Check out this 66-minute video of the NCSL (National Conference of State Legislatures) 2009 Fall Forum held on Friday, Dec. 11. “The Rise and Fall of the Town Hall Meeting” video features three legislators talking about the effective use of town hall meetings and deliberation.

One of the legislators featured is NCDD member and Hawaii State Senator Les Ihara. The other speakers included: Representative Sheryl L. Allen (Utah), Representative Ellen Roberts (Colorado), and Katie Ziegler (NCSL).

Senator Ihara’s presentation cites NCDD’s work heavily.  He talks at length about our Upgrading the Way We Do Politics resources, which we created in response to last fall’s town halls on health care reform, and he presents the 7 Core Principles for Public Engagement, explaining that the D&D community worked together to agree on the Core Principles in response to Obama’s memorandum on transparency, collaboration and public participation.  You can view or download Senator Ihara’s powerpoint presentation here.

Here’s the description of the Fall Forum from NCSL:

Town hall meetings have traditionally been a wonderful opportunity for legislators to meet with their constituents, both to hear what is on people’s minds and to tell them about legislative news. However some recent town hall meetings have seen disruptive and uncivil behavior. This session described some recent legislator experiences and examined methods to hold productive and courteous meetings. Presenters provided tips and best practices and also explained how to use a legislator’s “power to convene” to hold collaborative meetings to solve community problems.

Below are some of the places where my recent article, Upgrading the Way We Do Politics, was posted.  The article, which was featured on the Yes! Magazine website, was picked up by The Media Consortium, a network of the country’s leading independent journalism organizations. I believe that’s what led to the article being posted and linked to on so many sites.

• On CommonDreams.org at www.commondreams.org/view/2009/08/26-1
• On People & Place at www.peopleandplace.net/on_the_wire/2009/8/23/sandy_heierbacher_upgrading_the_way_we_do_politics__ncdd
• On the Everyday Democracy website at www.everyday-democracy.org/en/Article.1032.aspx
• On Energy Bulletin at www.energybulletin.net/node/49947 (this was picked up on lots of different sustainability-related websites)
• On the SiloBreaker website at www.silobreaker.com/upgrading-the-way-we-do-politics-5_2262552330882777097
• On Patrick Henry Press News at http://patrickhenrypress.info/?q=node/31911
• The Taking It Upstream blog at http://takingitupstream.blogspot.com/
• On the Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center site at www.ucimc.org/content/upgrading-way-we-do-politics
• On the Mostly Water site at www.mostlywater.org/upgrading_way_we_do_politics
• The article has also been posted in a number of Facebook groups, a bunch of Twitter posts, and a number of LinkedIn groups

Thanks to Lucas Cioffi, I also found out that the article is quoted in “Health Care Reform Without Kennedy” by Lindsay E. Beyerstein, at www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/08/26/weekly-pulse-health-care-reform-without-kennedy.

Check out all three versions of the article (the shorter ones are meant for NCDDers to use for op-eds, letters to congressmembers, etc.) and the one-page hand-out Andy designed: www.thataway.org/?p=1668.

Here’s a good example of an adaptation and elaboration of the NCDD Upgrading the Way We Do Politics article. The following article, prepared by the Institute for Civic Discourse and Democracy at Kansas State University, appeared as a column in The Manhattan Mercury on Sunday, August 23, and it has been submitted to several other papers across Kansas…

Here’s a good example of an adaptation and elaboration of the NCDD Upgrading the Way We Do Politics article. The following article, prepared by the Institute for Civic Discourse and Democracy at Kansas State University, appeared as a column in The Manhattan Mercury on Sunday, August 23, and it has been submitted to several other papers across Kansas.

Town hall meetings held on healthcare legislation across the country are exploding with emotion, frustration, and conflict.  Citizens are showing up in throngs to protest and shout down their legislators and fellow citizens with whom they disagree.   It seems America has taken yet one more step in degrading another opportunity to talk civilly and thoughtfully with one another about issues so vital to our country’s future.

Part of citizen frustration is understandable as there has been little opportunity for the public to engage and deliberate on the tough choices we are facing in health care reform. The public has a right to be upset with their lack of ability to influence the health care reform options. The “town halls” – where much of the controversy is occurring – conjures up images of townsfolk gathering in some local community building and working together to hash out the latest social and political issue. But unlike this idyllic image of town halls, today’s typical “town hall meeting” is a place where politicians come to promote some policy that’s already well down the road.  These meetings aren’t organized to allow citizens the opportunity to discuss the issue in depth or provide any meaningful input on policy options.  Like public hearings, these town hall meetings tend to largely be gripe sessions, where the most passionate and bold attendees take turns giving three-minute speeches–usually after enduring long speeches from the elected officials at the front of the room.  The real disappointment here is while extreme partisans on both sides find many opportunities to tell us what they think, most citizens lack safe spaces and opportunities to ask honest questions, listen thoughtfully to one another, or explore disagreements on tough policy issues.

The thing is, the public really wants to, and is quite capable of, dealing with the tough choices and the inevitable tradeoffs facing us in healthcare reform. During the fall of 2008 and the Spring of 2009, Kansas State University’s Institute for Civic Discourse and Democracy (ICDD) held eight health care forums across Kansas.  We brought together a diverse representation of the public, gave them adequate background information, highlighted the pros and cons on various policy options, and created a safe, democratic space where they could talk. These citizens deliberated, discussed and disagreed.  They eventually came to collective choices on the priorities they really wanted for health care reform.  ICDD then took the results of these health care deliberations to a Kansas Health Care Hearing.  We brought together a panel of five health care experts – a Kansas State Senator and representatives of the Kansas Health Policy Authority, the Kansas Health Institute, and the Kansas Hospital Association – to listen and respond to the results of our citizen health care deliberations.  These experts then provided their thoughts on issues like: how to provide and pay for health insurance; how to balance the costs and coverage for those who engage in unhealthy behaviors; how can small businesses provide coverage and survive; and how to provide coverage to the elderly and to children.  The results of our citizen deliberations and our expert dialogue can currently be seen on K-State Channel 8 and regional public television across central and western Kansas.

A key founding principle of our democracy is that the voice of the people should have an influence on public policy, both at election time and in-between those elections.  We must honor the rights of citizens to speak up, either in support or in opposition to public policy.  However, in a political atmosphere where partisans are urged to rattle speakers, disrupt public meetings, and shout down their opponents, political cynicism spikes, political trust declines, and the political center further withdraws from political participation.  This behavior threatens to unravel our social fabric and weaken our democracy.

A vibrant and inclusive democracy calls for opportunities for people from different views and backgrounds to get together, listen to one another, and find ways to move forward on the significant issues of the day.  There needs to be a safe place for our citizens to come together in rich deliberation and community problem solving. We know that these kinds of meetings are possible. For close to two decades, a growing network of people and organizations across the United States has been bringing all kinds of people into meaningful discussions on contentious public issues.  Kansas State University’s ICDD is part of this network.  Since its creation five years ago, ICDD has held productive community dialogues on immigration, land use reform, NBAF, health care, energy policy and the mission of our public schools.  We have found that it is possible to have conversations where every voice is heard, where emotions don’t have to be checked at the door, and where elected officials agree to listen and then respond to what they are hearing.  We invite you to join us in creating a stronger democracy. There is no better time for all of us to raise our voices and actions in support of what our democracy can be. Not only is meaningful health care reform at stake, but the health of our democracy is as well.

David E. Procter, Director
Institute for Civic Discourse and Democracy
202 Ahearn
Kansas State University
(785) 532-6868, dprocter@ksu.edu

Erika Mason-Imbody, Project Coordinator
Institute for Civic Discourse and Democracy
202 Ahearn
Kansas State University
(785) 532-6868, erika@k-state.edu

NCDD members have been sharing insights and tips–on our listservs and in various op-eds, blog posts, and more–on how legislators can engage citizens in ways that are more participatory and more productive than what we’ve seen in the news lately.

In addition to a colorful one-page handout we created for you to print and share with public officials and other leaders in your community, here are three articles we hope you’ll share widely:

1.  My full article (about 2.5 pages long in Word), titled “Upgrading the Way We Do Politics”
This version mentions a number of NCDD members, links to various op-eds, blog posts, etc. that our members have been writing in the past 2 weeks, and includes many ideas that have been shared on our main listserv.  Please consider sharing or linking to this article on your websites, blogs, facebook pages and groups, etc. www.thataway.org/?page_id=1663

A similar version of this article has been posted to the Yes! Magazine website at www.yesmagazine.org/democracy/upgrading-the-way-we-do-politics/ so feel free to link to that page as well.

2.  An abbreviated article (1 page in Word) that lists tips for legislators
This text can be used in letters or hand-outs to your Congresspeople and local public officials.  It’s also a more appropriate length than the full article for letters to the editor. www.thataway.org/?page_id=1659

This article is also available as a great-looking color PDF flyer that’s ready for you to print and share (thanks, Andy!).

3.  An abbreviated article (1 page in Word) that focuses on WHY we’re in the situation we’re in
This text can also be used for letters to the editor. www.thataway.org/?page_id=1661

Please use this text and these ideas freely. We need to get these ideas out there. I’m not concerned about my name being attached to the two shorter articles, but I would prefer you don’t remove the text about NCDD unless it’s absolutely necessary.

Each version lists the following resources as well, which I recommend to anyone interested in engaging the public in healthcare in more meaningful and substantive ways… (more…)

The following article was written by Sandy Heierbacher at the request of Yes! Magazine. We also created two abbreviated versions of this article and a one-page ready-to-print flyer for public officials, encouraging NCDD members and others to use the resources freely for blog posts, letters to the editor, etc. during and after the contentious August 2009 town halls on health care.

• One-page article that lists tips for legislators:  www.thataway.org/?page_id=1659
• One-page article that focuses on WHY we’re in the situation we’re in:  www.thataway.org/?page_id=1661

Upgrading the Way We Do Politics

by Sandy Heierbacher, August 21, 2009

Town hall meetings being held on healthcare legislation across the country are exploding with emotion, frustration, and conflict.  Citizens are showing up in throngs to speak out about health care as well as dozens of other topics, but it seems the louder voices get, the less people are actually heard. The meetings have become a vivid demonstration of what’s missing in American Democracy. Members of the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation (NCDD) have been sharing insights and tips–on NCDD’s listservs and in their own writings–on how legislators can engage citizens in ways that are more participatory and more productive than what we’ve seen in the news lately… Focus on building trust between citizens and government While Americans’ distrust of government is playing out in obvious ways at town hall meetings across the country, another level of distrust is less frequently acknowledged:  government officials’ lack of trust in citizens’ ability to grapple with complicated issues and trade-offs. Government officials often don’t see citizens as peers who, when given the opportunity, can talk reasonably together across partisan and other divides and come to agreement even on elements of highly divisive issues like healthcare, gay marriage, and abortion. Matt Leighninger, author of The Next Form of Government, often says that government has a “parent-child” relationship with the people when what’s really needed is an “adult-adult” relationship.  Citizens are savvier than ever, and they have higher expectations than ever for a government that is of, by and for the people. Scrap the typical “town hall meeting” format The term “town hall,” as deliberative democracy scholar Jim Fishkin wrote in a New York Times op-ed, “conjures up images of townsfolk gathering in some New England hamlet.” But today’s typical “town hall meetings” don’t live up to the traditional New England Town Meetings they’re named after. They don’t allow citizens to feel they’ve been truly heard, or to discuss issues in any depth. Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln, one of the members of Congress who did not plan a large town hall meeting during the recess, has suggested that the raucous nature of the town-hall-style sessions has made them counterproductive. “If people genuinely wanted to have a constructive conversation, then that would be a different thing,” she said. “But that has not been what we’ve seen.” She’s right on one count: the town hall design sets the stage for activist groups and special interest groups to try to ‘game’ the system and sideline other concerned citizens in the process. As Martin Carcasson, director of Colorado State University’s Center for Public Deliberation, pointed out in a recent radio interview on WHYY-FM in Philadelphia, “the loudest voices are the ones that get heard, and typically the majority voices in the middle don’t even show up because it becomes a shouting match.” But does that mean people don’t want a constructive discussion?  What if they had been invited to dialogue about the various problems, trade-offs, and options surrounding the issue of health care from the beginning—say, before over 1,000 pages of legislation were presented to the House?  Tom Atlee, founder of the Co-Intelligence Institute, noted on his blog that many of the recent town hall meetings were originally organized to promote the Democratic health care agenda—not to provide opportunities for real dialogue with and among citizens.  “So in a sense they invited disruption from those who felt unheard.” Upgrade to higher-quality meeting formats Dozens of effective public engagement techniques have been developed to enable citizens to have authentic, civil, productive discussions at public meetings—even on highly contentious issues.  These techniques have names like National Issues Forums, Study Circles, 21st Century Town Meetings, Open Space Technology, and World Cafe, to name just a few. When done well, these techniques create the space for real dialogue, so everyone who shows up can tell their story and share their perspective on the topic at hand.  Dialogue builds trust and enables people to be open to listening to perspectives that are very different from their own.  Deliberation is often key to public engagement work as well, enabling people to discuss the consequences, costs, and trade-offs of various policy options, and to work through the emotions that tough public decisions raise. Skilled facilitation is key to almost all forms of dialogue and deliberation. Alexander Moll, who is facilitating a healthcare deliberation in Washington D.C. later this month using the National Issues Forums method, describes his role this way:  “My job is to elicit the best ideas from each of you, regardless of ideology….  I do not ask ‘leading’ or ‘loaded’ questions that bias the conversations; instead I’ll ask questions like, ‘Why do you believe this to be true?’ or ‘Can you explain your position further?’”  Skilled facilitators know how to translate conflict and anger into specific interests, needs and concerns—so what’s behind the emotion can actually be understood and addressed. “Ground rules” or “agreements” are also par for the course in dialogue and deliberation. Typical agreements establish a kind of golden rule for everyone present, asking people to treat each other as they would want to be treated. By refraining from interrupting each other and by listening with the intent to understand rather than to seek points to argue with (two typical ground rules), participants are more likely to be heard and to hear each other. To involve a broader representation of the public, events should be publicized widely and thoughtfully enough so a variety of people attend—not just the usual suspects.  Furthermore, it’s helpful to organize participants into smaller groups (fewer than 10 at a table is ideal) to ensure each person gets the chance to speak and to make unlikely that one individual or interest group will dominate the whole meeting. No matter what technique is used, legislators can help all attendees feel heard by diligently recording what citizens say, and being clear about how they plan to use the information gathered (perhaps to share with other constituents or with fellow legislators). Another proven strategy is to “reflect back” the concerns, values and desires they are hearing. Ideally, public officials join in the dialogue as participants, after which they can publicly reflect on some of the things they’ve heard. The more thorough and authentic they are in doing this, the more impact it will have on those attending. Reflecting back, using ground rules, working with facilitators, and having people engage with each other in small groups are all basic but critical elements of quality public engagement. To allow people to deliberate, or wrestle with the complexities of the issue, some important work must also be completed before the public meeting. Balanced information must be provided about the issue at hand, and a fairly-framed spectrum of possible policy choices can be put on the table for attendees to discuss. Perhaps most importantly, the legislator hosting the meeting must genuinely be open to learning from what his or her constituents think should be done to address the issue at hand.  One major barrier to putting these ideas to play right now is that public engagement should begin much earlier in the policy-making process.  Now that there are draft bills floating around, citizens (rightly) would not trust that their nuanced input would have much impact on what happens in Washington.  At this point in the policy process, loud voices and outrageous accusations actually are more likely to impact healthcare policy—though not necessarily in a productive way. Tom Atlee observed that “when people are only invited to participate when there is a final battle between (for example) Republican and Democratic proposals for healthcare, this fact alone invites polarization. When an issue is in crisis mode, it is easier to manipulate people with fear and extreme language and imagery; there is less time to get information and issues clarified; there is less patience on all sides to delve into the actual complexities; and nonpartisans get the sense they are being sold false alternatives.” One NCDD member recommended asking two legislators from different parties to co-host deliberative events on contentious issues like healthcare reform.  Many citizens on the right distrust politicians on the left – and vice versa.  A joint deliberative forum held early in the decision-making process can help build trust beyond party lines, and help legislators get a sense of what their constituents are willing and unwilling to support, and why. It is also vital to find ways for attendees to wrestle with the trade-offs inherent in all complex policy issues.  As President Obama said at a town hall meeting in Grand Junction, CO, “there is no perfect, painless silver bullet out there that solves every problem, gives everybody perfect healthcare for free.” Americans need to discuss the trade-offs involved with each other and with policy-makers, to clarify the values that are embodied in different approaches to healthcare reform, and to identify the needs that are most important to them. Most Americans feel strongly that the voice of the people should have an influence on public policy, and that the right to speak up and dissent is anything but “un-American.” A recent joint statement by several leading organizations in the field of participatory democracy noted that “beyond simply having a voice, people should have a chance to be informed, to hear each other, to work through tough decisions with each other and their elected officials, and to use democratic processes to figure out how to solve the problems that face us.” Though it may not seem like it when we watch clips from healthcare town halls on the evening news or on YouTube, the truth is that people can come together to have a positive impact on national policy—not only in spite of our differences, but because we can use those differences to make better decisions. It is my hope that what may have seemed like a utopian ideal a few weeks ago—democratic dialogue in which the people are informed and involved from the beginning—may now seem like a necessary but long overdue upgrade in the way we do politics. — Sandy Heierbacher is the co-founder and director of the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD), a network of 1200 groups and professionals who bring together Americans of all stripes to discuss, decide and act together on today’s toughest issues. She recommends the following resources to those interested in engaging the public in healthcare in more meaningful and substantive ways.

NCDD Members Directory: www.thataway.org/ncddnet Find a facilitator or convening organization in your region.  Or contact ncdd@thataway.org for help finding someone. NCDD’s Engagement Streams Framework: www.thataway.org/?page_id=1487 This free resource helps practitioners, community leaders and elected officials decide which public engagement methods are most appropriate for their circumstances and resources. Core Principles for Public Engagement:  www.thataway.org/pep These seven principles were developed collaboratively by leaders in citizen engagement, and have been endorsed by over 80 organizations. Discussion Guides on Healthcare – Coping with the Cost of Health Care: How Do We Pay for What We Need? (National Issues Forums): www.nifi.org/issue_books/ – Citizens Survival Kit on Health Care (Public Agenda): www.publicagenda.org/citizen/electionguides/healthcare Millions of Voices: A Blueprint for Engaging the American Public in National Policy-Making: www.americaspeaks.org/_data/n_0001/resources/live/millions_of_voices_1104.pdf Offers a plan for National Discussions that will engage more than one million Americans in substantive deliberations about public issues.

Town hall meetings being held on healthcare legislation across the country are exploding with emotion, frustration, and conflict.  Citizens are showing up in throngs to speak out about health care as well as dozens of other topics, but it seems the louder voices get, the less people are actually heard.

The meetings have become a vivid demonstration of what’s missing in American Democracy.

Why is this happening? Members of the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation—a network of people who bring together Americans of all stripes to discuss, decide and act together on today’s toughest issues—have outlined some ideas to help us understand what has evolved.

There is a lack of trust between government and citizens
While Americans’ distrust of government is playing out in obvious ways at town hall meetings across the country, another level of distrust is less frequently acknowledged:  government officials’ lack of trust in citizens’ ability to grapple with complicated issues and trade-offs. Government officials often don’t see citizens as peers who, when given the opportunity, can talk reasonably together across partisan and other divides and come to agreement even on elements of highly divisive issues like healthcare, gay marriage, and abortion.

The typical “town hall meeting” format isn’t working
Today’s typical “town hall meetings” don’t live up to the traditional New England Town Meetings they’re named after. They don’t allow citizens to feel they’ve been truly heard, or to discuss issues in any depth. The current town hall design sets the stage for activist groups and special interest groups to try to ‘game’ the system and sideline other concerned citizens in the process. As one NCDD member said, “the loudest voices are the ones that get heard.”

The issue is in crisis mode
Another NCDD member observed that when people are only invited in when there is a final battle between proposals, “this fact alone invites polarization.” When an issue is in crisis mode, it is easier to manipulate people; there is less time to get information and issues clarified; there is less patience on all sides to delve into the actual complexities; and nonpartisans get the sense they are being sold false alternatives.

What to do?
So how can officials hold more effective open-to-the-public meetings with their constituents? Dozens of effective public engagement techniques have been developed to enable citizens to have authentic, civil, productive discussions at public meetings—even on highly contentious issues.  These techniques have names like National Issues Forums, Study Circles, 21st Century Town Meetings, Open Space Technology, and World Cafe, to name just a few.

When done well, these techniques create the space for real dialogue, so everyone who shows up can tell their story and share their perspective on the topic at hand.  Dialogue builds trust and enables people to be open to listening to perspectives that are very different from their own.  Deliberation is often key to public engagement work as well, enabling people to discuss the consequences, costs, and trade-offs of various policy options, and to work through the emotions and values inherent in tough public decisions.

Though it may not seem like it when we watch clips from recent healthcare town halls, the truth is that people can come together to have a positive impact on national policy—not only in spite of our differences, but because working through those differences allows us to make better decisions. Citizens have higher expectations than ever for a government that is of, by and for the people, and it’s high time for an upgrade in the way we do politics.

NCDD recommends the following resources to those interested in engaging the public in healthcare in more meaningful and substantive ways:

NCDD Members Directory: www.thataway.org/ncddnet
Find a facilitator or convening organization in your region.  Or contact ncdd@thataway.org for help finding someone.

NCDD’s Engagement Streams Framework: www.thataway.org/?page_id=1487
This free resource helps practitioners, community leaders and elected officials decide which public engagement methods are most appropriate for their circumstances and resources.

Core Principles for Public Engagement:  www.thataway.org/pep
These seven principles were developed collaboratively by leaders in citizen engagement, and have been endorsed by over 50 organizations.

Discussion Guides on Healthcare
- Coping with the Cost of Health Care: How Do We Pay for What We Need? (National Issues Forums): www.nifi.org/issue_books/
- Citizens Survival Kit on Health Care (Public Agenda): www.publicagenda.org/citizen/electionguides/healthcare

Millions of Voices: A Blueprint for Engaging the American Public in National Policy-Making: www.americaspeaks.org/_data/n_0001/resources/live/millions_of_voices_1104.pdf
Offers a plan for National Discussions that will engage more than one million Americans in substantive deliberations about public issues.

by Sandy Heierbacher

Town hall meetings being held on healthcare legislation across the country are exploding with emotion, frustration, and conflict.  Citizens are showing up in throngs to speak out about health care as well as dozens of other topics, but it seems the louder voices get, the less people are actually heard.

The meetings have become a vivid demonstration of what’s missing in American Democracy.

So how can officials hold better open meetings with their constituents?  Dozens of effective public engagement techniques have been developed to enable citizens to have authentic, civil, productive discussions at public meetings—even on highly contentious issues.  Techniques like National Issues Forums, Study Circles, 21st Century Town Meetings, Open Space Technology, and World Cafe, to name just a few.

When done well, these techniques create the space for real dialogue, so everyone who shows up can tell their story and share their perspective on the topic at hand.  Dialogue builds trust and enables people to be open to listening to perspectives that are very different from their own.  Deliberation is often key to public engagement work as well, enabling people to discuss the consequences, costs, and trade-offs of various policy options, and to work through the emotions and values inherent in tough public decisions.

Given a diverse group, good information, a structured format, and time, citizens can grapple with complicated issues and trade-offs across partisan and other divides.  Perhaps most importantly, the legislator hosting the meeting must genuinely be open to learning from what his or her constituents think should be done to address the issue at hand.

Here are some guidelines for our political leaders:

• Provide balanced and detailed information about the issue at hand, and put a fairly-framed spectrum of possible policy choices on the table for attendees to discuss. Consider co-hosting with a legislator from the another party.
• Use a facilitator. Take yourself out of front and center. Skilled facilitators are neutral and know how to translate conflict and anger into specific interests, needs and concerns—so what’s behind the emotion can actually be understood and addressed.
• “Ground rules” or “agreements” establish a kind of golden rule for everyone present. With these agreements, participants are more likely to be heard and to hear each other.
• Get different interests to talk to each other through a structured process. There are many ways to accomplish this. For example, organize participants into smaller groups to ensure each person gets the chance to speak and to make it unlikely that one person or interest group will dominate the meeting.
• Diligently record what citizens say, and be clear about how you plan to use their input. Throughout the meeting, “reflect back” the concerns, values and desires you are hearing.

These ideas and others posted at www.thataway.org were developed by members of the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD).

Though it may not seem like it when we watch clips from recent healthcare town halls, the truth is that people can come together to have a positive impact on national policy—not only in spite of our differences, but because working through those differences allows us to make better decisions. Citizens have higher expectations than ever for a government that is of, by and for the people, and it’s high time for an upgrade in the way we do politics.

–

Sandy Heierbacher is the co-founder and director of the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD), a network of 1200 groups and professionals who bring together Americans of all stripes to discuss, decide and act together on today’s toughest issues. She recommends the following resources to those interested in engaging the public in healthcare in more meaningful and substantive ways.

NCDD Members Directory: www.thataway.org/ncddnet
Find a facilitator or convening organization in your region.  Or contact ncdd@thataway.org for help finding someone.

NCDD’s Engagement Streams Framework: www.thataway.org/?page_id=1487
This free resource helps practitioners, community leaders and elected officials decide which public engagement methods are most appropriate for their circumstances and resources.

Core Principles for Public Engagement:  www.thataway.org/pep
These seven principles were developed collaboratively by leaders in citizen engagement, and have been endorsed by over 50 organizations.

Discussion Guides on Healthcare
- Coping with the Cost of Health Care: How Do We Pay for What We Need? (National Issues Forums): www.nifi.org/issue_books/
- Citizens Survival Kit on Health Care (Public Agenda): www.publicagenda.org/citizen/electionguides/healthcare

Millions of Voices: A Blueprint for Engaging the American Public in National Policy-Making: www.americaspeaks.org/_data/n_0001/resources/live/millions_of_voices_1104.pdf
Offers a plan for National Discussions that will engage more than one million Americans in substantive deliberations about public issues.

Here is a compilation of some of the best thinking and writing that has come out of our field in the past couple of weeks in response to the volatile town hall meetings on health care being held across the country. Please add a comment if you notice we’ve missed something important!

Upgrading the Way We Do Politics: Article by Sandy Heierbacher

Based on many of the items listed below (especially the recent conversation on this topic on the NCDD listserv), NCDD has put together three articles that we encourage you to share widely–on your websites and blogs, with your legislators, in your local papers and community newsletters, etc.  The articles focus on how legislators can engage citizens in ways that are more participatory and more productive than what we’ve seen in the news lately.

The full article, at www.thataway.org/?page_id=1663, is meant for sharing on the web. A similar version of this article has been posted to the Yes! Magazine website at www.yesmagazine.org/democracy/upgrading-the-way-we-do-politics/ so feel free to link to that page as well.

A one-page article focused on tips for legislators, at www.thataway.org/?page_id=1659, and the one-page article focused on why we’re in the situation we’re in, at www.thataway.org/?page_id=1661, are both great for sharing with Congressmembers or for submitting as letters to the editor of your local papers. Please use this text and these ideas however is useful to you, though we prefer if you preserve the text about NCDD and the list of resources. Also feel free to print out and share the great-looking one-page color PDF flyer we created.

Here are a couple of good examples of adaptations/expansions of these NCDD articles…

• Op-ed in Manhattan Mercury prepared by the Institute for Civic Discourse and Democracy at Kansas State University (Sunday, August 23)

Invitation to an August 24th Health Care Forum in DC

View the invitation from NCDD member Alexander Moll, to a “Health Care Reform Public Discussion” on Monday, August 24 at 6:00 pm at Busboys and Poets in Washington, DC. This deliberative event is sponsored by National Issues Forums and the Kettering Foundation. Alex posted the event to NCDD’s Facebook group, so you can sign up to attend there, or email Alex at alex@citsov.org.

Violence and Incivility at Town Hall Meetings on Health Care… What Can the D&D Community Do?: A discussion on the main NCDD listserv

We’re been having a particularly active and rich conversation on the main NCDD listserv about the violence and mayhem at town hall meetings on health care legislation, and what our community of practice can/should do to help ensure future political events are more democratic and productive.  A lot of thoughtful posts have been added by leaders in our field like Pete Peterson, Barnett Pearce, Kenoli Oleari, John Godec and a number of others.  You can view the listserv’s archives and/or subscribe here. You can also subscribe to the list by sending a blank message to NCDD-DISCUSSION-SUBSCRIBE-REQUEST@lists.thataway.org. You can also look over my initial message that started the conversation.

Tips for legislators dealing with high emotion and coordinated anger: August 8th NCDD listserv post by Martin Carcasson

Martin Carcasson (Director of Colorado State University’s Center for Public Deliberation) submitted made a thoughtful contribution to the NCDD listserv conversation that included some particularly helpful insights and ideas for legislators in situations of high public emotion. I posted it to the NCDD blog here. (Note: you can view the listserv’s archives and/or subscribe here.)

Astroturf Protestors and Fake Town Halls: August 28th article by Pete Peterson on Fox & Hounds Daily

This is a great article by Pete Peterson, the executive director of Common Sense California and a lecturer on state and local policy at Pepperdine’s School of Public Policy. Here’s an excerpt:

Even though most of us have never participated in such an event, the name [town hall meeting] still conjures thoughts of a participatory process, where, if participants are not able to make an actual decision, they can at least offer opinions on an issue that will be honestly considered. While there have been organized disruptions at many of these health care gatherings, reports from many of them indicate that things turned ugly once participants learned that they were there solely to be “informed” about the health care proposals – not to participate in a real debate. Listen closely to the comments by Congressional leaders (and, recently, the President), and you hear the words of people who come to these meetings with the understanding that they are there to teach attendees the benefits of their reform plans.

View the full article.

“Are disrupted town hall meetings an evolutionary opportunity?”: August 10th post on Tom Atlee’s Blog

This long post by Tom Altee — Founder of the Co-Intelligence Institute and a leading thinker and activist in our field — includes links to videos and articles on disrupted town halls and a great synthesis of many of the themes brought up in the NCDD listserv discussion. Tom also weaves this into his interest in evolutionary activism, saying “What excites me is the fact that a potentially influential group [NCDDers] moved beyond ignoring or suppressing energies and perspectives they didn’t like and took the opportunity to explore responses to a crisis that might shift the whole system, from the ways people interact to the ways whole societies pursue more wholesome visions.” View the post.

“Town Halls by Invitation”: Op-Ed in the August 16th New York Times by Jim Fishkin

Jim Fishkin’s op-ed on holding deliberative polls as an alternative to the modern town hall meeting structure was published in the Sunday, August 16th issue of the New York Times. Here’s a quote from the article: “There is a way of organizing town halls that would offer lawmakers representative and informed feedback about their constituents’ major concerns: a deliberative poll. Whereas ordinary polls represent the public’s surface impression of sound bites and headlines, deliberative polls bring together a scientifically selected microcosm of a lawmaker’s constituents under conditions conducive to thinking about issues. In effect, an entire Congressional district really can be put in one room.”  NCDD member Jim Fishkin is the author of the new book “When the People Speak,” director of the Center for Deliberative Democracy at Stanford, and creator of the Deliberative Poll. View the article.

Audio recording of Martin Carcasson and Peter Levine on WHYY-FM Radio Times program

On Thursday, August 13th, Martin Carcasson and Peter Levine were guests on “Radio Times” with Marty Moss-Coane. That’s a call-in program of WHYY-FM in Pennsylania. The MP3 file is here, and you can listen to the program online. On his blog post about the program, Peter said “I think we agreed that the protesters are exercising free speech, expressing views that belong in the political debate, and should be treated respectfully as citizens (not as robots operated remotely by special interests). On the other hand, a format for discussion that encourages angry individual speeches is pretty alienating for most citizens and is a poor source of information or enlightenment. We could do better–although both Martin and I noted that the political and media environment work against deliberative politics; and even good forums might be vulnerable to hostile takeovers.”

Must mention that at the end of the program Martin told a caller whose local school district is in conflict with community members, “If you go to ncdd.org, which is the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation, it’s the umbrella group of just all the people that are doing this work.  If you post to the NCDD website or listserv and say ‘Hey – I’m having this problem and I need some help,’ you’ll probably get help, because you’ll find people that have the expertise and have the passion to try to spark better conversations and help communities solve problems.”  Thanks, Martin!

“When Town Halls Go Viral, There’s Sickness in the Air”: Article in the August 15th Washington Post

This article by Washington Post staff writer Philip Kennicott quotes de Tocqueville and discusses how today’s town hall meetings are world’s apart from New England Town Meetings as Normal Rockwell depicted them. The article mentions NCDD organizational member AmericaSpeaks and quotes AmericaSpeaks president Carolyn Lukensmeyer as saying that what she’s seeing today are “faux town hall meetings that aren’t anything about deliberation. . . . People are coming in advocating the answer, they’re not coming in to learn anything about the options.” View the article.

Better Health Care Depends on a Stronger Democracy: An August 13th Statement from the Groups Behind SOND2

On August 13th, Everyday Democracy, AmericaSpeaks, Demos, and Professor Archon Fung of Harvard’s Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation (the groups behind the Strengthening Our Nation’s Democracy 2 meeting I recently blogged about here), released a joint statement.  The statement concludes with “When laws and policies result from narrow partisan victories, they easily topple when political winds shift. But when they are rooted in broad public deliberation and participation, they are far more likely to grow strong and true in the decades to come. There is no better time for all of us to raise our voices and actions in support of what our democracy can be. Not only meaningful health care reform, but the health of our democracy is at stake.” View the statement.

Suggested Guidelines to Improve Town Hall Meetings: August 18th post on David Campt’s blog

NCDD member David Campt, a.k.a. The RaceDoctor, added a post to his blog, The RaceDoctor Speaks!, which lays out an experimental strategy for public officials to maximize the chance that the health care town halls embody at least a minimal level of order and civility. The core idea is to provide a structure that calls upon a basic sense of order, but also effectively responses to the reality that many people who attend the meetings are motivated by a chance to vent frustrations about the current health care plan. View the post.

Town Hall Democracy: September 16th post on Noelle McAfee’s GonePublic blog

Noelle McAfee posted to her blog, GonePublic, yesterday about the need for more deliberative town halls. Noelle, a professor at the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University, concludes her post with:

We need to find ways to start deliberating together, to ask ourselves, what should we do and what are we willing to give up to get what we want. We need to think about the myriad consequences and effects of various courses of action. There are people trying to do this, including folks with the National Coalition on Dialogue and Deliberation and with the National Issues Forums.  Be we need more spaces for deliberation, especially online.

View Town Hall Democracy on Noelle’s site, or read over the re-post at www.thataway.org/?p=1644.

“Why have town hall meetings at all?”: August 12th post on Peter Levine’s Blog

Here’s a quote from Peter’s post: “On one hand, there is no good reason to hold the kind of ‘town meetings’ we are used to. That phrase invokes the old New England deliberative forums in which citizens come together to make collective decisions. The reality, however, is a public hearing with a small group of self-selected activists who ask questions one by one. That format is easy to manipulate and likely to turn unpleasant; it rewards strategic behavior rather than authentic dialog; and it reinforces a sense that the politician and citizens are profoundly different. (The politician has responsibility but cannot be trusted; citizens have no power but only a right to express individual opinions.)”  View the post.

“How should you respond to the noisy health reform critics?”: August 11th post by Larry Susskind

Larry Susskind’s August 11th post on his blog, The Consensus Building Approach, includes some practical advice that Congresspeople can easily follow for town hall meetings they’re holding now, based on decades of experience facilitating public dialogue in politically charged situations.

“Letting the People In”: August 12th Article on the American Prospect site

Mark Schmitt, Executive Editor of liberal magazine The American Prospect, posted an article on TAP’s website on the 12th titled Letting the People In: People want their voices heard in the making of policy. But how do politicians figure out which ones to listen to? Although Mark is not a member of NCDD, he attended the recent Strengthening Our Nation’s Democracy 2 event I blogged about here. Mark suggests, “For those legislators who really want to understand public opinion on health care and other issues, who want their constituents to be engaged and informed, the solution may lie in creating some new structures for democratic engagement, not the friends-only town hall meetings of the Bush years, but structured meetings in which participants are asked to engage with each other as well as the podium, and to deliberate about questions that are framed in advance.”

The National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD) actively promotes learning and collaboration among practitioners, public leaders, scholars and organizations involved in dialogue, deliberation, and other innovative group processes that help people tackle complex issues.

Our membership includes more than 1,280 organizations and professionals from across the U.S. and 39 other countries. The NCDD website offers literally thousands of resources and best practices, and we keep in touch monthly with 20,000 people in  public engagement and conflict resolution.

Our national and regional conferences, online programs and resources, and numerous collaborative projects provide opportunities for members of the dialogue and deliberation (D&D) community to share knowledge, collaborate, and build relationships. NCDD provides the infrastructure needed in this community so we can work together to increase our individual and collective impact.

NCDD was formed in 2002 in response to a clear need for more learning and collaboration among those who approach D&D  from a variety of disciplines (public policy, social work, communications, education, social justice, etc.). The Coalition was a result of the first National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation, held near Washington, DC in October of that year.

Below you’ll find our contact info, mission, details about our membership, and more. You can also read the full story of NCDD’s beginnings or learn about the NCDD team. And, of course, you’re invited to join us!

Contacting Us

Phone: 717-243-5144
Email: ncdd @ thataway.org
Mail: 114 W. Springville Road, Boiling Springs, PA 17007

Who is involved in NCDD?

NCDD exists to support the growing “dialogue and deliberation community” — a loose-knit community of practitioners, scholars, activists, public officials, nonprofit leaders, students, and others who engage and mobilize people across partisan, ethnic and other divides. In just a few short years since the first conference, the Coalition’s membership has grown to include more than 1,280 organizations and individuals.

NCDD’s members include organizations as varied as the Open Space Institute, the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Project, AmericaSpeaks, The Public Conversations Project, the Center for Nonviolent Communication and Everyday Democracy.

What does the Coalition do?

Most of NCDD’s work falls under three broad categories…

1. Growing an active network of organizations and professionals involved in dialogue, deliberation and other innovative group processes that help people tackle complex issues.

• Connect with more than 1,270 members in our interactive directory, the NCDD Members Network.
• Subscribe to our popular NCDD Discussion list (one of the most valued resources in our community), our Newbies list, or our regional lists for the DC metro area, Northern California, Boston, Cascadia, Colorado, and Central Texas (more info on our listervs).
• Become a member! Organizations can join for only $100/year, and the $50/year dues for individual members is optional so no one is excluded.
• If you live and work in Canada, get involved in our sister organization, the Canadian Community for Dialogue & Deliberation (C2D2) as well as NCDD. Learn more here about our commitment to helping Coalitions for D&D form in other regions of the world.

2. Providing relevant news and resources to Coalition members and the greater D&D community.

• Check out more than 2,500 posts about funding and job opportunities, events and trainings, new articles and tools, etc. in NCDD’s News & Perspectives Blog (one of the longest-running blogs in our field)
• Look over more than 2,300 carefully described and referenced resources (discussion guides, methods, evaluation tools, articles, books, videos, etc.) in our Resource Center.
• Use our Quick Reference Glossary for definitions to over 100 terms related to public engagement and conflict resolution.
• Don’t miss NCDD’s Engagement Streams Framework, a series of 2 charts that help you navigate the range of D&D approaches and make design choices appropriate for your situation.
• Look over the collaboratively-created and widely-endorsed Core Principles for Public Engagement (a project led by NCDD, IAP2 and the Co-Intelligence Institute).
• Check out Upgrading the Way We Do Politics, an article by NCDD Director Sandy Heierbacher that reflects NCDD members’ reaction to the August 2009 town halls on health care (a one-page flyer for public managers is also available).
• And visit our Getting Started page for other NCDD resources that help people understand what dialogue and deliberation are and how to get started.

3. Creating opportunities for members to gather, share knowledge and build relationships in order to strengthen one another’s work.

• Learn about NCDD’s national conferences, and our upcoming Fall 2010 regional events.
• Join our groups on Facebook and LinkedIn, and follow us on Twitter.
• Participate in our online forums on key issues facing the D&D community.
• Take part in NCDD Confabs (conference calls and webinars) and other network activities (updates here)
• Look over the member discounts we’ve negotiated for some of the best trainings, workshops and certificate programs out there.
• And subscribe to our various listservs (mentioned above) to network with NCDDers who share your interests or live in your region.

NCDD’s mission, vision and values

NCDD’s mission is to bring together and support people, organizations, and resources in ways that expand the power of discussion to benefit society.

NCDD envisions a future in which all people–regardless of income, position, background or education–are able to engage regularly in lively, thoughtful, and challenging discussions about what really matters to them, in ways that have a positive impact on their lives and their world. We envision a society in which systems and structures support and advance inclusive, constructive dialogue and deliberation.

NCDD embraces and demonstrates the following values and principles: collaboration and active participation, openness and transparency, inclusivity, balance, curiosity and commitment to learning, action, and service to others. Click here to see what we mean by these values.

Why did the Coalition form?

Although they are by no means new processes, dialogue and deliberation have enjoyed tremendous growth in popularity in recent years. This growth has been so grassroots that numerous streams of practice (deliberative democracy, conflict transformation, intergroup dialogue, whole systems change, e-democracy, etc.) have developed simultaneously, often without much awareness of one another. The result was the emergence of an important but disjointed field whose practitioners use completely different terminology, employ different techniques and resources, and emphasize different outcomes – despite the similarity of their basic values and principles.

The National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD) emerged from the Hewlett-funded 2002 National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation, which sought to address this disconnect. The planning process for the 2002 conference exemplifies NCDD’s collaborative, inclusive way of working. A group of 60 people – from graduate students in conflict resolution to directors of leading dialogue organizations – came together to plan a highly participatory, high-energy conference which ultimately brought together 240 scholars and practitioners across all streams of practice for the very first time.

The conference was a revelation to many participants, making them feel part of an important, growing field of practice. The proceedings introduced attendees to a vast array of models and techniques, uncovered key issues facing the nascent community, and fostered the creation of a blueprint for strengthening this emerging field.

Ultimately, the conference’s participants and planners decided to expand on their work by establishing the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation.