerged that seemed to be new frontiers for democratic governance, where the meeting participants felt that not enough work had been done. The first was dealing with city staff, rather than just the elected officials. In some ways, officials seemed to see themselves as having more in common with their constituents than with local government employees – “we were citizens before we were elected” – and felt that staff were often an obstacle to democratic governance efforts. One DDC participant reinforced this concern and affirmed that the practitioners “recognize the larger challenge of working with staff and changing the way governments (as organizations) operate.”
Another frontier was the desire to “to go beyond single-issue engagement” and find more holistic, sustainable ways for citizens and officials to work together over the long term.
Four areas emerged as the “highest potential areas” for the Democratic Governance Panel and the DDC to work together:
- Helping local officials to “understand why people mistrust government and how to mitigate/respond to it.” Some officials and practitioners seemed to feel that, while many officials felt the lack of trust on an emotional level, they didn’t necessarily understand where it was coming from. One participant felt that we need “a diagnostic that helps people assess the level and causes of mistrust in their community.”
- Developing a more comprehensive “package” of “communications tools” to facilitate interactions between officials and citizens. Several participants mentioned online technologies as a potential asset. One official mentioned the need to “better communicate the importance of citizen input and what we value.”
- Continuing to expand our “library of knowledge” on how to do democratic governance overall (including but not limited to communications), and make these tools and resources more and more easy to access. The DDC’s Democracy Helpline (http://helpline.deliberative-democracy.net) was mentioned as one vehicle for this work.
- Developing a more compelling and prominent message about democratic governance. Local officials “need to describe in plain language how we see the new roles, responsibilities, and opportunities of citizens and government (including staff as well as electeds) – we need to say how we are doing government and governance differently, and explain what that means for you, the citizen.”
From the flipchart notes, and from participants’ recollections of the meeting, several key lessons seem to stand out (complementing or adding to the priorities mentioned above):
Potential lessons for DDC:
- Pay more attention to the politics (what makes a DG effort politically smart, in addition to being inclusive, deliberative, and democratic)
- Pay more attention to trust and the emotional aspects of the relationship between officials and their constituents
Potential lessons for the Democratic Governance Panel:
- Approach online communication as a potential asset and not just a complication
- Recognize that the practitioners are sympathetic to their situation and are trying to understand the restraints and challenges that officials face
|
“We need to say how we are doing government and governance differently, and explain what that means for you, the citizen.” |
Roster of participants:
Robin Beltramini, city councilwoman, Troy, MI
Scott Brook, mayor, Coral Springs, FL
Bob Carlitz, Information Renaissance
Nancy Carter, city councilwoman, Charlotte, NC
Mary Clark, mayor, Camden, SC
Henrietta Davis, city councilwoman, Cambridge, MA
Doug Echols, mayor, Rock Hill, SC
Kevin Frazell, Minnesota Municipal League
Tomiko Gumbleton, city councilwoman, Ferndale, MI
Sandy Heierbacher, National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation
Chris Hoene, National League of Cities
Gail Leftwich Kitch, By the People
Matt Leighninger, Deliberative Democracy Consortium
Peter Levine, Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement
Mark Linder, former assistant city manager, San Jose, California
Carolyn Lukensmeyer, AmericaSpeaks
Phillip Lurie, Kettering Foundation
Susanna Haas Lyons, AmericaSpeaks
Leanne Smith Nurse, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Katie Ogden, student representative, Tualatin, OR
Lou Ogden, mayor, Tualatin, OR
Tzeitel Paras Caracci, city councilwoman, Duarte, CA
Bo Perkinson, vice mayor, Athens, TN
Reemberto Rodriguez, NeighborWorks America
Donald Rosen, city councilman, Sunrise, FL
Gloria Rubio-Cortes, National Civic League
Donald Saunders, city councilman, Bedford, OH
Bill Schechter, Collaboration DC
Ben Shute, Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Joanne Ward, mayor, Hercules, CA
Georgette White-Moon, city councilwoman, Tuskegee, AL
UHD Center for Public Deliberation 