Do one of the following: 1) Describe a public meeting or hearing in which you have been involved. How successful do you consider it to have been as a forum for decision-makers to get meaningful guidance from the public? Describe the factors that either led to its success or contributed to its ineffectiveness. 2) Study this Summary and this chart that explain James Fishkin’s Deliberative Polling process. Comment on the strengths and weaknesses of this process as an alternative to traditional public meetings and hearings.
81 thoughts on “Public Meetings and Hearings”
Comments are closed.
I find James Fishkin’s Deliberative Polling process an interesting attempt at re-inventing public hearings. His model is focused on researching how people’s opinions change when they are presented with educated opinions from both sides of the argument.
As most people form their opinions on public issues based on headlines and news that cover issues only superficially. I assume not many of us take the time to become well informed by expert opinions on every issue that comes up in public affairs.
James Fishkin’s model is great because it uses experts to provide quality information to participants. However it is only successful if the participants chosen are representative of the whole population and if the event organizer ensures that experts cover both perspectives fully.
I completely agree with you with having expert opinions of both sides of the issue. I feel expert knowledge is not the best philosophy of deliberation because it can be biased on either said intentionally or not. This can be a major flaw of the James Fishkin’s Deliberative Polling process if this is not practiced.
Nikolina, I also agree with you. I did some extensive research into the deliberative polling process after review the CDD summary and chart. Like any form of deliberation there are many strengths and weaknesses. I feel that deliberative polling addresses the gap between actual and well-informed public opinion. With the process of deliberating polling in place individuals can have serious, informative, and purposeful civil discussions.
Hi Nikolina,
I was thinking about the people that would say “yes” to attending such an event and I’m concerned that it would not be a random representation of the public. I think only those interested in politics or the issue would want to give up the time. I think the video we watched during the online lecture of America Speaks would have a better representation. You make a great point about the organizers ensuring that experts cover both perspectives fully. Thank you.
Nikolina,
I agree with you on the importance of having experts that cover all perspectives. Concerns from the public can vary and it’s important that there is someone there to address any issue that may come up.
I think if there are insufficient experts available to address a concern, people will continue to point out the issue and become more agitated, thus leading to to a more hostile environment.
Nikolina,
I enjoyed your write up and agree that using Fishkin’s approach we can only come to an informed decision if the expert is representative of the whole population and all the facts. One really needs to do his due diligence before deciding which expert to rely on. Unfortunately, most news organizations aren’t looking for the best expert, but the most publicity.
Best,
Jonathan
I found James Fishkin’s model to be very educational, and it is much easier for citizens to understand the situation before them, even people who are not that education in the certain topics as well. This way people can ask question that is critical and crucial, and can also shorten the explanation and description of the presenter as well.
Nikolina,
I agree it is important for the experts to cover each side of the topic fully. I believe this is very difficult to do. We have learned a lot of ways to help us argue and deliberate on each side of the topic in this class however I still believe it is difficult to form a balanced argument on a topic you are emotional about.
The Deliberative Polling (DP) process is an interesting development in creating an alternative in helping shape public policy, and offers several strengths to the traditional public meeting. DP works to get a random, but highly representative sample. Having a large sample that represents various demographics, ideologies, and geographic status helps to foster a more balanced deliberation. It allows those in the meeting to hear from differing points of view and to obtain information from both sides of the debate.
Another strength is in the balanced briefing. This lets the participants review the material from all sides of the issue and begin to form questions. These questions can then be posed to the group and to the experts, allowing for a more thorough understanding of the issue. The more informed about an issue a person is, the better he is able to fully form his opinion on that issue. Seeing the differences in voting before the deliberations and after demonstrates how being able to have access to information, experts, and others’ points of view can help make the individual citizen more informed.
One apparent weakness in the process is in the formation of the groups. The chart states that the groups are randomly selected. This could lead to an imbalance in viewpoints as one group may be heavily populated with one side of the issue and have little to no representation to the other side. This does not foster equal debate since the group is essentially hearing only one side of the issue. There needs to be a clearer understanding of how the groups are created to assure they are truly representing opposing views.
Another weakness is during the question and answer period. According to the chart, “Participants pose questions – questions are chosen by groups – to experts and policymakers.” Although the intent is to answer all the questions, it is possible that some vital questions can be overlooked. The participants who may find themselves in the minority may be afraid to speak up, thereby not having their voices heard. The result is that their questions may either not be taken as seriously by the group, so they are not presented to the experts, or their questions may not be posed at all. Although there are trained moderators, which is a strength, it makes the group highly dependent on the moderator being able to control the balance of information.
Overall DP encourages more voices to be heard. It is opening an opportunity for those who would not normally attend a public meeting to be active participants. Town meeting generally have prepared speakers whom are already convinced they are correct in what they are saying. The DP opens the floor to natural discussions, rather than just prepared speeches, which often makes a person be more intent to listen. Being open to new ideas is the first step in fully forming ones opinion on an issue. The better informed one is about all the relevant facts, the better prepared one is to take a stand on an issue.
Michelle, I truly agree with your point regarding there being a weakness within the process in where a minority opinion may get lost amongst stronger public opinion on an issue. Another factor they seemed to leave out that I find to be important to the process is how much time do the participants have to answer questions within the group. If the moderator is used as a strength, the weakness within the process as you stated is that the moderator can mentally sway the thoughts of those who may not be concrete on deciding on a certain issue.
A weakness can be found within every process but I think the Deliberative polling process is a great attempt to mainstream the process. For me, the most concerning aspect of the process would be finding citizens that would be vested enough to take the time to actively participate in the process. Jurys work because it is mandated but can we really mandate someone to actively participate in a public hearing meeting? Deliberative polling process is an interesting idea that i think would work if it was tweeted a little bit
Hey Michelle, I think you make a great point about ho the questions that people have are being selected and addressed. I think it wold be very difficult to be a minority in a group of people keen on challenging an issue. From 12 Angry men we saw the importance of procedural deliberation. It would be difficult I imagine to ensure representation and protected environment for everyone to speak. Not everyone is comfortable with public speaking and debate, yet issue discussed often involve all members of the society.
James Fishkin’s Deliberative Polling process is a great idea to educate citizens to make an informed decision. Many policies and legislation are proposed vaguely to the public with very little understanding and transparency, as they are usually complex in nature. In addition, citizens barley have time to obtain reliable and unbiased information on these issues. Most people hear sound bites and opinionated 24-hour televised news outlets. My concern is that there should be experts for and against the decision. An expert may have expertise in favor the decision and another expert may have expertise against the decision. Citizens should be able to hear both sides and then come to a decision. If this is possible with the James Fishkin’s Deliberative Polling process, then I am more optimistic about it.
I am skeptical on how ‘balanced’ the balanced information is going to be in actuality. This step of the process, if not truly balanced, can sway participants in either direction depending on how it is presented. Participants can potentially start the process with bias. You can only hope there will be integrity during this process as there is no specification on the checks and balances of this step. The same can be said with the moderators.
Hopefully, they will be only moderating and not swaying the opinions of the participants.
Ideally, if participants are true representatives of the population and integrity is practiced to the upmost ability, then I do see James Fishkin’s Deliberative Polling process being a good deliberative tool. However, living in a big business run nation (and many other factors) I am concerned of potential corruption. Further more, once completed, you can only hope public leaders will listen to their constituents…
Hi Susan – I enjoyed reading your post. After reading your point of view I can understand what you are saying. You mentioned transparency as a weakness in your post and after my research I personally found it as a strength. I believe that transparency in the process ensures a reasoned, solution-oriented process that promotes informed & carefully considered opinions & recommendations.
Hey Katie, glad you enjoyed. With transparency, I was speaking in regard to how the public receives information with public policy; there is a lack of transparency.
So yes, i agree with you that James Fishkin’s Deliberative Polling process has a strength for improving transparency to make better decisions.
Since I have never had the opportunity to be involved in a public meeting or hearing I have decided to discuss James Fishkin’s Deliberative Polling process. Deliberative Polling is “a process by which a random, representative sample of citizens in a defined geographic area is selected and to which a brief survey questionnaire is administered to establish their demographic and attitudinal profiles on a particular issue (Fishkin, 1996). Fishkin designed implementations that have been practical in deliberative democracy for over a decade. He describes information, substantive balance, diversity, equal consideration, and conscientiousness as essential for legitimate deliberation.
Deliberative polling comes with its strengths and weakness’. Deliberative polling promotes community participation on issues that affect them while producing less bias and more understanding from the opposing party. When you put the group together all their information is pulled while they are listening to each other. Transparency in the process ensures a reasoned, solution-oriented process that promotes informed & carefully considered opinions & recommendations. The outcome builds momentum and allows for those recommendations not to be ignored.
A weakness like with most all deliberation is that it allows one group to influence the decision in their favor. As stated in one of the posts above the chart states that the groups are selected at random. This choosing can lead to multiple viewpoints which can take away from equal consideration. Inclusiveness of process may complicate rather than simplify issues. Another main problem is that many citizens ignore public issues that are being debated and have no background knowledge to make an informed decision.
Overall Deliberative polling addresses the gap between actual and well-informed public opinion. With the process of deliberating polling in place individuals can have serious, informative, and purposeful civil discussions.
I recently attended a “public hearing” on a proposal to build a new $4.8 million dollar town library. Although I am not a resident of the town, a close friend of mine has been involved in the decision making processes leading up to this hearing.
This was actually the final meeting before a vote on the proposal. Up to this point there have been over 40 meetings, both open and closed, over the past two years. The purpose of this hearing was to get a final reaction from the public and to assure them that their previously expressed concerns had been met as well as possible (within limit to budget and practicality).
I do not typically attend meetings but this seemed to be well attended, not capacity but crowded. The town and library had financial analysts, the library lawyer and architect as experts to answer any public questions in addition to the town board. Comments were taken from the public at a limit of 2 minutes. Remarks were mixed, with some supporting the new building with others being disappointed in the new location, others arguing for a smaller project (the proposed library will be 10,000 sq feet compared to the old library of 2,000 sq feet). The experts addressed these concerns by explaining that the location would allow for handicap accessible parking and that the proposed lot is already church property so there would be no change in tax for the lot. Experts also stated that a community center had been desired in many of the previous meetings and that through building the center as part of the library they would save costs later on.
I think this was a fairly successful hearing. Obviously it is late in the process so that changes weren’t going to be made to the proposal, however as I mentioned, there were over 40 meetings in the years leading up to this. In the end, it will depend on the vote to truly see if those meetings were productive.
Hi Dan,
I enjoyed reading your post about an actual public hearing. Before reading your post I was under the impression that most public meetings/hearings were simply a formality. I was pleased to read that this was one of over 40 on the subject. That’s impressive and indicates to me that the officials were taking into consideration the public’s opinion. Thank you for sharing your experience.
Hi Dan,
It sounds like you had an eye opening experience at the public hearing of the proposal for the town library. I was glad to hear that there were professionals/experts present in additional to the town board. I think this definately added to the success of the proposal of the library since the experts naturally reassured all those who had concerns. When proposing an idea to a group of people, it’s important to provide them with a sense of security in order for them to support your proposal. Having an expert would definitely accomplish this.
Dan,
It’s nice to hear that public hearings can be so engaging and effective.
With such a big project, it’s important that officials resolve all concerns of the public. By having 40+ meetings and having so many experts involved, I think they did a marvelous job to address any concerns.
This is very contrary to what we saw in the video for the rezoning hearing where the officials did not seem to care what the public thought.
Dan, I share the same sentiment about a “public hearing” as you do. I found it to be ridiculous, as many public meetings, that they would hold this hearing within the final stages. I don’t understand how leaders or those conducting these economic and constructional developments can conduct a meeting that is suppose to hear public opinion prior to any projects or decisions being made. Although the process of your public hearing seemed to run successfully, being they had the experts needed to answer detailed inquiries and concerns from the public, it seemed as if it was to just pacify the public since the proposal was concrete.
HI dan, this public meeting actually seems like an interesting. The public meetings I have been to was always for school and not quite as intriguing as this. I enjoyed reading your post
Hi Dan,
I enjoyed reading your real life experience about the library. As you mentioned, since it was already very late in the process it doesn’t seem like people will be too influenced by other’s opinions.
I also found the 2 minute cap on time to be interesting. That seems like quite a bit of time to offer an opinion when there were so many people that were offering to speak. I guess it gives the speaker more time to make a compelling argument to convince others.
Thanks for this.
Best,
Jonathan
It was nice to hear that public can comment on the public hearing, since I went to two before, and sometimes the questions are chosen. Since if people/citizens wishes to comment, they have fill out a form before hand and hand it in to them. Then they select the public/citizens based on the questions.
It could be the fact that I the hearings that I went to are sensitive topics that can deeply offend the public.
This week I chose to take a look at James Fishkin’s Deliberative Polling process. I did find it interesting but I think the weaknesses outweigh the strengths. This process is based on the fact that many Americans are uninformed; perhaps getting news from soundbites or yahoo headlines. In our democratic process, we have the opportunity to let our elected officials know our thoughts on issues. But if we, the public, are not educated on issues, how can we have an opinion?
The Deliberative Polling process takes a random initial baseline poll on an issue, and then invites members of the sample population to a weekend event. In my opinion, this is the weakness. It seems to me that the people that RSVP “yes” to the event may not be a random sample of the population. I’m thinking only those interested in the political process would give up a weekend to go talk to experts and politicians. How realistic is it for average citizens to yes?
I think hearing from experts and politicians is a great idea, and then re-poll to see if opinions change. I think the process shown in the lecture of America Speaks is a much better option for educating the public on issues. It’s too bad it does not exist anymore.
Hi Mary,
I agree with you, I also feel the people who would agree to do the survey are ones that are interested in the topics being presented. I would think these people already have some knowledge about the topic presented. In order to make an informed decision it is important to know both sides of the issues.
In the deliberative polling process it is important that both sides present carefully balanced material to help prevent one side unduly influencing the public. I think it is important that the experts are truly experts in the field presenting thorough information.
Maria
Hi Mary,
I agree with you about the people agreeing to be a part of the process. What you’re describing is officially known as selection bias, I believe. In this setting I think you’re right that it would be very difficult to get a fully representative sample, especially a socioeconomic representation.
I also liked the America Speaks version, though you might run into a similar problem… how many people are going to give up the majority of their day to sit in an auditorium to discuss politics. Either apathy or economic factors can can constrain participation.
During my undergraduate studies, I had the opportunity to be one of the moderators for several student government debates and hearings.
The goals of these events were to: a) provide students with an opportunity to ask candidates questions; b) inform students of upcoming initiatives; and c) gather ideas from students on ways to improve the student experience.
As you probably would expect, these event were not effective at all. Low turnout combined with little insight from students made these events pointless. For debates, we would solicit questions beforehand and the only questions we ever received were from the candidates, which were obviously frowned upon.
I think the ineffectiveness was caused by a lack of awareness and interest from students. Although we would advertise the events, very few students showed up and the students who stumble upon the events would never stick around. The events, designed to be a question and answer affair, would always end up being just a bunch of monologues by members of the student government with a few questions from the moderators.
As a moderator, I believe these events were very informative. The debates were effective in bringing out the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate. The hearings provided information on upcoming initiatives that would impact all students. The problem was that these public events did not really involve the public. They were basically the complete opposite of what happened at the rezoning hearing we saw in the video lecture.
I think public meetings are driven by how much the public knows and cares. If the public has no interest, you get something like the debates and hearings I moderated. If the public cares deeply about the subject, you get what you see in the rezoning video.
Hi Michael,
I enjoyed reading about your experience as a moderator for student government debates and hearings when you were in college. I am particularly interested in this topic since I worked as the coordinator of student government for a local high school. I’m not surprised by the poor turnout that you mentioned. You made a very good point about the interest of the public. From experience, I find that people will not contribute to the debates if they do. It feel passionately about the subject or they are not knowledgable.
I also find that serving food before the hearing enhances the setting and people tend to share more ideas. Food will give people an energy boost and generate creative ideas and innovation.
Hi Michael,
I think you touched the real issue facing public hearings – most of the time there’s very small turnout. People don’t pay attention or know about these types of meetings until later stages when things become more impactful. Unfortunately that means that in the early stages when real decisions are being made the public is either unaware or apathetic.
It was disheartening in the video that even when the public cared deeply, the decision still went against them in the end.
Hey Michael,
I, too, am not surprised by the lack of awareness and involvement of the members of your undergraduate student body. Heck, I am also guilty of not being as involved as I should have been during undergraduate meetings. I was probably just doing it because being a member of any governing body looks great on a resume if all you have is a college experience. You bring up a good point that most individuals would need to be driven, or at least feel a responsibility to be involved with any meeting.
Hi Michael :
I enjoyed reading your piece. I remember being in a club during my undergraduate studies. The same problems you faced in your meetings were the once the group i attended faced as well. We always had a low-turn out and little interest from the student body.
I am also guilty of this here at Baruch, but hope to become more involved as i continue my studies.
Hi Michael. I enjoyed reading your post. I must say, I have often seen posters and received emails about student assembly meeting but never really had an interest in attending them as I always assumed that in publicly funded colleges and universities little is left to the students to decide and most directives come from city/state and federal government.
Before moving to New York I studied at a private university and I found that students there were much more involved in student assembly. because of high tuition cost, students saw themselves more of consumers and had more suggestions on improvement and demands .
Hi, Michael,
I think your comment is very insightful. I strong agree with you that “public meetings are driven by how much the public knows and cares”, otherwise they are like the silver in the mine no matter how perfect the system is. If the public is not well-informed or lacks interest, the public meeting might be dominated by the people who are intention-driven and opinionated. The right to get involved in public policies, on the contrary, becomes a burden.
I was a student government representative in college, and we had a very similar experience. I think the stakes are so low in these situations that representatives have to be doing something pretty extreme to motivate people to turn out. For example, no one came to the public meetings I organized to give me feedback on how to renovate our student union meeting rooms – but a LOT of people turned out to discuss a boycott/divestment/sanctions motion against Israel!
As I have studied James Fishkin’s Deliberative Polling process, I’ve found this process to be innovative and provide a way to organize the public’s opinion based off of provided information to give a unified conclusion on presented issues to the public. It truly has taken the traditional sense of the public meeting/hearing process and upgraded certain factors that play a substantial role in hearing various views of the public that may or may not affect the ultimate decision made towards public policy issue.
The one component of this process that I believe to be a strength of the Deliberative Polling Process, is they opportunity for all participants to fully engage with the experts and leaders present. The participants are actively informed and made well aware of the targeted issues presented. Although all issues are not given for deliberation, the most pertinent that can influence public policy changes by public opinion are given.
I find there are concerns that show as weaknesses to the process, due to the “balanced” briefing materials, as they may have a bit of influence as to what they WANT to inform the public about. I feel as it may be biased through the output of information given to the public and the random representation selection may not truly represent all of the present public. How are we to know the random representation selection is done amongst a diverse population? For example, the random representatives can all happen to be selected amongst a group of republicans, and then will have to compete against pro-republican experts and political leaders of the republican party. How does this process ensure that this provides a widespread of diverse representation.
Hi Tiffany,
I really enjoyed reading your argument on why or why not you believe James fishkin’s Deliberative Polling Process is a beneficial alternative. I agree with your views and also had an issue with how one can determine what it means to be a representative sample. Additionally, I struggled with the issue of conflict interest within the representative sample. For example, how can one ensure that the participants in the sample actually read and acknowledge all of the briefing materials. There is no way to ensure that all participants are interested enough about the issue at hand to then go ahead and further educate themselves on the matter. I believe that disinterest plays a significant role into the process as well.
I found it interesting in how you saw the balanced briefing as a weakness. I had not thought about the possibility that the information provided by the pollsters may be biased and based solely on what they want the participants to know, rather than an overview of all the relevant information.
I agree that the representative sample leaves room for misinterpretation by the participants and partiality by the presenters. There is no clear explanation of how the sample is pulled, and then when broken down further, how to ensure there is a representative of each available viewpoint. You can end up with a group that all agree, or have one who disagrees but that person is too intimidated to speak up. On the plus side, I too believe that the Deliberative Polling process allows for participants to fully engage in the conversation, which is a marked difference from the traditional town meeting. Having a more informed citizenry allows for greater debate and greater understanding of the issues at hand.
Hi, Tiffany,
You brought up remarkable points. I’m also doubting the authenticity of the “random, representative sample”. It’s unclear which criterion the representative selection is based on, whether it’s on geography, education or income. Although the briefing material provided is claimed impartial, how can it be guaranteed? It’s possible that the contents have a standard deviation which might unconsciously sway public opinion.
James Fishkin’s Deliberative Polling Process is an interesting alternative to traditional public meetings and hearings. The process requires using briefing materials in order to educate a sample of individuals on a matter in order to promote well informed conclusion based decisions. The process then illustrates a before and after snapshot of shifting opinions after the process takes effect. This process can in fact be highly advantageous in regards to issues with very minimal to no public awareness; however there are various pros and cons to the system.
Some advantageous aspects include the use of small group discussions, this minimizes the pressure for participants to conform to the majority. Additionally, results from this process are available for media coverage allowing for some transparency to the public. The detailed post deliberation assessment and the use of representative sampling are also very beneficial components of this process.
Some disadvantages to this process include; Not enough time for face to face deliberation. Citizens need ample amount of time to sit and work through issues. This means given enough time to adequately hear and discuss each others views. Additionally, the polling process has a very brief duration in comparison to other methods such as citizen jury or assembly. This increase allotted time would allow for deeper rooted analysis and in turn might prove to be more effective. The deliberative polling process also lacks adequate structure in terms of how long each individual can speak, who can speak, and when it’s appropriate to speak. The moderator can prove to be beneficial in directing the conversation; however, this gives the moderator too much power and ability in swaying the conversation or decision to one side or the other. Ultimately, participants spend too much time developing questions for the experts or partisans to answer and not enough time analyzing the issue and then properly discussing it amongst members of the group.
Hi Dona,
An informed citizen is one that engages in current affairs, community life, and interested in the world. I also feel that it is important to educate people so that they become well informed in order to come up with an appropriate conclusions. The deliberative polling it is an interesting method created to engage the public. It also allows members of the public to become informed in broader issues.
Maria
I was part of public meeting in Chelsea a few years back concerning the opening of a new nightclub. At the time, club Avalon(the old Limelight) was still open, as were a few more popular clubs located close to Avalon. The meeting took place at the public library between 5th and 6th on 20th street.
The library was packed to capacity, with a the proposed new club owner and public representatives sitting at a table in the front of the room. They explained their position and explained to everyone the benefits of having this new club open in Chelsea. At the time, Chelsea was transforming into mainly a residential neighborhood, so the majority of the audience weren’t buying into “the benefits” of a another nightclub opening .
I was against the new club opening for sure, because the neighborhood was having a rash of late night shootings and street fights, but many in the room were much more upset than me. Most who spoke ending up yelling at the officials and new club owner. The meeting turned into an ugly scene. People got angrier because the officials and new club owner just sat there, very smug. It was evident that the club was opening no matter what anyone said at this meeting.
The meeting was not effective because our opinions seemed to not matter. The decision had already been made. The only positive was that the officials and new club owner knew for certain that the entire neighborhood was pretty pissed about this new club.
In the end the new club never opened. The reason was the NYPD cracked down on Chelsea clubs after someone was killed inside a club on 22nd and 6th.
This was really interesting, and tragic, how the only real effective way to stop the nightclub was caused by the death of someone at another nightclub. I think your experience certainly exemplifies what is the most difficult part of a public meeting – often those with the strongest opinions, usually negative, are the ones who will be speaking up. It almost feels like it would be intimidating to speak up if you are only curious, or possibly are in agreement with having a nightclub added to the neighborhood. Your story really highlights how people became so angry that the original message of a changing neighborhood dynamic was quickly overshadowed.
It makes you wonder if people had been better able to control their emotions that perhaps a deal could have been reached. It sounds like the plan was to still open the nightclub, but possibly have the music a little lower or not allowing people to congregate on the street outside. If a public forum allowed for more open debate, perhaps a more negotiated solution could have been reached, rather than becoming an us vs. them situation.
Greg, its unfortunate that a lot of public meetings end up this way. Rather than listening to the community and trying to work out some kind of compromise (perhaps music turned down after a certain time, etc.), the meeting holders seemed to have the meeting as a means to simply placate the community and pretend as if opinions mattered. The almighty dollar unfortunately always seems to win.
Luckily, this story seemed to have a very bittersweet ending.
Hey Greg:
Your example reminds me of the example about the low-income housing in the lower east side that was in our lecture. Much like the video its seemed like in both situations the minds of those in charge had already been made and that the meetings called were just for show.
It sad to see these types of things happen more often than not because they directly effect the people in those neighborhoods. In your case possible shootings and murders and in the case of the class video displacing people who couldn’t afford the new “low-income housing”.
For this assignment I will comment on the strengths and weakness of the deliberative polling processes. According to The Center for Deliberative Democracy a random representative sample is done first on targeted issues. The members are then invited to gather over a weekend to discuss the issue. Carefully balanced materials are sent to the participants and are made public. The participants engage with competing experts and political leaders. Parts of the weekend are televised. After deliberations the participants are asked the original question.
Strengths: becoming a more informed, educated person should result in more thoughtful opinions or ideas, gets the community involved, balanced information is shared, and smaller focused groups formed to discuss and ask questions. Can address the gap between a actual public opinion and a well informed public opinion.
Weaknesses: short time frame, do participants polled initially have the time and money to spend a weekend away deliberating, is it too much information all at once, and are the experts really neutral, and how much time is allowed for discussion.
I attended a community board meeting in my neighborhood of Washington Heights a few years ago, it was part of assignment for one of my undergraduate assignments. The community board meeting I attended dealt primarily with allowing a number of new establishments to open with liquor licenses. The composition of the attendees were adults in their 50’s, I found this to be unbalanced representation for the neighborhood that has such a large influx of young working adults.
The majority of the attendees were against granting liquor licenses. I feel had there been a true distribution of the population there would of been more conversation in favor of granting liquor licenses in the neighborhood in hopes of being able to stay closer to home and not traveling downtown. The attendees made a linked noise complaints with establishment that had liquor licenses. They stated if more establishments are granted liquor licenses there will continue be an increase of noise complaints driving down quality of life.
Since this meeting I joined a neighborhood list serv for parents with children, a primary topic of conversation for the list serv was the lack of options restaurants that were kid friendly yet still served good food and drinks. On the list serv many of the members have started to attend the community board meetings and they have become more representative of the new population. It is apparent that the voice of residents are being heard at these meetings because many new restaurants and bars have been granted liquor licenses and have opened over the last 2 years.
Hey Shannon,
Nice post. You bring up an interesting point where you mentioned that most of the attendees were against granting liquor licenses. You tend to think, are the majority of those that attend public hearings primarily against it? Just like how you read online reviews, you tend to get an overwhelming negative response because they are more emotionally driven to bring a product/service/plan down if there was any discontent.
This was a really interesting perspective on town hall meetings and American participation in civics in general. Almost every time there is some kind of public discourse, the vocal minority are the most passionate, even if they aren’t representative of the general population. Unfortunately, this may lead to a minority of the community getting their way over the vast majority.
In this particular case, it seems to be generational. For a number of reasons, older people generally have more time to be engaged in civics – and because of that – are generally the ones politicians pander to.
Carmelo:
I agree with your comment about older people having more time to engage in civics. The meetings that I attend in the community I work in are predominately older people, ranging from 50- 90 in some cases.
I also believe that there could be a generational gap and that if representation were more wide spread that better outcomes for the community as a whole could be achieved.
While working in the South Bronx as a community advocate for my organization I have been able to attend a few community board hearings. The tenant’s association presidents of a group of NYCHA buildings hold most of the meetings once every other month and talk about issues affecting the complex that they operate. Sometimes community advocates, like myself are allowed to talk about issues that they are concerned about.
The meetings are usually run using Roberts Rules of Order. And for the most part the meetings address important issues. There is the occasional outcry by a resident on an issue, not following the rules of order, but they are told about what is normal procedure and continue the meeting.
I honestly don’t think that these meetings carry too much weight in the grand scheme of things. I don’t see the tenant association president’s knowledgeable about what is going to be discussed. The Agenda’s that are given to them are presented to them that day, instead of in advance. They only have a little bit of time to prepare what they will be taking about instead of what they will be deciding on. It seems to be more of “ I have an issue” forum, instead of, “we all know about the issue and we have to decide what to do next”. These meetings tend to take a really long time because the rules of order are always practiced, especially the agenda portion of it.
For instance one of the meetings I attended had a representative from the local police department present. They were taking about the Stop and Frisk policy when it was still being applied. The police officer that came was unaware of the situation in the tenement buildings and how officers were executing the stop and frisk procedure. He seemed shocked when he heard people and took notes. Wouldn’t it have been more effective had he already known about these concerns ahead of time instead of trying to come up with solutions as the problems were being discussed?
I think where these meetings fall short is in the organization of them. They want to follow a certain method, but do not fully execute it. I think everyone needs to be given the agendas ahead of time and given the opportunity to talk to their tenants before coming to a meeting. They should also hold meetings for just the tenants without their normal representation so that that people who do not feel like they are being represented can speak to issues that are affecting them, with leadership present so that they feel like their concerns are being taken seriously.
After reading James Fishkin’s Deliberative polling procedure I can see where there are strengths and where there are weaknesses. I think that this is an effective way of gauging the public interest and knowledge on a topic. It works because people sometimes only see one side of a topic. However, where I think this falls short is in the interpretation of the media on the results. It kind of seems cyclical; couldn’t these results in theory also be interpreted in a specific manner by the media to engage a certain faction? In this method the information given to participants comes from “expert” sources. I would be interested to know what the qualifications of “expert” entail and if they are standard for both sides of a topic.
Desire,
Great post! Your experience as community advocate is welcome for someone like me. I totally agree with you about having the agenda ahead of time. My only experience with a public meeting was with the Chelsea nightclub deal, which i wrote about above. If our meeting would of had an agenda sheet in advance, which we didn’t have, the meeting would not have run so “hot” so quickly I believe. Our meeting quickly turned into a “I have an issue” meeting like you mention, because nobody in our neighborhood was even involved in the club opening process and there was no basic agenda for the meeting. It was basically, we’re opening a club and deal with it. Thanks for sharing your experience!
I’m not sure if this counts as a public meeting in the sense of a town-hall meeting, but I was able to participate in monthly, “shared governance” meetings during my last job as a registered nurse. This hospital, in my opinion, had a successful methodology to get meaningful guidance from their entire nursing population. First of all, every hospital unit had a unit-elected “Unit Council” which comprised of the unit providers, nurses, clerks, and nursing aides. In these monthly meetings that last approximately 1- 1.5 hours, the Unit Council will go over concerns, solutions, and plans for the unit, and were able to have meaningful conversation. From there, every unit council would select a representative to attend a monthly, hospital wide “Professional Nursing Council” (PNC) meeting.
PNC is composed of the nurse representatives from each unit, nurse managers, advanced practice nurses, and the Chief Nursing Officer. PNC would provide advice to the Chief Nursing Officer relative to the practice of nursing at this particular hospital. For those not familiar, the Chief Nursing Officer is responsible for overarching nursing practices at the hospital and reports directly to its Chief Executive Officer.
Besides from conducting the general affairs and agenda of PNC, the council also functions to receive professional nursing concerns related to nursing practice. This is where the “unit council” representatives are able to voice their concerns. Depending on the topic of the concern, they are then referred to a specific sub-council to address and determine a solution. Other nursing-wide concerns and appraises were also mentioned. All information from the PNC meetings is then disseminated back to the units via the unit representatives.
I believe this council I was involved in was ultimately successful because of the organized structure of the council (well-developed bylaws established), and also because it was strongly mission oriented to improve the healing environment of the patients and the working environment of the nurses. The council was a great way to effectively and efficiently voice and solve concerns and I was happy to be a part of it.
Sylvia –
It sounds like you had a really positive experience with your nurses councils, which is impressive considering that you were likely working in a large hospital with a lot of bureaucracy. I think the point you brought up about bylaws being established and adhered to is super important, especially in such a large group. Also, it helps to have a mission-oriented group at the hearings, because there is less possibility of getting side-tracked. When in doubt, return to the mission.
I’m glad you were able to experience a well-functioning public meeting.
Sylvia-
Where I work we also use Shared Governance as our practice model. We have a Nursing Board as well as other councils such as Practice Council, External Awards, Recruitment Retention and Rewards. The meetings are also conducted in a respectful way allowing everybody to voice their concerns. As you mentioned we all know and share the mission which helps get things done. We really heavily on Evidence Based Practice which also helps guide the council toward a common goal and helps keep conversation on target.
Sylvia,
The hospital I work at also has hospital-wide councils that have lead to meaningful changes throughout the hospital. It sounds like your council, however held meetings on a broader range on topics. I think this is a great way to get more voices heard throughout the hospital and to get feed back on all the changes that are taking place due to these meetings.
After reviewing the deliberative polling process, I found myself thinking that it would be a great tool for the media to use during election seasons. To most Americans, elections are boring , and more of a 2-team game. R vs. D, with little to no consequences as to who wins in most voters minds. Relatively few Americans vote in non-presidential elections, and even less watch the build up to such elections.
I think if the mass media, particularly the three major cable news networks, utilized the deliberative polling process, many more Americans would gain knowledge through watching the process.
Rather than a typical election cycle where candidates gain votes through one on one debates or stump speeches, voters could now gain a deeper understanding of a candidates positions and policies through watching the small group discussions regarding such issues, and formulating a conclusion based on what they hear from other voters – not just politicians. It is certainly more involved, and much more entertaining than listening to the same political speeches and talking points over and over in debates.
Many commentators have noted that the moderators or informational packets provided would be biased. I don’t think this is necessarily true – NYC provides voting guides every election season that are aimed at being unbiased and nonpartisan. Overall, I find them to be very informative and certainly not biased. If the same methodology can be applied to such informational packets given during the deliberative process, it would be highly effective at informing voters.
Despite the benefits, there are some drawbacks. No matter how random the sample, there will always be individuals that are more knowledgeable regarding policy and the issues at hand. Even with trained moderators and informational packets provided, certain individuals in the deliberative process could have the opportunity to dominate the conversation and end up swaying opinions.
Furthermore, there is always the slight chance that moderators will be biased. Especially in election seasons, one biased moderator with his or her own vested interested could absolutely sway the conversation in the direction they please.
Carmelo –
I agree that election years would be a great time to put these processes to the test! I think it would be particularly helpful for citizens to be able to receive the balanced briefing materials, and then be able to discuss with peers and a trained moderator. I think that when we discuss presidential elections with those who disagree with us, often there is no benefit in the end because we get to heated in our arguments. With a decision as important as elections, I think it would be beneficial to citizens and politicians alike to utilize these methods to distill the information most important to the people.
I agree with much of your post! I think there are many challenges for using this process for midterm elections, namely that the outcomes candidates and the news media desire are not thoughtful deliberation, but winning and viewers respectively. Good deliberation and democracy are not always the most entertaining 🙂
Carmelo, great idea! I think that using this method during the election campaigns would be a great way for candidates to address issues that are important to many different groups in America. As an American, one thing that I resent is for debates to go on regarding domestic issues that are not communal. Every community should have a voice and all concerns should be addressed either to agree or to disagree the main point is to acknowledge those issues. Let the people know that they exist.
Carmelo-
I really appreciate the concept of using the deliberative process for media especially during election seasons. You pointed out a drawback of the moderator being biased however having a panel of moderators would be another option. The panel would hopefully be a self check system to keep their own bias out of the scope of conversation. I still think your idea would cause less bias then the individual news organizations present.
Carmelo,
I like this idea! Any shakeup in the delivery of policy to the public via the media needs to be considered. Like you said above, Americans don’t really engage in non-presidential years and maybe something like the deliberative polling process could wake up the public. The biggest benefit i would think would be watching the small discussion groups deliberate. I think most Americans, I know I feel this way, are frustrated with how the major networks deliver democracy into our living rooms. I’m not worried about biased moderators, because bias will always creep in, no matter how hard you try to get rid of it. Thanks for sharing your idea.
I have been to a few town hall meetings mandated by school and i must say every time it was me and five other people. The turn out was nowhere near what we witnessed in professor’s lecture and people weren’t that emotional about the topic. The last meeting I went to was in community board 11. The meeting was regarding open spaces , revamping the parks to include workout equipment and extending the hours to include after school hours
The board was lead by what I presume to be the community board leader. He discussed what was needed to make put the action in place and asked feedback from the community on their thoughts. The meeting ran pretty smoothly with no conflicts. I doubt the city people were representative of the whole community. I think most people don’t even know where and when community board meetings in their neighborhood is; i know I’m guilty of that myself.
Irene, I agree with your statement as far as the community not being made aware of town hall meetings taking place. Communication is everything when gathering information. How can representatives of the people be representatives if they are not allowing them the opportunity to be heard. Exclusion is element used that undermines democracy because not everyone is invited to the party to help make a decision.
Irene, its interesting to hear about your experience at the town hall meetings. I agree that those meetings don’t tend to be representative of the whole community and that many people are not aware of where and when those meetings take place. I know that for example in my town most people don’t attend those meetings and the views of those that do don’t really reflect those of the entire town.
The Deliberative Polling process is a method of assessing a hypothetically informed public’s opinions on various issues. The idea itself is logical, as conventional polls only display opinions that are based on impressions and assumptions rather than accurate information. At the same time, however, what does Deliberative Polling actually say about the public’s opinions? Results of the polls only reveal what a hypothetical population might desire, not what the actual population desires. Conventional polls might reveal the opinions of an uninformed population, but at least those opinions are an accurate representation of what the public desires.
The Deliberative Polling process is conducted using a random sample of participants that are representative of the general population. This is an obvious strength of the process. However, since there is a limited number of people involved in the process, there also is bound to be a less-than-accurate representation of specific groups within the population. In other words, a group of 10 participants might only have one or two Asians. How can the opinions of one or two people possibly be representative of the opinions of all Asians in America? In order to be accurate, there would need to be a much larger sample of people involved in the process.
Hi Batya,
I definitely agree with you that the deliberative polling process lacks accurate representation of an entire population. I believe that if various groups are taken from different populations and the same topic is briefed and discussed then the results can be combined together to create a more representative sample. This type of process would involve taking results from multiple cohorts and following the overall trend to see if it corresponds positively or negatively. However, I don’t believe it is possible to ever achieve complete representation of any population.
James Fishkin’s Deliberative Polling process has both strengths and weaknesses. Most obviously, the process enables polls to display the opinions of the public not only as it is now, but as it would be if the public was properly informed about various issues. Since most people’s opinions are based on small bits of information rather than conclusive knowledge, conventional polls only represent uninformed opinions. Deliberative Polling utilizes a sample that is representative of the population, but also informed about various issues.
Despite its strengths, the Deliberative Polling process has some room for bias. The trained moderators who teach the participants about various issues might do so in a way that is not representative of how the public would really become informed. Therefore, there may be some inaccuracy in the process.
James Fishkin’s Deliberative Polling process addresses inherent problems in the traditional polling process, mainly an ordinary citizens’ lack of information on key public issues. Fishkin cites “rational ignorance” as the culprit – where the cost of educating oneself on an issue outweighs the potential benefit to be gained from the decision.
Fishkin’s method eliminates this problem by providing balanced briefings to
participants and also dividing them into small groups for discussions led by trained moderators. This allows for participants to think critically about the information that was provided to them, and ask questions and process the information more deeply than they would if a) they were simply watching the news or reading the newspaper or b) if they were receiving the information in a large group where discussion was limited or participants might be too intimidated to ask questions.
During these small group discussions, major themes or questions surface, which are then posed to experts or policy makers in a large plenary. Through this process, the public’s true opinions are distilled and the major concerns are able to be debated.
While this method is certainly a thoughtful approach to tackling the problems inherent in most public meetings, I wonder if it provides a long-term, or large-scale solution? This method does not seem to be easily implemented without a large staff, and significant overhead costs for technology and organization. The training of the moderators would be labor-intensive, and it is potentially unreasonable to think that the quality of training could be implemented on a national level without significant resources.
However, I do agree that this method is a step in the right direction of informed citizens, and is something to aspire to.
Adrienne, I think you make a great point regarding whether it provides for a long term solution because although it does a great job of informing citizens about the issues, it is difficult to implement. I agree that the cost of educating citizens and running these meetings may be difficult to maintain in the long run.
Compared to public meeting, Deliberative Polling (DP) inform the public with balanced briefing material on the targeted issues. When the public realize their opinions really matter, they’ll actively participate in the deliberation and contribute their indefinite wisdom. DP provides a mutually beneficial platform for both policy-makers and the public. On the one hand, due to the given balanced information, the public are capable to present pointed questions, get feedback from experts to be further informed and thus make sound decisions. On the other hand, the policy-makers benefit from public opinions and might moderate policies adequately in order to prevent the potential obstacles before it’s put into practice.
However, DP has some weakness as well. First, representativeness might not be achieved in reality. Since the people who were chosen might be not be interested to attend the meetings. And the people who attended are relatively more motivated by specific reasons. Also, the limited number of participants can’t necessarily represent the broader general public. Thus, the deliberative result reached can’t reflect the real public opinion. Second, if moderators were biased, they would impose influence on the discussion and deviates public opinion, no matter it’s on purpose or unintentionally.
Despite the possible weakness, Deliberative Polling is quite worthy being promoted. It gives an opportunity for the public to exert wisdom and get enlightened, in the meanwhile, it gives policy makers the first-hand material of public opinions before and after deliberation. It’s a win-win system.
The Deliberative Polling by James Fishkin is an excellent attempt at re-inventing public hearings. In short, the model zones in on how individual opinions can sway when offered well thought out opinions on both sides of the issue.
I think Fishkin’s model is useful because it harnesses the education, background, and expertise of specialists in the field to come to an informed conclusion. If one of the specialists in the field is not actually an expert on the subject matter it can lead someone to come to an uninformed decision.
Unfortunately, in today’s world most people based their decision on the news, media, and headlines on the internet. Since must news organization favor sensationalism instead of facts and would prefer to start a stir instead of giving expert information, not many of us come to informed decisions on quite a few issues because of our news sources.
I attended a public Community Board committee meeting where a charter school presented on their intentions to open a school in that community. There were very few other attendees. The committee members were strongly philosophically/politically opposed to introducing a charter school to the area because when students would transfer from their current traditional public school to this proposed charter school, the traditional public schools would shrink and lose revenue. There was no meaningful deliberation – the committee members were fundamentally opposed to the proposition regardless of the details. While I understood their analysis of the harm this proposal may have caused the other public schools in the area, I was disappointed that the committee did not feel an obligation to also represent the needs of parents who want higher quality schools in the area. The committee was selective in which concerns they chose to represent, and because there were few other attendees, the perspective and needs of many community members were not represented at all.
Nikola, I agree that the sample must be representative of the population. There are so many factors to consider, such as age, race, education level… I am not sure how a small group of participants can possibly be representative of the general population! If it is not, then the entire process is inaccurate.
Michelle – I like how you mention that some participants who are in the minority opinion might be scared to speak up during the question and answer session. Studies on social pressure show that the minority opinion in a group often changes that opinion in order to be accepted by the group. When people fill out polls, they do so in private and without any social pressure. The question and answer process involves social pressure that is not present in conventional polls.
Deliberative Polling is a process involving initial polling about key issues followed by an educational component that informs participants about the issues. They are then split into groups for deliberation. After being properly informed and having the opportunity to discuss the issues participant are polled about the initial issues again and the results show a difference in opinion the second time around. Using random representative sampling definitely a strength of the process. A weakness is that like with all samples, the people you are sampling are the ones who agree to be sampled and that might not fully capture the whole population as a whole. Also when you put people into groups you open the opportunity for social influence. Being in a group and listening to others opinions may influence how participants answer the questions the second time around. Overall, the process does a good job of informing participants about the issues compared with traditional meeting and hearings.
In James Fishkin’s Deliberative Polling chart shows a step by step analytic process that makes sense. I think that combining expertise and professional research are essential to making sound judgements. I also believe that incorporating the social process is extremely important because not only is it organizational but it invites a psycho-dynamic that is representative. This process makes an excellent cocktail of diplomacy and equality.
However, many people believe that the system is designed in a way that it does not allow for the average person’s concerns to be well-represented. Many believe that behind closed doors the decisions that affect the American public have already been made. As the cameras were on in the America Speaks video it showed how they developed a system that helps in gathering “representative” public opinion, condensing it into an effective plan and delivering it to public officials. I think this a great method to use when conducting a town hall meeting and when helping our incumbents make legislative decisions.
However, just as Deliberative Polling process reading, it can only work if the disenfranchised are stimulated enough into believing in a system that has not produced significant change and has not effectively represented them. The disenfranchised are less likely to participate or take care to become well informed participating citizens due to their historical experience of bearing witness to a system that has repeatedly failed them. The Deliberative Polling process is attractive for those of us that continue to believe in America, are active participates and continue be retroactive in producing change. With that being said, we must think of new ways in providing strength, planting faith and re-igniting hope again in these individuals. Without that there will always be one voice being heard louder than the other.
During my undergraduate (last) year, I have been two different public hearings. Even though I found the information to be informative and interesting on how they plan on move forward with their plans and blueprints. I noticed that only the chairs (or people of the board members) are the only people who can ask questions. If the public or citizens wishes to ask questions, they can but not in the middle of the hearing. It has to be afterwards, they just fill out their questions after the hearing. The members will get back to your questions afterwards. Which I found it to be not helpful at all.
I found the only time you can ask question is by indirectly. For instance, when you know someone on the chair or the board members. You can text them your question and the board member will then ask the question to the presenter. This happened to someone I know and they told me about this “special situation.”
I have been to a number of public meetings – more or less successful. Actually, less or more less successful (if that makes sense). I have been to a public meeting to support (in my case) the opening of a particular charter school. It was raining hard, almost no one came and the only opposition was from one person who apparently came to every charter school meeting to protest. More power to him – but he was not successful. I have been to the open annual meetings held for my synagogue (I am on the board) and last year only 8 people came – perhaps accurately reflecting the feeling that there was really no opportunity for meaningful input into budgetary issues.
I am interested in that conflict between representative democracy (Federalist papers) and direct democracy. The first seems (at least today) to breed apathy and the second seems to unwieldy to manage – can you imagine what would happen if an idea like net neutrality were decided through a series of country-wide open meetings? While I am cynical about individual politicians and their motives, I am much less cynical about career civil servants and their ability to see and direct the “big picture.” I think direct democracies would get bogged down in the trees.
Hi – It sounds like this was an orderly meeting – although I agree that having it on a weekday morning was not optimal. Was that the only meeting? I am also curious about the amount of information people had about the proposal – the reasons for it and the potential ramifications for government functioning.
When reviewing James Fishkin’s deliberative Polling process I saw a lot of strengths but also found one major weakness. The main strength in the process is the random sampling of the public and it’s attempt to get an educated public opinion. The weaknesses I found was in getting an understanding of where exactly the “balanced” information came from on a topic. I think that we have all found during this class that it can be very difficult to form a balanced approach to a topic. I realize that we are all learning techniques on how argue on both sides of a topic and pick apart different arguments however I believe that it is very difficult to do when the topic is something you are passionate about.