Welcome to the book club (5/08)

Update ... click here for the easier-to-read, threaded version of this discussion.

Welcome to this month's water cooler, which is also the spring meeting of the Everyday Democracy Book Club. For the next hour, from 1 to 2 p.m. Eastern, we'll be discussing The Next Form of Democracy: How Expert Rule Is Giving Way to Shared Governance - and Why Politics Will Never Be the Same with its author, Matt Leighninger.

Matt is the executive director of the Deliberative Democracy Consortium as well as a senior associate with Everyday Democracy. His book, published by the Vanderbilt University Press, draws from his years of working with communities to better engage citizens in decision making, problem solving, and the daily work of democracy. As the jacket copy says:

Beneath the national radar, the relationship between citizens and government is undergoing a dramatic shift. More than ever before, citizens are educated, skeptical, and capable of bringing the decision-making process to a sudden halt. Public officials and other leaders are tired of confrontation and desperate for resources. In order to address persistent challenges like education, race relations, crime prevention, land use planning, and economic development, communities have been forced to find new ways for people and public servants to work together.

During the next hour, we'l learn from Matt and each other how innovative public officials and committed activists are forging new ways to run our neighborhoods, cities, counties, and beyond. Here's how the water cooler will work:

I'll ask Matt the first question at 1 p.m. Eastern. To follow the Q&A discussion, click on the word "comments" below this post. If you'd like to pose a question or add a comment, look for the phrase "POST A COMMENT" at the end of the existing comments. Below it, insert your name (real names, please); email address (it will not be visible online); and, if you like, the URL of your organization or program’s website. Write your question or comment in the box, then click “post.”

Please note: You will need to refresh your browser periodically to see the latest questions and comments that have been posted and answered. If traffic gets heavy, you may be asked to verify your comment with a "captcha check," or typing in a string of letters.

Also, if you see that several questions have already been asked, please be kind and give Matt a chance to catch up before posting your question.
We'll post a rethreaded, easier-to-read version of this live blog at our wiki within 24 hours. (You can read past water cooler discussions there, too.)

Thank you for joining us for today's meeting of the Everyday Democracy Book Club! And now, let the discussion begin ...

Comments

[Julie Fanselow]

Welcome, Matt,and thanks for being with us here today!

To start off, can you tell us a few things you've learned about civic involvement since finishing your book? Can you give examples of a few new shared governance programs that have emerged since its publication?

[Matt Leighninger]

Thanks, Julie!

A lot has happened!

There seems to be growing interest among all kinds of people – public officials, funders, practitioners, academics – in questions of “embeddedness.”

This is an awkward way of saying that people want to take the democratic principles and strategies that are apparent in successful study circle programs (and other kinds of civic engagement efforts) and “embed” them in the way that communities (and states, and nations) operate on a day-to-day basis.

[Matt Leighninger]

There seems to be general agreement that we know how to do the logistical things like recruitment, facilitation, framing, etc. (that doesn’t mean they’re easy, just that we know how to do them and lots of communities are using them) on a temporary basis – but we don’t know how to employ them in permanent ways as part of our public institutions.

To do that, we need to rethink things like how neighborhood associations and councils work, how PTAs and school councils function, and what the 21st Century legal framework for citizen participation should look like (since the open meetings laws and other legal safeguards we have now aren’t really sufficient anymore).

[Matt Leighninger]

Portland, Oregon, is a place where they’re dealing with these challenges as part of the rethinking of their 30-year-old neighborhood governance system. But there are a lot of other interesting projects that have happened since the book was written. The AmericaSpeaks projects in California (health care), New Orleans (post-Katrina planning), and Northeast Ohio (regional econ. development) are exciting examples of how to mobilize people across large geographic expanses. Also in that category is the Horizons project on poverty, which involved thousands of people across seven states from Minnesota to Washington. There’s also a new report from Public Agenda on the long-term effects of democratic governance work in Bridgeport, CT. I found out recently about a huge project on race and difference in Lynchburg, VA. Portsmouth (NH) Listens has become an even greater force in local decision-making. I could go on and on.

[Carrie Boron]

Hi Matt and Julie,

I'm looking forward to reading Matt's latest findings since publishing The Next Form of Democracy.

Thanks,
Carrie (Everyday Democracy)

[Julie Fanselow]

Matt, that is good news.

Can you give an example or two of where the ideas and strategies have, in fact, become part of the way the communities do business?

[Matt Leighninger]

...and yes, I had those responses all ready to paste in (I'm not THAT fast a typist).

[Julie Fanselow]

Wow, Matt, you are way ahead of me.

You were in Portland just a few weeks ago, right? And as you say, they already have a local longtime ethic of citizen engagement there. Did you get a sense for any specific ways they're moving ahead - or trying to - in refining that after several decades?

[Matt Leighninger]

There are some examples of temporary projects that have become more or less permanent - Portsmouth, Kuna (ID), Kansas City, KS - and then there are permanent structures like the ones in Portland, Dayton, St. Paul, and so on where they are trying to apply the good group process techniques of the temporary efforts.

[Matt Leighninger]

In Portland, their Community Connect plan includes things like more training and staff support for their neighborhood councils, as well as openings for other, newer organizations to play a role in city decision-making. They're also trying to figure out how to use online components to complement the face-to-face meetings.

[Matt Leighninger]

Another exciting development is more use of these strategies by federal agencies like EPA and the Centers for Disease Control, which recently won an IAP2 award for their public engagement work.

[Carrie Boron]

Matt, what was the key ingredient(s) in each of these communities that helped them institutionalize their dialogue-for-change efforts?

[Julie Fanselow]

Matt, it's interesting that you mention online components. That leads to my next question: What progress are engagement advocates making and what challenges do they face?

You may remember than even Kuna was looking at some sort of handheld technology to help people "attend" meetings when they were too tired from commuting. What sorts of online tools are being used or contemplated in Portland?

[Matt Leighninger]

There are probably several key ingredients, including:
- leadership, by officials, by staff, and by people outside government
- involved academics who are trying to learn and help
- a widespread notion that what the community has been doing, on a temporary basis, is worth sustaining
...or in the cases of the permanent systems, a sense that they've achieved a lot over the years but also have lots of room for improvement.

[Matt Leighninger]

One thing that a number of us are working on, including people from Portland, is an idea called "Democracy Hub," an online platform that would combine the functions (dialogue, tracking and measurement, outcome tracking, other incentives) I described more in detail above.

[Julie Fanselow]

Sounds interesting! Who else out there has a question for Matt?

[gloria francesca mengual]

Matt, your comment reminds me of a community I worked with on Long Island. One of the action teams that formed decided to embed a different way of communicating within institutions in town and started offering a training in how to facilitate a discussion so that divergent views don't block the idea process. I wasn't sure if they would get very far in terms of 'takers' for their offered training. Lo and behold, multiple town agencies asked for this training. One effort in town, as a result of a couple of these 'facilitated meetings, resulted in an action. The effort was to improve community/police relations -- rise in immigrants in town resulted in accusations of police selecting to stop more Hispanics in cars, etc. After a couple of facilitated meeting discussions, the police offered several people among those who were complaining on behalf of immigrant groups to ride with a trooper for a shift. The discussions after those experiences were less filled with accusations and more filled with ideas related to ways to lessen the friction.

[Matt Leighninger]

Hi Gloria -
That's a great story. Yes, the demand for this kind of thing is often surprising - people in all kinds of organizations, working on all kinds of issues, are trying to figure out how to work more productively with their members/constituents/citizens.

[Nick Connell]

It's fascinating to hear how those in various seats of power are "hooked" or "buy in" to shared governance, especially, in rural areas where few families have run things for ages.

[Julie Fanselow]

Gloria brings up a great point in that professional facilitation can really help communities move forward through difficult dialogues. Kathy Cramer Walsh said the same thing last week in a Talk of the Nation show about talking about race.

And Matt, this also speaks to your comment that we HAVE the strategies and tools ... it's a matter of refining them.

[Matt Leighninger]

Training in democratic skills – recruitment, facilitation, framing, etc. – is one thing they need. Technical assistance is another. And in many situations, what needs to be clarified (sometimes in a legal sense) is what the expectations, powers, and responsibilities people are going to have when they get involved.

[Julie Fanselow]

OK, here's another question: Matt, do you think the intense interest in this year's U.S. presidential election will translate into more people being interested in active involvement in their local government. Why or why not?

[Nick Connell]

And I'm also fascinated by how strong advocates are able to be patient with the process, and open to various opinions and experiences, long enough to do shared governance -- the transformation from adversarial politics is huge.

[Matt Leighninger]

The interest is exciting, and this election is a tremendous opportunity to change the way people are involved in government, but so far, none of the candidates has spoken very specifically to that. Both McCain and Obama seem open to new ways of working with citizens, and both of them have given us general rhetoric about citizenship and democracy, but neither has yet stepped up to the plate to say 'here's how we would engage citizens differently in my administration.'

[gloria francesca mengual]

Are California, New Orleans and northern Ohio using technology to reach out? If technology is not an option for connecting people over a large geographic area, what advice would you give to organizers? We have a small group in the Northeast (or as they call it) the 'Quiet Corner' of CT who are trying to organize dialogues around poverty and are looking a bit like a deer in the headlights right now. I've advised them to start with one community and work their way out. What would you advise as first steps to them to organize if they insist on this 10-town regional approach?