Our summer meeting schedule continues... on the Memorial Union Terrace (weather permitting, otherwise go into the Lakefront Cafe)... Monday, 1-3pm per usual. Our last discussion focussed on issues related to public participation in the WI political environment, a promised 'revisit' of this issue six months after things got thoroughly stirred up in our State Capitol. Several excellent points were made by the 8 PPLC members in attendence... here are a few:
* People tend to come out to participate when they feel threatened... it needs to be a shared crisis, it seems, to be a primary motivator for sustained engagement. People would not have come out over the health care provisions of the 'budget repair bill' or most of the other elements, though threatening to their interests. But the collective impact of the threat, most directly felt in the right to organize and bargain across all sectors of public employment, led to this huge response. How do we, as facilitators, tap into such energy and transform it into a constructive force?
* The concept of the 'Network of Criticality,' a small force, properly applied, can cause big changes with a disproportionately small amount of energy expended... We have many people invested in the issues here, with long histories of engagement at very personal levels... but where should the force be best applied? It appears that the Governor's allies have been masters of this approach thus far.
* The dispute has not transformed into meaningful negotiations, it appears, because it has not yet been RIPE to do so... the drama of the political story still needs to play itself out in the Recall process and pending court cases before there is readiness for any effort at a paradigm shift. It also remains questionable whether the Republicans would view it in their interests to negotiate and reach collaborative solutions...
* There is a long history of antagonism here between certain sectors, such as b/w School Boards and teachers unions, so the underlying narrative of the situation varies significantly across WI. Thus, we are not witnessing a muddy middle that looks 'purple' in polling, but a polarized set of core stories with long histories. Rhetoric simplifies the message, and elections thrive on rhetoric. To transform this situation into one of deliberation and engagement requires a willingness to accept that the current system and paradigm are broken... perhaps the national debt debate and debacle can serve as such a driver.
*The Wisconsin Idea is a pwoerful resource for the UW to become engaged as a resource here... either in hosting deliberative processes, cultivating capacity for such dialogues (as we do as PPLC members), or in other vehicles not yet explored. Our group felt this capacity should be tapped, and the 100th anniversary of the WI Idea offers a special opportunity in that regard.
Join us as the conversation continues! See you Monday... or comment here to add to the depth of our insights...
-Harry
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Next Public Participation LC Meeting - July 18th on the Terrace
We are meeting on the Terrace this summer… and it sounds like several of us will be there:
Next meeting is Monday, July 18th, 1-3pm
Focus (anticipated): Follow-up from our February 21st meeting in which we discussed events at the Capitol in light of public participation and engagement challenges (see below for details):
Harry
Next meeting is Monday, July 18th, 1-3pm
Focus (anticipated): Follow-up from our February 21st meeting in which we discussed events at the Capitol in light of public participation and engagement challenges (see below for details):
- How do we create spaces of engagement and dialogue in the midst of highly polarized debate?
- How do we facilitate within such spaces in light of our own biases, responses, and interests in the outcomes?
- Are there ways to support constructive dialogue and deliberation outside of the ‘main spaces’ of the formal process (we can look at Track III Diplomacy for some examples here)?
Harry
Monday, February 21, 2011
Public Participation LC Meeting to Discuss Unfolding Events at Capitol and UW
*** See Update Below ***
Today's (Feb 21st) meeting of the PPLC will be held at Fair Trade Coffeehouse in order to accomodate competing demands for members' presence in these amazing days in Madison. At the Capitol, a political stalemate over the so-called 'budget repair bill' introduced by Gov. Walker has fomented a significant political action unlike any we have seen in WI since the Vietnam War. Each day, tens of thousands of protesters are peaceably demonstrating their anger and intense frustration with the proposals of this bill, most notably the severe restrictions on future collective bargaining rights of public employees. While the Governor has claimed these changes, along with increased employee contributions to health and retirement benefits are essential for government to function in an economically responsible manner, the concerns of most of the demonstrators are that these changes will leave unchecked workers' rights that have been negotiated over the past 50+ years. There are other, less-publicized aspects to the bill, such as increasing the number of governor-appointed employees, reducing the power of the legislature, significant cuts in Badger Care Medicaid programs, the dissolution of regional mass transit systems, and the likely loss of federal aids to urban mass transit because of the lack of a collective bargaining agreement framework.
There are certainly more details to this situation. One challenge for the PPLC to consider is: What are the underlying needs, interests, and concerns of this crisis? How might they be best addressed? It appears to me that had the Governor merely sought to increase the financial contributions of state workers to their benefit plans, only a modest objection would have been raised. Indeed, both the AFSCME and WEAC leadership have publicly stated they would accept such contributions at this point, and the Democratic State Senators who left the Capitol and shut down the process have stated they would accept those changes as a compromise. The deeper issue, substantively, is clearly the loss of workers' rights to a collective bargaining agreement, and the perception that this is an effort to bust the public unions.
As strong as this issue impresses me, the larger issue I see is that the PROCESS by which all of this was introduced appears to be disingenuine, untrustworthy, incidious in its nature and delivery, and the RELATIONAL aspects of this dispute are filled with rhetoric of disrespect. The people who support this bill also feel angry and frustrated: They voted for Walker in order to bring fiscal responsibility to the Capitol, and they support his efforts to bring public employee benefits more into accord with what they view as fair compensation. They are also angry that the Democrats bolted town, and perceive many demonstrators as being irresponsible and unrealistic in terms of what Wisconsin now needs.
At this point, although the 70,000+ anti-Walker demonstrators on Saturday were tested by some pro-Walker voices, there has been a commitment among the demonstrators to be peacable, and relatively respectful in tone... indeed, the Grassroots Leadership College has taken the lead in organizing training in non-violent communication and resistance, and orange-vested peace marshalls abound in the Capitol rotunda to help maintain that peaceful spirit. However, law enforcement is properly maintaining its presence in channeling energy and intervening at any smaller confrontations that arise. Once the bill's fate is resolved, especially if passed, there is definitely potential for the situation to deteriorate.
At the UW, the Chancellor's proposal to gain greater flexibility and independence from the State has taken on some powerful drama, as faculty, staff, and students are split in their opinions. There is also much not yet known about how the plan will shape up. Once again, while there are substantive issues to consider, there are stronger emotional reactions to the PROCESS by which this plan is being advanced and the perception among some that it is going to have serious repercussions that have not been thoroughly discussed in the campus community. There is also a view that, even if UW-Madison should gain increased self-determination and authority, the consequences for UW System would be negative in ways that don't sit well with many on campus.
Enough from me at this point... I'm just attempting to get a few things out there to frame our discussion. These are 'heady times' with lots to consider on both ends of State Street.
***Updated Feb 24th ***
Ten members of the PPLC met on Monday afternoon and had an excellent conversation regarding the events of the past week (now 11+ days) and the possibilities of instilling some of the principles of facilitated, collaborative, participation and engagement into the efforts to address the political, social, and economic concerns of the Budget Repair Bill impasse. A number of excellent ideas emerged, a few of which I highlight here:
1. If we can 'hold the space' with a peaceful, facilitative presence in the midst of all of the polarizing animosity, that will be of service to the greater good. Some examples have already been quite present in the Capitol, ranging from many written reminders that "This is a Peaceful Protest" to groundrules for the Gallery to the non-violence training that occurs every night.
2. While it may not be possible on a large scale, expanding opportunities for "Tea and Coffee Tables" to be present on the Square is a great idea. They are open invitations for dialogue across the political divide and, as has also been stated in the Rotunda, the end of the dispute will not occur with shouting and coercion, but with patient discussion and civil persuasion through insight.
3. Some creative ways to retain the sense of inter-generational festivity were suggested, including the use of street theatre (how about inviting Madison jugglers, or choreographing a 'red' and 'blue' dance?). While some are portraying the thousands in the crowd as an 'angry mob,' there has actually been very little of this behavior thus far. However, that could change if the bill passes and there is an effort to disburse the crowd.
Any efforts to maintain the true intentions of the citizens expressing their concerns beyond the current debate should also consider meaningful opportunities for participation. The economic impacts of the legislation and the upcoming Budget Bill will be signficant, and a shift in workers' collective bargaining rights will have major influences on our communities. As such, creating opportunities to invite people to discuss these concerns and develop creative, effective responses to them may be one of the core opportunities of the Public Participation Learning Community.
Further comments are invited...
Today's (Feb 21st) meeting of the PPLC will be held at Fair Trade Coffeehouse in order to accomodate competing demands for members' presence in these amazing days in Madison. At the Capitol, a political stalemate over the so-called 'budget repair bill' introduced by Gov. Walker has fomented a significant political action unlike any we have seen in WI since the Vietnam War. Each day, tens of thousands of protesters are peaceably demonstrating their anger and intense frustration with the proposals of this bill, most notably the severe restrictions on future collective bargaining rights of public employees. While the Governor has claimed these changes, along with increased employee contributions to health and retirement benefits are essential for government to function in an economically responsible manner, the concerns of most of the demonstrators are that these changes will leave unchecked workers' rights that have been negotiated over the past 50+ years. There are other, less-publicized aspects to the bill, such as increasing the number of governor-appointed employees, reducing the power of the legislature, significant cuts in Badger Care Medicaid programs, the dissolution of regional mass transit systems, and the likely loss of federal aids to urban mass transit because of the lack of a collective bargaining agreement framework.
There are certainly more details to this situation. One challenge for the PPLC to consider is: What are the underlying needs, interests, and concerns of this crisis? How might they be best addressed? It appears to me that had the Governor merely sought to increase the financial contributions of state workers to their benefit plans, only a modest objection would have been raised. Indeed, both the AFSCME and WEAC leadership have publicly stated they would accept such contributions at this point, and the Democratic State Senators who left the Capitol and shut down the process have stated they would accept those changes as a compromise. The deeper issue, substantively, is clearly the loss of workers' rights to a collective bargaining agreement, and the perception that this is an effort to bust the public unions.
As strong as this issue impresses me, the larger issue I see is that the PROCESS by which all of this was introduced appears to be disingenuine, untrustworthy, incidious in its nature and delivery, and the RELATIONAL aspects of this dispute are filled with rhetoric of disrespect. The people who support this bill also feel angry and frustrated: They voted for Walker in order to bring fiscal responsibility to the Capitol, and they support his efforts to bring public employee benefits more into accord with what they view as fair compensation. They are also angry that the Democrats bolted town, and perceive many demonstrators as being irresponsible and unrealistic in terms of what Wisconsin now needs.
At this point, although the 70,000+ anti-Walker demonstrators on Saturday were tested by some pro-Walker voices, there has been a commitment among the demonstrators to be peacable, and relatively respectful in tone... indeed, the Grassroots Leadership College has taken the lead in organizing training in non-violent communication and resistance, and orange-vested peace marshalls abound in the Capitol rotunda to help maintain that peaceful spirit. However, law enforcement is properly maintaining its presence in channeling energy and intervening at any smaller confrontations that arise. Once the bill's fate is resolved, especially if passed, there is definitely potential for the situation to deteriorate.
At the UW, the Chancellor's proposal to gain greater flexibility and independence from the State has taken on some powerful drama, as faculty, staff, and students are split in their opinions. There is also much not yet known about how the plan will shape up. Once again, while there are substantive issues to consider, there are stronger emotional reactions to the PROCESS by which this plan is being advanced and the perception among some that it is going to have serious repercussions that have not been thoroughly discussed in the campus community. There is also a view that, even if UW-Madison should gain increased self-determination and authority, the consequences for UW System would be negative in ways that don't sit well with many on campus.
Enough from me at this point... I'm just attempting to get a few things out there to frame our discussion. These are 'heady times' with lots to consider on both ends of State Street.
***Updated Feb 24th ***
Ten members of the PPLC met on Monday afternoon and had an excellent conversation regarding the events of the past week (now 11+ days) and the possibilities of instilling some of the principles of facilitated, collaborative, participation and engagement into the efforts to address the political, social, and economic concerns of the Budget Repair Bill impasse. A number of excellent ideas emerged, a few of which I highlight here:
1. If we can 'hold the space' with a peaceful, facilitative presence in the midst of all of the polarizing animosity, that will be of service to the greater good. Some examples have already been quite present in the Capitol, ranging from many written reminders that "This is a Peaceful Protest" to groundrules for the Gallery to the non-violence training that occurs every night.
2. While it may not be possible on a large scale, expanding opportunities for "Tea and Coffee Tables" to be present on the Square is a great idea. They are open invitations for dialogue across the political divide and, as has also been stated in the Rotunda, the end of the dispute will not occur with shouting and coercion, but with patient discussion and civil persuasion through insight.
3. Some creative ways to retain the sense of inter-generational festivity were suggested, including the use of street theatre (how about inviting Madison jugglers, or choreographing a 'red' and 'blue' dance?). While some are portraying the thousands in the crowd as an 'angry mob,' there has actually been very little of this behavior thus far. However, that could change if the bill passes and there is an effort to disburse the crowd.
Any efforts to maintain the true intentions of the citizens expressing their concerns beyond the current debate should also consider meaningful opportunities for participation. The economic impacts of the legislation and the upcoming Budget Bill will be signficant, and a shift in workers' collective bargaining rights will have major influences on our communities. As such, creating opportunities to invite people to discuss these concerns and develop creative, effective responses to them may be one of the core opportunities of the Public Participation Learning Community.
Further comments are invited...
Monday, December 20, 2010
The Scarlet X
The Task
Think of an extremist...what are the top three things that come to mind.
Ok, now a moderate...what comes to mind?
Now that you have done that, think about each of the following people, how would you characterize each of them, as an “extremist” or a “moderate”?
Hmmm, does that make you want to change your answers to the first questions?
Is "extremist" just a label or a stereotype?
Ok, now a moderate...what comes to mind?
Now that you have done that, think about each of the following people, how would you characterize each of them, as an “extremist” or a “moderate”?
Frida Kahlo
Glenn Beck
Geronimo
Rosa Parks
Sarah Palin
Emma Goldman
Mahatma Gandhi
Nelson Mandela
MalcomX
Is "extremist" just a label or a stereotype?
Does history change the evaluation of an extremists?
And perhaps most importantly, can we separate extreme ideas from extreme behaviors?
That’s how we began what became an excellent discussion at today’s Public Participation Learning Community meeting.
Our wide-ranging discussion touched on the following points:
And perhaps most importantly, can we separate extreme ideas from extreme behaviors?
That’s how we began what became an excellent discussion at today’s Public Participation Learning Community meeting.
Our wide-ranging discussion touched on the following points:
The Diagnosis
When we call someone an extremist, might that tell us more about us than it does them? Is it just a response to the discomfort we are feeling? Are we just reacting to a difference between their world view and ours? Perhaps we are being overly diagnostic. And, does attaching that label to someone affect our own ability to work with them? Do we sometimes not let the extremists talk because their views are too different from our own? We live in a society that is very quick to judge and is often intolerant of things that make us uncomfortable. Things that threaten our worldview are “not normal.”
When we call someone an extremist, might that tell us more about us than it does them? Is it just a response to the discomfort we are feeling? Are we just reacting to a difference between their world view and ours? Perhaps we are being overly diagnostic. And, does attaching that label to someone affect our own ability to work with them? Do we sometimes not let the extremists talk because their views are too different from our own? We live in a society that is very quick to judge and is often intolerant of things that make us uncomfortable. Things that threaten our worldview are “not normal.”
The Behaviors or the Ideas
Can we separate the behaviors of people from the ideas they are proposing? Is someone an extremist because they are proposing radical ideas that fundamentally rather than incrementally change the system? Sometimes those we might label as extremists are pioneers, innovators, first movers, who see something clearly that most of us aren’t seeing. They may be people who are willing to fail, they may be willing to leave people behind, and we might even think this is OK unless we have an attachment or a stake in their failure.
Can we separate the behaviors of people from the ideas they are proposing? Is someone an extremist because they are proposing radical ideas that fundamentally rather than incrementally change the system? Sometimes those we might label as extremists are pioneers, innovators, first movers, who see something clearly that most of us aren’t seeing. They may be people who are willing to fail, they may be willing to leave people behind, and we might even think this is OK unless we have an attachment or a stake in their failure.
To Negotiate or Not to Negotiate?
Are there times when we shouldn’t be seeking consensus from a group? The example of the mediator's joke that had a mediator been on the bus with Rosa Parks it might have set back the civil rights movement by 20 years. So, if a negotiation isn’t always appropriate what kind of moral obligation does this place on a facilitator? Facilitators need to guard themselves with great vigilance so that their own discomfort doesn’t cause them to “abandon the richness of disagreement.” We must be vigilant against “the worst kind of consensus, the tyranny of mediocrity” where a consensus is foisted upon us by exhaustion or alleged deadlines.
Shopping for Extremists?
When we think of group processes, are there times when the extremist point of view is the most helpful? Maybe we should make sure the extremists have a voice at the beginning during the framing of the issue/problem. Maybe we should even "shop" for certain viewpoints to make sure they are a part of the discussion. But if someone is given the label of extremist--the big scarlet X--will they be able to help shape the discussion?
The Scarlet X
Once you are labelled an extremist it often doesn’t matter what you say anymore. It can feel quite horrible to wear the scarlet X, and we should have compassion for those who do. Presenting an extremist view point can be a courageous act. As a facilitator you should ask yourself: “Am I creating a space for courageous acts and if I am not, then what the hell am I afraid of?” The discomfort an extremist can invoke in the group can be a service to the group. Groups with a devil's advocate come up with much better solutions to the problems they attempt to solve.
Sanctuary
How do we create a safe space for courageous acts?
Start with shared values and move on from there. Make the distinction between accepted wisdom and common sense (see Sustainable Capitalism). Let people know they will feel some discomfort. Create Sanctuary. Create art spaces that catalyze a conversation--art has the capacity to help us create spaces to let go of our preconceived ideas. Remember that while some people are looking for quick answers, a lot of us are looking for more deliberative answers and that requires slowness.
How do we create a safe space for courageous acts?
Start with shared values and move on from there. Make the distinction between accepted wisdom and common sense (see Sustainable Capitalism). Let people know they will feel some discomfort. Create Sanctuary. Create art spaces that catalyze a conversation--art has the capacity to help us create spaces to let go of our preconceived ideas. Remember that while some people are looking for quick answers, a lot of us are looking for more deliberative answers and that requires slowness.
----
There were many more wonderful points made in the discussion, so those of you who were a part of it, what parts did I miss? And of course, those of you who missed it, please let us know what you think!
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Jury and Democracy
The Jury and Democracy Project blog provides great discussions, ideas, and resources regarding Juries and collaboarative processes. They have even discussed the idea of a Jury training program! Check it out.
"The Jury and Democracy Project aims to understand the impact that jury service has on citizens. Too often, people think of the jury as nothing more than a means of reaching verdicts. In fact, serving on a jury can change how citizens think of themselves and their society. Our purpose is to study those changes."
"The Jury and Democracy Project aims to understand the impact that jury service has on citizens. Too often, people think of the jury as nothing more than a means of reaching verdicts. In fact, serving on a jury can change how citizens think of themselves and their society. Our purpose is to study those changes."
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Links to Documents
Public Participators:
Here are "clickable" links to the documents posted by Deb.
Cognitive Edge, Ritual Dissent-assent: http://www.scribd.com/full/43759835?access_key=key-1opiyfw1ucc14ssgf0es
Consensus Building Tools: http://www.scribd.com/full/43760613?access_key=key-buarvmj66w84parbr08
Blake and Moulton's Conflict Grid: http://www.scribd.com/full/43760618?access_key=key-l7c9f58dpfvzabe9upl
Thanks!
Here are "clickable" links to the documents posted by Deb.
Cognitive Edge, Ritual Dissent-assent: http://www.scribd.com/full/43759835?access_key=key-1opiyfw1ucc14ssgf0es
Consensus Building Tools: http://www.scribd.com/full/43760613?access_key=key-buarvmj66w84parbr08
Blake and Moulton's Conflict Grid: http://www.scribd.com/full/43760618?access_key=key-l7c9f58dpfvzabe9upl
Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)