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.
58 thoughts on “Public Meetings and Hearings”
Comments are closed.
Although I have not partaken in any public meetings, I have some insights from what I heard and from watching the lecture. It appears -to me – that public hearings aren’t much about having open debates worth to consider. In the video, one of the protesters- having heard that they passed the rezoning of the lower east despite their protests (during meeting)- expresses that the City had already made a choice before the meeting. Could it be that public meetings are simply made to allow discussions on decisions that have already been made? Because, taking into account the example of rezoning lower east side, the decision should have been revoked after the meeting.
Could it be that public meetings exist just to give the impression that everyone’s had an equal opportunity to express oneself rather than utilizing “active listening” in order to change a decision? Could it be that Webler and Renn ( Gastil, p189) were right when they “ suggested that public hearing usually fail to produce deliberation and influential public deliberation both because of their timing within the policy-making process and the structure of discourse within the public hearing process.”
As for the deliberative polling process- from the chart and the website summary- it seems that it is predisposed to give the opportunity for deliberative processes. In the video, the speaker states that 69 percent of people changed their minds during the deliberative polling . From that, one can infer that this method encourages “active listening”; they seem to take into consideration opinions. As thus, it allows for an informed consensus. The reason of it being as such is the structure; aside from it being based on informative platform, there is also the presence of a third -neutral, trained moderators – party.
But at the same time, wouldn’t having a third party demands for more budget? Also, the website mentioned about doing it on weekends. What are the possibilities that certain participants will be available on those days for lengthy debates? Might it not screw the representation of certain groups of people? (i.e. people who work on weekends?). It might very likely that people who are attend are retired people such as senior citizen for example.
Jennifer I agree, it seems that the publics involvement is simply a formality. I wonder if there are accounts of public input at a NYC public meeting which led to delays and or changes from city officials. It does seem that decisions have been made before the meeting takes place, this is especially true with the MTA when they hold meetings when discussing fare hikes.
Jennifer I think you make an excellent point about public meetings only being around or in place as a less than derisible attempt to fulfill a public requirement. Decisions could have all ready been made behind closed doors as you suggest and the public meeting simply becomes a formality. As Freddy mentions these decisions are evident with the MTA as well as in legislation with the changing of polling locations in hopes of deterring minorities and elderly people from voting. It seems as though everyone has a hidden agenda and if the outcome will not be favored by the public superficial measures are taken to appease the public.
Yes, I agree with you that at times public meetings seem to be a show to make us think that we have a voice. I am not sure that in many of these public forums that the decision makes have already made up their mind.
I haven’t been involved with a public meeting, but from time to time you see footage on the news as we did in the lecture, and it always seems to be the same. A microphone is placed and members of the community/public go up to the mic and comment on a proposal. The key word is comment I have never witnessed a back and forth or answering of questions. I honestly do not think that most people have the facts before entering a public meeting nor do I believe that they leave truly understanding what they heard. Their involvement seems to be a complete formality.
I think one of the biggest problems is getting public involvement in public meetings. This stems from a few different reasons, lack of awareness that meetings are taking place, a feeling that comments do not matter or that they do not effect outcomes. It seems to me that to do the type of deliberating polling as described in the link would require quite a bit of funding. Community board funding is limited and they honestly hold no power. I know that a few cities tend to put a lot of upcoming proposals on ballots around election time, I wonder if that increases public participation. I know that people say that if citizens care they will their best to become informed, this is not an easy task. In the lecture the professor mentioned that public meetings tend to not be representative of the broader community. People seem to be concerned only when the outcome is significant and or directly impacts them. If we want people to be involved we have to direct funding to this area, look at what is the best way to reach members of our community and prove that their input is more then just a comment, rather it directly influences outcome.
Freddy,
I do agree with you in the sense that there is a disproportionate amount of informed individuals who attend public meetings due to as you mentioned a lack of awareness about timing of the meetings and an internal feeling that their comments are insignificant having no ability to effect change. However people will only be concerned if the impact is significant or only directly influences them, is that not the reason to have a public meeting; when you have something of grave importance to share and want public opinion. You are indeed correct in saying we need to find ways that best suit members of different communities and make these members feel as though their opinions are valued and important.
Freddy, I agree. Directing funding to communities so that people can learn more about the public issues (not only the ones which directly affect them) is a great option. A lot of times people in specific communities may not have the level of education or expertise to understand the issues at hand. Therefore, they do not participate in public meetings. Perhaps the funding should be directed to helping the public understand these issues so that they will be motivated to be more involved.
Freddy I agree with you on the issue of the public’s lack of interest in public hearings. In most cases individuals and few community based groups who a directly affect by the issue at hand are the only ones who attend these meetings. I believe the lack of participation is a contributing factor in the growing popularity of ballots initiatives. Ballot initiatives create more interest, therefore higher voter turnout, in elections. Citizens feel more empowered by these initiatives and know whatever meaningful decisions they come to stands a chance of being implemented.
Hi Freddy,
I agree with you that people don’t attend these public meetings because they are either nor well informed or they believe they won’t affect the outcome. They often feel this way because of the lack of trust for politicians. I think a major part of improving the attendance of public meetings, is not only by making the dates and times well known, but finding a way to rebuild trust in politicians. As mentioned in the reading, the public needs to have trust that public officials will do what is in the best interest of the public and not for themselves. This I know is easier said than done but is necessary to improve the outcomes of public meetings.
Freddy, I agree with several of your points. The meetings we see on TV are rarely a discussion of items. There is no deliberating, brain storming, or idea generation. It also seems that these meetings take place in the middle of the day, making it improbable that there will be significant turn out from everyone who wants to participate. Participation requires time and funding, as you said. Assuming people have the time to do research on issues is a bit unrealistic. But if there was funding to support a true forum for discussion and “Deliberative Polling” as the article says, it could lead to more results in terms of community involvement and decision making.
Hey Freddy,
I definitely agree with your point on getting the public more involved in the deliberation process. But more so, the public needs to be well-informed and that’s where the problem lies. I think that for public deliberation to be effective, there has to be a better development in the communication process between lawmakers and the public. Until that happens, there will continue to be a lot of challenges with misinformation and lack of information which will have a negative effect on the idea of the “public good.”
Freddy,
I agree that some member of the public just make comments at these meeting…very angry comments sometimes. Additionally, more often, no prior research is done by the public to set up the scenario for deliberative discourse.
Like you said, lack of awareness is also key for some members in the community not participating in these hearings. Added to lack of awareness is also the feeling that it’s a done deal, why bother. It is food for thought as to what we and individuals in our community can do to effect change in participation rates and education on proposals. I suggest utilizing social media as a start.
According to Abigail Williamson and Archon Fung, a public hearing is “an open gathering of officials and citizens, in which citizens are permitted to offer comments, but officials are not obliged to act on them or typically, even to respond publicly (Gastil, 188). Idealistically, discussions and debates allow individuals to examine the problem, actively listening to opposing views and reflect upon their own perspectives. Unfortunately, there are situations where the public hearing fails to reflect the views of the general population. For example, public officials can schedule a hearing after a decision has been made. That said, the public may feel their opinion and views does not matter or make a difference. Along with time, a structure is a key factor in conducting a public hearing. Public hearings that are structured to limit public expression and official response does not encourage deliberative discussions.
Despite the limitations that exist while conducting a public hearing, there are cases where public hearings did influence decisions that were made. For example, The “Listening to the City” forum brought New Yorkers, city planners, public officials and activist to decide what to build at the site of the former World Trade Center. The meeting has postponed the decisions and Incorporated specific ideas that were made in the Town meeting. As a result, the decision made better reflected the public interest.
Along with public hearings, the deliberative polling process influences public opinion and can increase knowledge of the participants. Unlike participants in public hearings, individuals that participated in the deliberative polling process feel more positive about themselves and the government.
Nickiesha, I do agree with you. It is true that public hearing does not always reflect the views of the general population. Most Public bodies, such as city councils, community boards, and planning commissions, are sometimes required by state or city law to hold public hearings. Most of these meeting are held by these groups just to meet the requirements set by law. On most occasions the outcome of such meetings are already set and no amount of deliberation can change that. Lobbyists stand a greater chance of changing the outcomes of public policies than public opinions at a hearing.
Nickiesha, thank you for your definition of a public hearing. I think we can lose site of the fact that we need decision makers to have control or else nothing would ever get done. You make a great point about needed a structure. To my previous sentence, these officials have jobs to do. They only have a certain amount of time allocated to each question, response, issue, etc. A truly open forum could be counterproductive if not structured correctly. You make an interesting point about the “Listening to the City” forum. I would like to know if that type of outcome is more of an outlier than the standard. And if so, how much of an exception is it to the status quo of forums.
Yes, the “Listening to the City” forum was a successful one. It is impressive that they scrapped all six designs to start over after input from the public.
Public hearing is important part for government’s deliberation process. Over here, both citizen’s and government officials interact about a issue. I really liked your point about citizen’s comments about public hearing. Although citizen’s can comment their opinions about the issue, it is up to government officials whether they will act or not. Therefore, I also think it is not fair hearing process for citizen’s. However, i think there is a similarity between public hearing and deliberative polling system. Both systems try to inform the public about the issue before reaching into a decision.
Last year I was part of a large protest walk through New York to oppose Russian President Putin’s hostile takeover of Crimea from Ukraine. I joined a large group of supporters holding signs in opposition to Putin and also signs calling for the U.S. government to take action.
In 1994, Ukraine possessed the world’s 3rd largest amount of nuclear warheads. That was until the signing of the Budapest Memorandum. This security assurance treaty was agreed upon because in exchange for relinquishing their nuclear weapons, Ukraine was promised to receive support from the other signatories should any country threaten the territorial integrity of the nation. The United States, among others, was a signatory.
Ukraine was in the midst of its second revolution in less than 10 years. However, because of the Budapest Memorandum they did not have the necessary weapons to fend off attackers – Russia. I took part in the protest to spread the word throughout New York and the local news about the injustice that was and is still currently taking place. The only time Ukraine makes the news is when an extreme event occurs. For example, the revolution in Kiev. But what people do not realize is that there is constant death occurring every day. Deaths which until the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine would not allow.
After hours of walking, protesting, and singing, I went home and watch the news coverage of the event. To my surprise, there was quite a bit of coverage. They even showed a bit of my interview with a local reporter. Here we are almost 2 years later and there have been little effects of my protest. Ukraine is still at war, underfunded and under-supplied. Russian president Putin continues to intimidate every world leader, and there seems to be no end to his control over Eastern Europe.
Civil protesting has proven to be a successful catalyst to change. We have seen this occur with teachers, gun control, civil rights, and war. I think that protesting can always be a successful forum for to get information out to the decision makers. In my case, we have seen actions like financial sanctions against Russia get enacted, but for the large part, my protesting have proven to be unsuccessful.
Hey Anna,
I agree that civil protesting is definitely a way to make change happen. It is also a form of deliberation process that most people do not really consider and look at. I think the challenges with civil protesting is that a lot of ideas emerges all at once and there is no forum or rules in how the discussion process for change should occur. Protester’s platforms are mostly news station – and rarely ever do these protesters sit in one space get organized and discuss a grand plan. So overall protesting has been unsuccessful, however with more rules and order it can be very effective.
Hi Anna — I’m very pleased to hear that you are involved in civil protesting. I believe that protesting is necessary to get important subjects discussed by the media. Far to often, the media is concerned with discussions about campaigns in the far future or celebrities and the personal lives, rather than discussion about violence and foreign policy as you mentioned with Ukraine.
Protesting is effective because it highlights humanity where statistics, policies, and essays can’t. Watching people speak has an enduring effect. To a degree, it builds empathy and helps people develop an understanding about others. Regarding Ukraine, you’ve done your locality a great service by teaching them about the violence that persists.
Deliberative polling is said to bring the result of a “human face” to a poll. Many citizens are unconcerned or uninformed about public issues and deliberative polling seeks to educate them, to formulate a consensus on public opinion. In a sense it is a form of public education. One of the advantages of deliberative polling is that candidates are selected at random. This allows for a diverse set of citizens in discussion on public issues. There is also the presence of experts and policy makers who are there to help guide citizens and answer any questions which they may have. Another advantage is the structure in which participants are broken up into small groups which all include a trained moderator.
I do have a few concerns about how effective this method is. For example, if citizens are uninformed and unconcerned about public issues, how are they motivated to participate in these events? Also, if they are selected randomly, how can we guarantee that it is not a result of selection bias? Selection bias occurs is described as: (1) the self-selection of individuals to participate in an activity or survey, or as a subject in an experimental study; (2) selection of samples or studies by researchers to support a particular hypothesis (Skeptic’s Dictionary). If participants are aware of the agenda for the discussion then they may have strong opinions. Ultimately, the strong opinion may be the result of the polling which may not be an accurate measure of public opinion.
Hi Anuradha,
I agree that the selection method used in Deliberative Polling can be a disadvantage. It is possible that the groups of participants selected may not be interested or uninformed. It also assumes that all participants are motivated, which may not be true.
I think it’s safe to say that most people have a negative outlook towards politicians, and I’ve experienced firsthand why so many people feel this way. Growing up in my town, we always knew when an election was coming, the streets were paved, people were given assistance to acquire land, or given some free materials to aid in building their homes. All of which are good gestures, but are disingenuous when people have been asking for the assistance for months on end, and it’s only given to them closer to the election as way to rally votes. Around this time, public meetings are held because the political candidates claim to want to her the plight of the people they represent.
I attended one of the public meetings and I must say that some of politicians were great at getting the public amped and feeling secure knowing they have someone good to represent them. People gave their opinion on what they thought could change and how it could be changed. They asked in depth questions about what the politicians intended to do for the community and they all had what sounded like great realistic agendas. Once the election was over and all the excitement went away, things went back to normal. People would visit the town counsel and rarely received assistance they needed.
While I believe that public meetings are good so the community can make their voice heard, the sad reality is these meetings in my view are just a formality and a way to rally votes. These politicians are working to accomplish their own interest and not that of the people they represent. So the meetings aren’t successful.
I guess the general consensus is that modern day hearings can be disingenuous. While originally intended to bring about discussion and outcomes beneficial for the common good, it has become a sham to demonstrate that good faith efforts were made to engage the public. As you mentioned, some local politicians and their representatives are only active in the community during an election year. In my community, their representatives go door to door eliciting support for their election, but these politicians are not very visible when negative proposals that affect our communities arise.
Sharita,
I agree. There are cases where public meetings are held but the voices of the community are excluded from the decision making process. In chapter 7, Gastil provides examples where public meetings were held after the decision has been made. Moreover, the structure of the public meeting did not promote deliberative discussion because public officials were not obligated to answer questions. In your example, it is sad to see public officials tell the public what they want to hear as a means for political gain.
I went to a small High school, with only about 600 students. However, my High School was in a building with three other schools. When I was in the 12th grade, the entire campus asked all the seniors to meet to discuss a cafeteria issue. The problem was that every lunch period, all the schools were mixed. Whether is was 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th period lunchtime on your schedule, the cafeteria was filled with students from all of the four schools. Because outside lunch was not allowed, everyone stayed in the cafeteria and this resulted in fights from students of one school against another schools. It was an issue that went on for few years and finally the principal of all four schools decided that the students should have a say. It was all the seniors from all four school in a big hall. The four principals asked that each school select a key speaker to present the ideas that we feel will help solve the issue. Then collectively there will be a vote on all four ideas from everyone to see which one has the majority vote. This was a five hour discussion with the end conclusion that each schools should have the entire cafeteria for lunch at a different time. So my school had lunch at 4th period.
Although this wasn’t an issue that affected the general public, it still required the opinion of the campus population. Now I though the deliberation process was somewhat effective. The idea of a public deliberation was good. The first issue was that the whole school (freshmen-seniors) should have been present. However, our grand hall could not accommodate every single student in the building. A second issue was that everyone couldn’t truly express their opinions in such a big group. Each senior class was about 100+ students and to delegate one person to represent the school, and then deliberate among each other was not really effective.
I prefer the idea of small groups of 5 or less deliberating – that way everyone shares their ideas and opinions and it gets the entire public more involved in the discussion rather than a large group of people which can cause some people to lose their voice in the midst. One thing that I found effective and also is a strategy used by America Speaks is the voting process. The fact that the vote didn’t have to be totally unanimous helps because there is no need to have to convince anyone. The idea/policy with the most vote simply becomes effective. The four principals did not have a say – they were just there to make sure the rules were being followed and help the voting process. I thought this was very effective as well very democratic to have the “public” decide.
Overall, there were factors that were ineffective and some that were effective. However, the end result worked, and there were no more cafeteria fights for the rest for the school year. In the end it all depends on whether or not the decision does really make things better for the public good.
Hi Kristia!
Kudos to those 4 principals, I admire any administration that integrates its students to find solutions. Although I agree with you that small groups are better at allowing opinions to be hear, I am glad that in the scenario that you presented a good outcome was achieved.
It was really surprising how long the deliberation was but even more, how high school students were able to work together towards a great outcome. It would’ve been very interesting to witness high school students deliberate together to pick a representative but also to see how the discussion occurred with 100+ students. The student representative definitely had a big responsibility listening to his/her peer and then deliberating the argument for the entire senior class.
Although a long process, I really admire the administration for deciding to hear directly from the students what the best solution was rather than using their authority to implement a change.
Kristia-what an interesting approach to solving the issue! But, the number involved in this process does sound overwhelming. I think you are right, a smaller group approach (possibly modeled after America Speaks) may have worked better. A lot more students could have been involved in the decision making and perhaps a more creative solution could have been reached. But, in the end I am glad it worked out!
Attending the MTA fare-hike hearing in my community was an opportunity to see the deliberative process at work. Not a lot of community members were in attendance, however, you could feel their animosity and defiance in the air. From the onset, there was a great divide between the public and the MTA panel. Individuals (including me) came with the preconceived notion that this was just another injustice being bestowed on the riding public, and there was not much of a choice in this matter. Most of the citizenry who spoke just really wanted to give the panel members their emotion, laden opinion. There was no real putting together of a well-researched speech like the speaker in the clip we viewed for this assignment. Since it involved a direct financial cost to the citizenry present, rationality did not necessarily prevail during the attempt for deliberative discourse. I ask the question, why should rationality prevail under these circumstances? This type of discourse, I found, was an opportunity for the citizenry to vent and let off steam.
My community members and the riding public as a whole feel that their salaries have not kept abreast of inflation and here comes one more item to bust your budge. Knowing that whether you put forth a good or bad argument to the MTA regarding the fare hike, would not change their plan to increase the fare. The MTA has the monopoly in the transportation industry in New York City. With that said, I felt that the hearing was an opportunity to tell the riding public what they (MTA) know they are going to do and when it will be done. To the MTA’s credit, they did hold public hearings in every borough as a formality to inform the public and demonstrate transparency and allow for deliberative discourse. But, I strongly believe that the MTA is aware that these sessions are contentious and rate hikes will pass regardless of the public’s outcry.
What did not work was sometimes the lack of respect demonstrated verbally and via body language on both sides. As described by Gastil respect should be mutual between elites and citizens and that citizen participants should presume that public officials will act in the public’s best interest. While this is ideal in theory for a good deliberative process, due to a lack of trust by the citizenry, which is justifiable, it has jaundiced the citizenry. The result of this is the decline in citizenry participation, and break down in respectful, deliberative, communication. Gastil himself acknowledges that “in practice, public hearings routinely fail to resemble even a crude form of deliberation” and is a formality to meet federal, state or local meeting requirements. Further Gastil cited Williamson and Fung, government scholars, who articulate the process as an opportunity for an exchange of comments, but officials are not required to act on the public’s suggestions or to even respond publicly.
I would like the AmericaSpeaks 21st Century Town meeting model to be adopted when deliberating government proposals. This will encourage deep introspection, generate various ideas and promote an equal opportunity for everyone to participate meaningfully in deliberative discourse. It is a great model and provides checks and balances allowing for proposals to be rejected and reworked yielding better results for the common good.
At least you got the impression that the MTA was trying to be transparent. These meetings are often well-covered in the news since most people are a stakeholder in the MTA, and your description seems to be what my sense was based on the news. However, at least they seem to actually care about announcing accurate information such as potential fare hikes. There is nothing worse than when decision-makers are vague at public meetings, only for the bad news to slip out eventually. The MTA is at least good at softening up the public for the new charges to come.
I sat in a public hearing held at the Long Island University auditorium in Brooklyn last year. The public hearing was for the public presentation of the draft supplemental environmental impact statement. I cannot really say much about the procedures involved since I got there after it has started around 5:30 pm and left before it ended after 10 pm. To me it looked more of a show down between critics and proponents of the Atlantic Yards Project.
For those who don’t know what it is, the Atlantic Yards Projects is the development of the old railways yard in Brooklyn which involved the development of the Barclays Centre and the building of 6430 apartments in 16 towers 2250 of which will be affordable housing. After the building of the Barclays centre the developers revised their plans and changed their time line for the delivery of the promised units from ten years to twenty five years. This new time frame according to the critics will have a serious negative effect on the surrounding environment and got a judge to order a new environmental impact assessment.
The public hearing was part of the review and approval process for the project to continue. It was a heated hearing with supporters of the project arguing the only way the projects can bring all the promised benefits to the community is for the critics to back off and avoid litigation. Litigation they said only delays the project. The critics on the other hand wanted more oversight and if possible the council should look at the possibility of engaging alternative developers. It was a back and forth between critics and supports with each speaker working off the same points in an effort to gain the upper hand.
My observation was that most people at the hearing were from organized groups and community based organisations that were there to push their own agenda. They were there in a bid to build support and increase their influence over the project. The project to me was already awarded and there was no way the city was going to shelve it or change the developers. Knowing how long the project approval takes and how big Mayor De Blasio is on affordable housing there is little to no chance the critics will succeed in stopping it.
It was very obvious this deliberative process was more of a formality to satisfy the legal requirements of the approval process and not a forum for which council members were seeking public input to inform their decision.
Wow! Just reading your post and imagining the public hearing makes me feel overwhelmed. I have never attended a public meeting, like many I share the belief that no matter who attends, decisions have already been made by those on the top. I do imagine the meetings filled with very angry citizens fighting for what they believe but also with individuals who are there for their own agenda, like you described. In this time and age, with social media being broadcast in real time, I can definitely agree with you that public hearings have become a show. Many people strive for that spotlight and unfortunately many politicians make presence simply for the photo and press. Take for instant politicians who are running for office. When they are campaigning, they appear to be everywhere, they have time for it all. They can be found at public hearings supporting their contingents and “working to better the community.” Once they are in office they either become too busy to be present at events or if they make it to an event, a camera cannot be far behind making sure to showcase the “support” to his/her community.
Interesting to read about the meeting on Atlantic Yards. Since I only know the project for Barclays (of which I am a fan) its difficult to imagine so much animosity toward the project. This is purely speculation, but I feel like most people simply view these meetings as formalities, which probably hurts turnout. Additionally, I wonder if the decision-makers feel that all comments are by organizations pushing an agenda. There needs to be a concerted effort for government to show they are listening, and normal citizens to participate.
That’s interesting Tagoe. I’m sure some groups were there to push their own agenda like you mentioned. Sometimes are so concerned about having a democratic way of doing things and taking some power away from the elite, we create interest groups with new power and factions. It’s unfortunate that people partake in the public hearings and are not actually being heard because they cant influence a decision that has already been made.
I agree with those who would say that in many cases the public hearings are “formalities” and that the “real decisions have been made already.”
Having said that, the type of change you describe is significant and should have made the headlines. A public meeting, therefore, could open the door for new questions and criticisms, or uncover wrong doings of the past.
They may need to adopt a different format to accommodate higher participation rates, but this is an area where technology can be our friend.
Outrageous speech and expressions in public meetings have been shared in social media and gone viral, and in many cases altering the course of action of the proposed policies.
Deliberative Polling is a process of learning. The polling provides an opportunity for the public to have a better understanding of an issue. Changes of opinion can happen before or after the hearing. Often times, citizens hear only the surface of an issue rather than the real motives in depth. Traditional meetings can be fruitless at times when harsh rules are needed to be followed. Especially when there is a time limit, people’s ideas are hardly constructed in a way they want to present them. When people are not well-informed on a topic, it holds citizens back from participating and voicing out their opinion. Fishkin discusses about experts along with the general public engaging one another about facts that they did not know from each other. He also mentions about the skilled moderators leading the discussions. This can lead the group to a discussion that doesn’t go naturally or swayed to a particular side. Fishkin’s process of selecting a random person on a particular issue ensures that everyone’s voice will be heard. His model also carries out a balanced informative process, unlike public hearings where only certain parts of the events are put out and some are edited it, making it superficial. Most people do not know much about the topic when they go to hearings, but they think they do. If an issue is raising alarms to a significant number of people, they will make an effort to educate themselves. By being more educated about the material, it will help the deliberative process be more efficient. People need to be presented with instructive resources that lack knowledge.
Comment on the strengths and weaknesses of this process as an alternative to traditional public meetings and hearings.
Fishkin’s Deliberative Polling process appears to be a more productive form of public hearing. Some of the strengths include the small groups which allow for a more inclusive and intimate discussion of the topic. The small size allows for an opportunity for everyone in the group to voice his/her opinion and for a more organic discussion where anyone can chime. Since the group is led by a trained moderator, and the group’s size, we can assume that the discussion will be focused and productive, making it easier for the moderator to fulfill its role. Another strength that I believe is very significant is the fact that prior to the event participants receive briefing material to help them formulate ideas about the topics that will be discussed. Making sure that participants are educated on the topic should led to constructive and well developed results.
The weakness of this process is that just like with the traditional public meetings and hearings, some of the ideas are never expressed beyond the group. Like in most groups, stronger personalities or majority can dismiss ideas or pressure for support. The moderator and the briefing material can be both a strength and a weakness. In terms of the moderator, since the size of the group is smaller, the moderator can more easily drive the conversation as best as s/he believes. The moderator can manipulate the conversation. As for the briefing material, the way it is presented can also be biased towards a specific idea. The material can also be used as a way of manipulating the outcome based on how it is written. Therefore, I think that in order to secure a fair discussion and derive unbiased results, moderators and briefing materials should be as neutral and fact-driven as possible.
I really liked your point about how using small group can leads to an effective deliberative process. Moreover, experts on those small groups can create an environment during the discussion which will thoroughly informed participants in that issue. This will help them to come up with an possible unbiased solution.
I grew up in a Massachusetts town that still practices the town meeting – once per year, any citizen over age 18 can join the approximately three-day meeting where there are up-and-down votes on everything from purchasing a new fire engine to painting a fence on public property. It is an interesting experiment in direct democracy. In a town of approximately 20,000 people, anyone who is eligible (which is thousands of people) has the opportunity to provide comment or vote on a whole array of issues, some of which can be relatively minor.
My impressions of the meeting are mixed. On the positive side, it is a great opportunity for citizens to participate in government and offer their opinions on important issues. They don’t need to rely on representatives, and they have a captive audience. Since this is the sole meeting of the year, as opposed to frequent council meetings, the town is listening. On the other side though, similar to other meetings, there is still the opportunity for a vocal minority to take over an issue if they are passionate or others don’t understand it. Overall though, as long as the town size stays manageable, the idea of one-person one vote is the best way to get consensus on an issue.
One person one vote is a lot to manage with 20,000 people. I’m curious how the deliberation works when decision is more complicated than buying a fire truck or painting a fence. Can discussion be productive and participants satisfied with a topic more like the Atlantic Yards discussion mentioned above? Eminent Domain pushed people out of their homes and businesses to make way for a private developer. Would people tolerate their neighbors destroying their homes or livelihoods?
Hi Doug — what a blast from the past. Hearing about this direct democracy format reminds me of the days of old. Regardless, the basic structure — 3 days, ~20,000 people — seems daunting. I’m curious about how many points of debate are usually deliberated. I would think such a large amount of people would slow down processes significantly.
I’m also curious about how the topics are arranged. For example, does the subject of painting fences come before the subject of how many police cars should be included in the town’s budget? As some topics are more pertinent to some individuals I could see many headaches and arguments arise from preferred deliberative sequences.
I attended a public hearing about the expansion of an independent charter elementary school co-locating its new middle school in a district elementary school. I was familiar with the charter school and I knew that the space in the new location was being vacated by another middle school that was moving to a larger location in order to expand itself. The existing elementary school was not going to be impinged upon. The reactions at the hearing were a big surprise to me. The two sides lined up strategically — one to take the common tack against charter schools and the other to parade proof against that argument. The arguments were vehement and extreme. No one was listening to anyone. The finer points of the schools sharing the common spaces were never discussed. I was surprised by the controversy around this school placement and surprised as well by the feeling that it all was a done deal already. The co-location was approved — I believe that was appropriate even if the public hearing was perfunctory.
The strength of deliberative polling is the educating of the participants. It answers the question, “what would people decide if they were informed on a topic in a deep and balanced way”? That is our ideal voter so why not create that situation. As long as the sample is big enough and representative of the larger population the results are valid. The weakness would be if the sample was not representative.
Maureen-that sounds like an interesting (and tense) hearing. I always find it interesting that public hearings are held regarding these issues and decisions are already made.
I was interested to read your post about this as this week I have dealt with two situations at work regarding the co-location of charter and public schools. I have seen similar things (in building council meetings, not public hearings) where people on both sides of the issue are very opinionated and a little hostile even (at times) about the co-location. The building council meetings are definitely on a smaller scale, but I think some aspects of them model the specific public hearing you are describing.
Deliberative polling system is an example of effective deliberation technique. First step in deliberative polling system is that participants voluntarily gather at a single place where they will discuss about a topic for long time. Before, the discussion takes place participants engage in a poll where they share their opinions about that topic. Mostly participants are unaware about their topics, so they can share their unbiased opinion about that topic. After that volunteer are break in to small discussion groups. In this group, participants discuss their topic issue with experts. After that another polling has to taken place in order to observe if the participants are changing their answerers from the previous pole. By comparing poll’s answer and publishing the result mostly ends the process of deliberative polling system.
Overall, deliberative polling system has many strengths. However, one of the greatest strength of deliberative polling system is that it helps participants to get highly informed about their topics. Through the discussion, participants and experts interact with each other. Through this process, both participants and experts voice are to heard. At the end of the deliberative polling system, a poll has been taken randomly in order maintain an unbiased result. These helps many organizations to understand about how other people is viewing the situation and comes up with an effective policy for the issue.
Along with strengths, one of the weaknesses is that the deliberative polling system is very time consuming. Participants usually spend more than six days to discuss in an issue and to participate in the polling process. Therefore, it requires a great amount of time to process this deliberative polling system, which makes it very costly. Moreover, in this system, there is lack of resources. Participants mostly join the program voluntarily. Therefore, it is very hard to run the deliberative polling system effectively.
After reviewing the deliberative polling process, I think that there are a lot of positive aspects to it but I think it would be more effective prior to the public meeting and hearing process to influence policy makers. The process for public meetings should still be modified, but this process should be more heavily relied on before meetings and before policy decisions.
By selecting a random, representative sample of the population and providing them with a balanced briefing of the topic, the deliberative polling groups are balanced and equally informed about issues. This is a large problem with the current structure of public meetings, they do not represent the public accurately and most people are not completely informed of the issue. My only concern is the information they are provided. How is it collected and who makes the decision whether it is balanced or not? Additionally, people will come in with their own ideas on issues prior to the meeting that could influence their involvement in the process. Informing larger parts of the population about major issues is essential and this process could definitely improve that.
I think this process is a great tool to use to help influence policy and informing the public as a whole. Public meetings and hearings are still necessary, but should be modified. This polling process could help prepare more of the public for these meetings and hearings, making them more successful. Although, the process of these hearings should be rectified in regards to their influence on decision making. The opinion of the “well informed” public should be taken into consideration well before decisions are made.
I’ve read all the post so far and it seems to me that a lot of us have the same idea about public meetings. Deliberative polling ,despite some its weaknesses, seem to have win the hearts of many . Chris and Lorina both seem to have been in public meetings in which the public were not informed and in which the speakers came with a set agenda wanting to tell the public what they will be doing rather than listening to them. It is a general consensus that a lot of us don’t react will public meetings for a large group. Which is why I agree with Kristia’s point of view that maybe public meetings should be for a much smaller group ( but then it wouldn’t public anymore…? )But as Sharita pointed in one of her post, we probably need to do change the culture of not trusting public officials( so we can partake in more public meetings) . We have to try to believe that public officials will do what is in the best interest of the public.
There is a problem with the underlying political structure that makes it difficult to resolve these issues. Deliberative polling verses a traditional hearing allows all voices to be heard whereas a traditional one not everyone gets a chance to speak. Everyone is able to speak and have their voices heard, thus allowing decisions to be formed. Deliberative polling allows diversity. However, not all hearings are created to be perfect. The drawback about this strategy is the time consuming and cost. the deliberative polling is on a voluntary basis. Therefore, uneducated people can tamper decisions. There can be times where a solution can be provided by an expert, but the public cannot collect the knowledge. Deliberative Polling is effective in which it raises the standard of debate but only to a small group.
Elaine, good observation. Deliberative polling works to a small group but when dealing with a large group of people it becomes difficult to find ways for all of them to retain the info that is being given. Similarly, some of the topics being debated may take time to understand which leads us to believe that one of the weaknesses of deliberative polling is the time limit. Can a person really learn enough in the time period given to fully generate a reasonable opinion on the issue at hand.
Back in January of this year, I helped organize a public hearing at Beach Channel High School in the Rockaways concerning the adoption and implementation of New York City’s Disaster Recovery Action Plan. This is the document that details how the City plans on spending the $4.2 billion dollar grant it received from HUD to rebuild those neighborhoods destroyed by Hurricane Sandy. Before HUD approves the Action Plan, or any substantial amendments to it, the City is required to hold public hearings so as to incorporate public comment. Given the cultural diversity of those neighborhoods affected by the storm, the Action Plan was published in English, Spanish, Mandarin Chinese and Russian and translators of these languages were present at each hearing. Organizing these events was something of a challenge as it required getting dozens of City agency staff and equipment out to the various hearing locations (one in each borough), publishing notice in the City’s top-read daily papers, and printing a sufficient amount of copies of the plan for distribution.
In theory, these hearings were supposed to educate the public as to what the City intended to do with the Federal Government’s money, and give the citizens of NYC an opportunity to inform the process. Per the grant agreement, the City is required to address each citizen’s concern/recommendation individually, so there is at least a potential for such individuals or groups to have a positive impact on the process. The reality of how these hearings unfolded, however, was a much different story. Perhaps it was due to the below-freezing early January weather, but only about 15-20 people showed up at that night’s hearing (an attendance trend that was similar across boroughs). Rather than address concerns regarding the overall design of the program, ninety percent of the comments pertained almost exclusively to concerns about the status of individual applications. Although there was nothing wrong with this, it really wasn’t the right forum for specific application-level questions. The other ten percent came from a small but vocal minority who wished to use the chance to speak as a means of airing grievances against the NYC government. Again, they may have been legitimate complaints, but they were generally irrelevant to the topic of disaster recovery, the topic of that night’s hearing.
By the end of the evening, we had documented few legitimate concerns and given away only a handful of the English edition of the Action Plan. In the sense that we had sufficiently met HUD’s requirement to hold a public hearing, it was a success. Did we actually give the public a chance to participate and inform the process? Probably not. Whether this process can be substantially improved or not will be seen this winter as the City prepares to submit another round of Action Plan amendments to HUD for approval. My sense is that given the narrowing scope of what is still up for debate, turnout and participation will remain low but it remains, at least in theory, a viable means for the public to shape a process that has a huge effect on the lives of New Yorkers.
I agree with Anuradha , time is definitely a big issue when it comes to deliberative polling. You have a point. One person may not have enough time to come up with a reasonable opinion at the issue at hand. Think about 12 angry men, it took them more than the time that they had anticipated to come with a non guilty unanimous vote. Time poses a big problem, it is evident that everyone would be willing to commit to that much time to come up with reasonable decisions.
Fishkin’s Deliberative Polling process has great merit in educating a voting population to enable them to come to a cultivated, informed decision. It has benefits in terms of true participation in the political process, and in terms of efficient deliberation. The group sizes are more conducive to positive cooperation and debate. There is a higher productivity in smaller numbers.
The greatest positive in the process is the education of the voters on the issue at hand. Plenty of voters do not understand how an issue might affect them, and see no way to affect change in a meaningful way. Equipped with the information about the issue, voters feel a preparedness and responsibility to participate in their government, and can do so with the knowledge that they have greater comprehension of the issue and its effects on their lives, and on the concerned population. It most obviously helps to counteract some of the imbedded societal biases that drive voting patterns.
My greatest problem with this process is the provision of education materials and moderators. Actual implementation of this method would undoubtedly come across skewed information and arbitrators. Diction and tone can change a lot, and it would be difficult to remove bias entirely, 100% of the time.
I do not see how this might be applicable to a much larger electorate, or a far more contentious issue. The increased participation and voter education involved in this system are very interesting, and likely great lessons for other instances for which this may not be viable, but where a more complete and informed voter base is sorely needed.
Deliberative polling is an attempt to bridge the gap between public opinion and reality. With the poll you run risk of continuing to fail at educating the masses by only taking a sample population. Who’s to say those few selected will then go back and spread the word learned from the Deliberation Poll or represent the majority. I have been to a town hall meeting as a participant. The experience was very interesting to say the lease. Many angry individuals used the mic to express animosity towards the elected officials; very few eloquently expressed their feelings against the matter. Still believing public meetings can do some good it was not evident in this example. Decision makers some actually being from the town felt swayed by the few individuals who were able to provide moving point to why new mall shouldn’t be built in the area of a local school but instead fixing up the current school and building more use full buildings to support the community.
I went to a city council participatory budget meeting for people interested in volunteering and canvassing. There were about 40 people from the public present, and about 5 representatives from a handful of city district representatives who lead the meeting.
The public meeting took place in one of St. Francis College’s classrooms in Brooklyn Heights. About 30 people were seated, leaving the remaining public and representatives to stand. The lack of space in the classroom made it hard for the group to concentrate on the speakers, which lead to repeated questions and raised voices, and, in turn, weaker deliberation. Another aspect that hindered the meeting was time. The meeting was from 6 to 9 pm on a Monday. The inconvenient time caused people to show up late, rustling through a crowded room, and causing minor annoyances. The time, like the space, made it hard for the group to focus on the speakers.
The meeting happened two months before participatory budget voting would take place, so there was not much urgency to internalize volunteer procedures or comprehend ballot options during the meeting. That being the case, although there were minor organizational factors such as time and space, I believe this was a successful forum. The city council representatives informed us early on in the meeting that they would email us guidelines for volunteering, essentially a summary of the meeting. Knowing that, there was a sense of relief in the meeting. Under this circumstance, people didn’t need to take notes or strain to hear.
Overall, I think a small forum is appropriate for a volunteer meeting. The stakes are low and future volunteers only need to gather rudimentary information. For me, the informational meeting was a success and assisted with my volunteering.
I am reminded of a time when my father was protesting a Hazardous Waste plant in the town that we lived in when I was 11 or 12. My father was on the town conservation commission and the plan was to build the plant on top of the town aquifer. There was a lot of pressure from the town board to approve the deal as it was about jobs and many of the conservation commission members were towing the town councils line. There were public hearings at the time and while there were many dissenting voices they were not being heard. Was it not for a strong, concerted effort by a number of citizens who protested the plant it was likely to have been approved by the town to untold environmental problems for its residents. It reminds me that protest and assembly are probably better ways of being heard as a citizenry then just voicing your opinion at a public meeting where, as has been said here already, a decision is likely already made its just political theatre to make it seem like the people are being heard.
In Hollis, Queens the City of New York plans to build another homeless shelter, now called supportive housing, in a community that currently houses two-thirds of the Queens homeless population. In response to these rumors, the community organized a town hall meeting on short notice demanding action. The meeting was a complete failure in multiple ways. It failed to produce anything constructive, it became a forum for movement leaders to publicly scold elected officials, and it fractured the coalition by generating in divergent paths going forward. The meeting was successful in further mobilizing a concerned community but with no direction this mobilization was fruitless. A town hall must have focus and provide its attendees with a clear takeaway, and in a case like this a collective action everyone should contribute to going forward. This meeting failed to do that.
https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20151213/hollis/city-eyes-hollis-complex-for-homeless-veteran-housing-despite-protests
When I attended community college, I had the opportunity to be a member of the College Assembly. It was a body integrated by staff and faculty members as well as student delegates. The assembly would meet once every two weeks and had the responsibility of making recommendation to the college president on a variety of topics.
At the time, some colleges in New Jersey had banned smoking within their campuses and our institution was discussing that same proposal. Throughout a series of public meetings, in which pros and cons were discussed, the college decided to limit smoking only to three specifically identified areas for that purpose.
The process was incredibly empowering because it allowed the opinions from both sides of the arguments coming from the voices of three different groups: students, staff and faculty. In the end, I believe healthy deliberation took place and the right decision was taken.
At the same time, the college assembly could not formulate recommendations in a few other areas in a short period of time. Then, staff members would say to me “we have been discussing this for years!” This aspect, led me to conclude that the assembly was the appropriate instance to discuss topics that attracted a high level of interest but in cases where technical language was used or complex decisions were required, six to eight meetings a semester did not provide enough time and engagement to really deliberate.
Furthermore, when topics were hard to follow having students, adjunct faculty, long term employees and tenured professors equally represented did not produce quality outcomes. People who would not spend most of their careers at the school usually did not agree with the other group, this way delaying or preventing a mutually beneficial recommendation, which in my opinion consisted in never ending deliberation cycles.
Last summer, I attended a town hall meeting regarding the city’s decision to convert a hotel in a local residential neighborhood into a homeless shelter. The local residents who showed up to the meeting were infuriated by the city’s decision and subsequent immediate implementation of this resolution without first soliciting feedback and addressing community concerns. The argument made by many of the local residents was that the entire operation lacked transparency and the community felt deceived and disregarded, as the conversion happened in such a short span of time, with the majority of residents finding out about the occurrence only after the homeless shelter had become operational. The community was distressed as this change brought with it a spike in crime within the neighborhood, and residents felt that city officials were to blame, as the lack of transparency and hastiness of this transition were not clearly thought out.
We urged city officials to increase security presence in the area, as there were a number of incidents of assaults, car burglaries, and drug dealings after the shelter opened, and neighboring residents were concerned about the lack of support they were receiving from law enforcement. The representatives listened to the concerns expressed by the community and said they would look into it further in order to find a viable solution. Over the past several months, there has been a noticeable increase in police presence within the area, with cops patrolling the neighborhood on foot as well as in their squad cars. The city has also increased the number of security guards on shift at the homeless shelter, as well as the number of security cameras around the perimeter of the shelter. These changes have resulted in a reduction of crime in the neighborhood, and the community feels that our voices were heard. If the town hall meeting had not been held, the decision-makers would not have heard these concerns and there would have been no changes made to address the issues faced by the community. In this regard, I feel that the town hall meeting was successful.
However, the community members also criticized the manner in which the city had arrived at its decision to convert the hotel into a homeless shelter, which affected home owners in the area, and why the community was not properly informed before the city implemented its plan. There were many residents who spoke out on this matter, with some relaying personal experiences, and the air was tense and emotionally charged. The representatives did not have much to say in their defense on this subject. Hopefully, this experience will ensure the city takes appropriate measures to ensure transparency and adequate communication to residents who will be affected by similar decisions in the future.