Consensual Process -- Training for Juries and Other Deliberative Groups?

The Public Participation Learning Community has engaged in a series of fascinating discussions regarding consensus, dissent, and how to facilitative collaborative process. This included a viewing of the classic film, "12 Angry Men" at our May meeting, which led to the question, "Would there be value in offering brief training to juries around collaborative group process before they began deliberation?"

As we engaged in the June discussion, we broadened the conversation to include other types of groups, depending upon (a) their length of time together, (b) their level of transparency in process, and (c) the formality of their decision-making process. At yesterday's meeting, we continued to explore the value of this training in various contexts, likely sources of resistance and what they mean, and the continued application of such training for capacity building (in organizations and across citizenry) for student leaders, as well as those in workplace, organizational, and public policy leadership roles. At next month's meeting on August 23rd, 1-3pm at the Union, we will more specifically discuss the components of such training: What is needed? How should it be taught? How might content and process be varied to accommodate for different contexts?

You are invited to comment on this topic, offer any resources that may be helpful in understanding what has been done thus far, and (as possible) to join us in the discussion! Some additional notes from our June discussion are included below, as well.

Harry
__________________________
Public Participation Learning Community – Focus on Training in Consensual Group Process for a Variety of Deliberative Bodies (Draft, June 2010)


At our June meeting, we identified a matrix of variables to consider in developing the most effective tools and strategies for helping group members learn effective consensual processes. We thought that if we distinguish among these types of contexts and applications, it may help us arrive at more specific suggestions to offer. We identified three key variables:

(1) Length of time the group is constituted

(2) The degree of transparency in their deliberations

(3) The expected decision-making (DM) protocol

Short-term
(e.g., Jury, Project Team) Medium-term
(e.g., Task Force, ad hoc Committee) Long-term
(e.g., School Board, City Council, Standing Committee)

Private
(e.g., Jury, Senior Management Team) Semi-public/ Somewhat transparent
(e.g., School Board in ‘executive session’) Public/Transparent
(e.g., open meetings, forums)

Majority Rule (Likely using Robert’s Rules) DM
(e.g., City Council, School Board) Consensual Approaches with Majority Vote ‘Default’
(e.g., Many Task Forces and Committees) Consensus DM
(e.g., some staff teams and committees, Coops; Quaker Meeting, Swiss Legislature)

The core elements we think need to be understood in all cases include:

• Communication Skills (both assertion and listening) that are consistent with inquiry, dialogue, and problem-solving based upon a mutual understanding of members’ perspectives

• Negotiation Skills that emphasize interest-based approaches to conflict management and solution seeking

• Creative thinking and problem-solving, including processes that appreciatively invite divergent thinking and welcoming innovative perspectives on issues, the testing of potential solutions and convergence around solutions in a manner that is connected to transparently articulated criteria.

• Facilitative Leadership, both in formal ‘Chair’ functions and embodied in members, so that a safe, constructive working environment is present that cultivates respectful application of the above skills and practices. The group facilitator needs to help the group fulfill its charge within its scope and parameters (often legal), in a manner that is both efficient in use of resources and effective in bringing forth the best participation of the group members.

There are likely additional elements that are required, though they appear to be more appropriate in some circumstances than in others. For example, school boards need to be educated regarding legal obligations, funding streams, collective bargaining agreements, and other specific information that would be quite different from a jury. However, a jury needs to understand its charge under the law, the admissibility of certain evidence (or not), and the specific consequences of lack of consensus.

-- Harry W-B

The Challenges of Seeking Consensus

Over the past three months, the Public Participation Learning Community has been exploring the challenges of consensus, as well as resources for being able to achieve it in various participatory processes. We've explored polling tools, to take the 'temperature' of the group at any given point in time without it being 'voting' with an implication of decision-making momentum, and we've examined the curcumstances where really taking the time to achieve a consensus decison makes sense.

The key, from my perspective, is to approach consensus-seeking in the context of a respectful, genuinely collaborative effort to meld interests and seek solutions in which all are free to express dissent, reservations, and questions. The worst types of results are those that emerge from the 'tyranny of mediocrity,' that exhaustive point in group process where people simply no longer have energy to explore the "groan zone" and accomodate the powerful in order to save face, avoid conflict, or otherwise close the conversation. Consensus must truly be a way towards insight and improved solutions that consider the diverse perspectives and needs of stakeholders (both represented at the table direectly and otherwise considered). I'm excited that the group will now be turning its attention to the challenge of integrating the expression of dissent into our processes, whether for use in consensus deliberations or those that make decisions in other ways.

I invite PPLC members and others to offer comments on our learning these past few months, as well as to post resources we have uncovered for ths work.

-Harry

Center for Positive Organizational Change

I first heard Dan Mulhern speak about a year ago. He talks about everyday leadership. One of my favorite lines from his talk was "putting energy on the grid."

He has a weekly e-mail that often includes amazing insights and cool tools. This week he talked about the Center for Positive Organizational Change at the University of Michigan.

Thought you all would find this intriguing.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Deb

AmericaSpeaks Issues New Impact Video

I was pleased to see AmericaSpeaks has now issued an updated video that promotes their approach, using recent examples of their efforts to illustrate the power of their participation model. This could be a useful way to quickly convey the value of public participation.

However, my sense is that this is a video that is more useful to the 'choir,' folks like us who already 'get the value' in this approach, and that it may have less impact on those with limited knowledge of public participation processes. If used in combination with their previous piece on "Citizen Engagement in Governance", I expect we could provide useful information to policy-makers and other leaders (both public and private) who are considering participatory engagement processes. The previous video, which runs a bit longer, provides depth regarding the elements of their approach and the values that are embedded in their design... the marketing piece really doesn't give us much of this substance, only that it has been effective in the eyes of diverse policy leaders.

Thoughts? Other resources for fairly promoting engagement processes are also appreciated.

World Café - Seven Design Principles

This simple presentation by Samantha Tan conveys the seven core design principles behind a successful World Café process. We ought to be able to incorporate such ideas into many of our learning and decision-making events, shouldn't we? Where do you see opportunties in your work around engagement? What are some challenges that make it difficult to implement?

-Harry

"traditional expectations of a public hearing"

This morning I read an article mentioned in a local blog. An excerpt from the actual article is pasted below. It seems that the DOT, for whatever reason, used what they called an 'open house' instead of a public hearing. I am not sure I would have used the term 'open house' to describe their method for collecting public input, but apparently they chose to only collect public comments in writing or dictated to a court reporter. The two arguments made against this method was that public comments weren't made in the presence of the public, and they weren't made directly to decision-makers.

The DOT method described does have one benefit to the public, that of being able to make comments when convenient, not necessarily when someone else has scheduled a meeting. But most public hearings provide that opportunity already by allowing for written comments. So, it sounds like the DOT thought they could just replace the hearing part of a public hearing with dictations made to a court reporter.

I am surprised that the DOT would think they could use a method which is clearly worse than a public hearing (Before this, I would have had a hard time coming up with something worse than a public hearing!). Of course the public comments should be public. It would also be pretty tough to argue that public comments are being taken seriously when the comments aren't made directly to decision-makers. (I can't even begin to say anything about the DOT guy's town hall comment.)

What bothers me the most about all is that the situation is causing the public hearing to be held up as the ideal for public participation despite the fact that we have come so far in developing much more participatory methods. We should be moving forward not backward when it comes to public participation.

Article Excerpt:

Public Hearings That Actually Include the Public

But Gonyo said the biggest victory came from Adelman’s finding that the DOT’s “open house” format doesn’t match “traditional expectations” of a public hearing.

“The format that WisDOT used did not permit members of the public to publicly express their views directly to WisDOT representatives or to other members of the public,” Adelman wrote. Instead, residents could “either dictate their comments in private to a court reporter or complete written comment forms.”

DOT’s Jambois said that “open houses actually provide a more welcoming way for the public to state their views,” especially when compared to this summer’s Town Hall meetings on health care. He said open houses are used across the country because they comply with Federal Highway Administration guidelines for public hearings.

Barr, the plaintiff’s attorney, said that the court should determine the definition of an adequate public hearing. “Just because the agency publishes guidelines for itself does not mean that those guidelines are legally adequate,” Barr said.

Deliberative Polling - An Alternative to Town Hall Meetings

This past Sunday's NY Times features an Op Ed titled, "Town Halls by Invitation," from James Fishkin, Director of the Center for Deliberative Democracy at Stanford University. He bemoans the recent 'town hall meetings' over health care reform legislation, and their carnage for those of us seeking full engagement in participatory democracy. His proposal for deliberative polling represents an intriguing alternative for us to consider. The Stanford Center has been involved in a wide range of deliberative polling experiments over the years, with excellent results. Citizens participate in a much more informed, less polarized manner, and politicians get engaged input from a more representative sample of constituents.

In our recent Learning Community meeting, we wondered whether citizens might be engaged in the participatory process other than as crisis response; this approach may offer an important pathway towards such engagement.

-Harry