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.
45 thoughts on “Public Meetings and Hearings”
Comments are closed.
James Fishkin’s Deliberative Polling Process is an interesting alternative to traditional public meetings and hearings. It provides an antidote to some of the most common complaints about public meetings: that they provide little opportunity for real discussion, that they are controlled by officials and experts who hold all the power, and that attendance is not representative of the broader public. The polling process gives people an opportunity to truly engage, deliberate, and have their voices heard, as well as interact with lots of different community members with different perspectives of their own. It lives up to the ideals of a true deliberative process, which typically makes people engage with one another, challenge their own assumptions, and reach an enlightened consensus.
But there are definitely drawbacks to this process as well. For one thing, it’s time-consuming – many people are unable to spend an entire weekend squirreled away deliberating. The time constraints can also affect the representativeness of the sample – people who cannot afford child care for a weekend, have to work on the weekend, or are otherwise tied up with responsibilities are less likely to attend, and their perspectives would be excluded from the process. And while this process is great for informing Americans about public policy issues, it only informs a very select group. It may be true that the opinion changes of the group in attendance are representative of the ways the broader public’s opinions would change, but most Americans are still no more informed than they were before the polling process took place. I think this process would be much more effective if it could somehow be expanded to give many more Americans the chance to participate.
I do agree that a drawback to this process is that many people may find it to be time consuming, at the same time I am not certain that a weekend is enough time to have everyone’s views and opinions heard let alone work through all the issues. Perhaps they can break up the sessions and make it 2 weekends to allow more time for adequate deliberation.
I agree that public hearings are not that conducive to deliberations. Often, public officials limit the discussion internally and by the time they hold public hearings, it’s too late in the process to get the public involved undermining their participation and the public hearing process altogether. It ends up turning into a battle field of yelling and screaming upon realization that preliminary decisions have been made. I read an article recently regarding transnational science of democracy where political scientists suggest reframing questions from “what do you want?” to “what should we do?” I thought that was an interesting way to frame the question to encourage deliberation and perhaps drive public officials to self-reflection.
I think you highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of deliberative polling process. Another advantage (or disadvantage if lack of interest in subject) of the deliberative polling process may be in the neutrality of views presented by third party participants which may help during deliberation to arrive at a consensus so long as they are knowledgeable enough to engage in fruitful discussions. While it offers opportunities for true deliberative process, there are obvious drawbacks that hinder the process such as costs and time constraints. To encourage participation, offering monetary or other types of incentive may help increase engagement.
Deliberative Polling looks much to me like the results one would expect from an academic pre-test/post-test study. In fact, it reminded me of a science teaching project I completed several years ago. Clearly this process is more intense, but wouldn’t one expect there to be a change of opinions after immersion in the content? It appears that these are environments that may foster self-criticism as well as encourage sharing of information. My concern with the program as described– and I share your other criticisms– are the points where biases can creep in. Who says the reading material is balanced? Who are the small group facilitators and experts at the plenary sessions? Are the positions truly diverse, or are they limited to include only what some people think the diverse opinions should be? You are very right about the time issue, whether in this forum or independently: becoming informed is time consuming which is the reason so many people form their opinions based on sound bites.
This is my first exposure to the deliberative polling process and it seems like it has some significant strengths. It is pretty well established (especially in the U.S.) that public opinion can easily be driven by a basic lack of knowledge on a particular topic. Often, this is through no fault of the public; everyone can’t be experts on all things. As the D.P. process shows, however, even simply reading a few briefings and participating in a day or two of discussions can significantly inform people and lead to more knowledgeable opinions. In this way, it seems to make the case for greater investment in education by mimicking what a fully-funded, strong public education system would do for the larger citizenry. Since the results of D.P. are used to infer to the greater population, we could also infer that a well-rounded, quality education could lead to a more informed democracy.
An issue I could foresee would be deciding who manages the conversations and curates the briefing materials. It seems like you could easily sway a small group’s opinion by presenting biased information with no alternatives. Along those lines, I would also be curious whether the process could lead to a case of groupthink based on the presented evidence and deliberations alone, rather than achieving a decision of greatest public good through a decision-making process after ideological differences are argued. As Elora argued, it is also difficult to put too much stock in the results of a process that is highly exclusionary–only those actively interested and available to dedicate their time to the process are sampled. This potentially discriminates against a large chunk of the public who otherwise may bring different viewpoints to the process.
The Deliberative Polling concept originated in 1988 by James Fishkin and since then have been conducted in 24 countries. Deliberative polling was created to enhance the quality of public deliberation. The goal is to be inclusive of a diverse cross-section of citizens in discussion on public issues, provide experts and partisans a chance to express their views and share information with citizens, ensure a fair amount of semi-structured, professionally moderated discussion that is heard during the process, and a metric for recording the citizens’ views after the deliberation.
Some advantages of deliberative polling is that it brings together a diverse set of participants through the representative sampling and large sample size. Another advantage of the poll is that it provides a before and after assessment for comparison to determine if there has been an opinion shift.
Some limitations of deliberation polling include that it does not provide enough face to face time for deliberation. At the same time the longer the process the harder it is to get people to committee, so it is a delicate balance. There may also be variation in the quality of moderation at Deliberative Polls, so it is important that moderators fully understand the ground rules to decrease chances of biasness or inequalities.
I work as a Senior Program Manager on the Minority/Women/Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (MWDBE) team at the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). We recently launched a loan fund geared toward MWDBE and other emerging developers. The loan fund was designed to provide gap financing. Simultaneously our Real Estate team within NYCEDC lessened the requirements for emerging developers responding to their Requests for Proposals (RFPs). This past summer my team, along with the Real Estate team, held a series of public meetings (at least one per borough) to announce the loan fund and the RFP requirements and to get feedback from the MWDBE community.
It was designed for the decision makers (NYCEDC) to get some feedback from the MWDBE community on our new loan program and RFP requirements. However, it was incredibly unsuccessful and ineffective. In terms of marketing and getting the word out, we contacted elected officials and gathered all of our contacts from the development community (which is a lot) and sent out mass e-blasts. Honestly, no one reads these emails and it was apparent. At our Staten Island public meeting we had 4 people show up; in Brooklyn we had two. Our Manhattan workshops (we held more than one) we had a good turn out. However, most of the people weren’t actually developers and just came to complain about NYCEDC and our projects in their communities.
People were upset that we weren’t offering to finance an entire project for an MWDBE developer (this is not something we would ever do) and that one of the requirements of our loan program was that the developer had experience. We had made this a requirement because we wanted to projects to be successful. The program was designed to help emerging developers who have consistently worked on small projects to launch into larger projects that require more financing.
I think it was ineffective because of our marketing strategy and also the structure of the meeting. It probably should not have been held in a public forum in that way. We did a webinar on the program a few months later which was much more effective; we got constructive feedback, good questions, and good potential borrowers out of it.
It could have been a good strategy if we were to have the public meeting before we designed the program rather than as the announcement. Based on the videos we saw in the online lecture this week and in the article, my team is not the only one to have made this mistake.
It’s great to hear that public hearings seem to be part of your job. Your new loan program sounds exciting to offer developers (real estate?) the opportunities to help these traditionally marginalized groups in our society. Yet it’s a bit challenging to structure and market it–kind of like affordable housing. I agree it would’ve been more efficient if these meetings were to target a specific group of population, where expertise may be able to exchange opinions first. That’d hopefully be a good launching ground to structure your program and say it has received useful feedback on the dos and don’ts, without wasting time on unrelated issues from people other than developers. I had a similar experience when HPD attempted to launch a pilot program about Mobility Counseling, except we skipped the public hearing process and instead went straight to surveying and pilot phase.
On the other hand, my personal favorite from the show Parks and Rec is this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In9oSjjltOs. I have to admit our jobs would be much harder (or arguably easier?) if these are the public we have to deal with everyday.
Your findings are very interesting to read Lucy. My last employer was a small architectural firm certified as a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise as well as Minority owned. As Business Development Associate, I attended various meetings held by NYCEDC for the purpose of learning about new design opportunities as well as new programing offered to MWDBE entities.
I think the frustration you see in the meetings could be attributed to several factors, including: feelings of exclusion, collusion theories and lack of understanding of how to work with a prime. Though I will not delve into the specifics about each of those, I do understand that those feelings taint the deliberation process. Often times the presenters or speakers from the agency would get stuck on a topic that attendees felt were sore spots that NYCEDC neglected. From then on tension seemed to grow instead of a fostered back and forth of information gathering.
Ryan, we should definitely connect! Maybe we’ve even met before. I would love to hear more about your thoughts on this so we can improve ourselves in the future. I strive to be the best advocate I can be for MWDBEs and don’t often get constructive feedback on how to do so.
It’s quite possible that we’ve run across each other. Please do reach out though. My personal email is [email protected]
Look forward to helping!
As a city government employee I am often required to attend public meetings. About a year and a half ago when I was working for Council member Chin I had to attend a public meeting about the possibility of rent increasing for rent stabilized apartments in NYC. what surprised me the most is the amount of respect that was shown during the meeting there were no disturbances and protest outside were halted when the meeting began. The goal of the meeting was to address a list of concerns surrounding a possible rent increase. Experts, developers, renters, and city government officials spoke and though there was much disagreement I felt like all sides of the arguments were heard. This ultimately led to a relatively good decision. Also the meeting I attended was not the only meeting held on the issue. There were many more that held similar agendas.
After looking at the deliberative polling process it seems like a promising alternative to public meetings. The process does a good job of making sure the people involved are from a diverse selection process. Also it prioritizes people’s opinions with the questionnaires that are distributed both before and after the discussion. However, there may be some issue with random selection. It seems as though the process runs under the assumption that no matter the topic the people they select to be a part of the groups will be interested in invested in the issue. There lies the margin of error that can potentially effect the value of the discussion.
That’s great to hear that you have had a positive experience with a public hearing facilitated through a government agency. I work (indirectly) for the city as well and have not seen the public hearing structure work as well. I like your point about how even though there was great disagreement, every one was heard and it was still effective.
Deliberative polling seems like an engaging and innovative model of deliberation by combining polling and a deliberative process. The strenght of the model could be the engaging nature of it, and the ability of bringing a wide range of people together out of their respective bubbles and expose them to alternative views, with the potential of informing the uninformed and reaching agreements.
The most obvious weakness is the cost. Polling is expensive, and deliberative polling most likely even more so. Bringing people physically together physically does not seem practical, and most likely limits the participants to those who have time, casting some doubts on how representative the samples will be in the end. Could the deliberations not be done electronically?
Another question is how are the topics selected, and background material curated, and whose priorities get reflected in these decisions. Also, not all disagreements are based on lack of understanding by people, some can be based on values, and I did not see how these kinds of disagreements would be handled.
You bring up a good point about values. Some people will never engage in deliberation based only on data or rationality. For those people, I think the deliberative polling process is a good way to at least get them to hear other perspectives. They may not be open to those perspectives or willing to change their minds, but the process offers an opportunity to get exposed to the other side that a lot of people don’t have.
I also really like your thought about doing deliberations electronically. In some ways, I think face-to-face could be the most productive way to get people to come together and really talk to each other. It’s easier to stick to your own views and tune other people out online. But if you bring open-minded people into the process, electronic deliberation could address some of the biggest issues with deliberative polling – time, cost, and logistics.
Casting opinions electronically is a productive idea given the fact that the public wants quick solutions when there is supposed to be civic engagement. Values are usually connected to emotions that can distract from a positive deliberative process. It weakened Fishkin’s argument to have such large representative samples of random people who were not vested in the particular issue. Perhaps the polls could expand to include a control group of participants and the sample group in order not to base a solution on one sample of participants and believe that it’s representative of the overall public opinion. There will never be a real substitute for the public to well informed through shortcuts.
Hello
I agree that this process is more dynamic and that one of its straights is what you mentioned the ability to bring different backgrounds together. The idea of educating people in difference issues is great i like that part but that as implied can change their views and their final decision that might be complete different to the one they had when they fist decided to attend this poll.
Also i like the idea of maybe change it to include more citizens by making it electronic. But it might be also costly. Moreover you bring a good point by mentioning values. Maybe the values of the people can interfere with the decision making process and they should be taking into consideration.
You and I have some of the same reservations about DP. I didn’t even consider the cost. Given the problems with other more inexpensive polling methods, such as randomly dialing land lines or sending out email blasts, DP likely gets a relatively high response rate. You also raise a good point about bringing together people who normally would not mix and exposing them to different view points. I think this is always a good thing. However, in terms of changing public policy I think it’s a side effect, at best.
I had attended public hearings during my planning internship at The City of Binghamton. One of my favorite cases at all times was probably the proposed luxury student housing on 20 Hawley Street in downtown Binghamton. The property on 20 Hawley Street used to be a vacant office building which was converted into a residential center for college students. I used to pass by the site everyday during the summer. Seven years later, it feels surreal that you can now just Google this place which has its website and everything (http://20hawleystreet.com/). Believe it or not, it had undergone a series of verdicts prior to the implementation of student housing. Prior to a series of public hearings, there had been communication between the property owner and both Binghamton University and Broome Community College, and a survey of approximately 70 students was conducted. During the first hearing, the project architect had highlighted a number of detailed items for discussion — more green landscaping within the building, internal parking provision though not required by zoning, residential necessities for each dwelling unit, study rooms for students and groups, building facilities such as a gym and movie projectors, and the security and management system. The project had also passed SEQR determination as an unlisted action. Though it appeared to have more reasons to support this project that would benefit the adjacent universities and bring prosperity to local businesses, the Planning Commission targeted the site plan inconsistencies and the incompatible details outlined by the Staff Report…
Fast forward to the second hearing, I remembered a much larger audience was present including the Student Association President at Binghamton University. There were more detailed examinations pertaining to various issues during this hearing. The Financial Analyst of the Economic Development Office spoke in favor of the project because the proposal would increase the economic activities in downtown Binghamton. Meanwhile, opposing voices arose when two people from the audience testified with statements such as, “It is only another ‘rooming house’.” or “The building has been a disaster.” Basically, the population of over 200 students could be too dense for downtown business neighborhood to handle. Drinking issues were also addressed as the commission assured future regulation on the local bar businesses. Other topics on the agenda included: opening or replacing the fences and gates for both public and emergency access, the plaza area utilized for limited recreational purposes, the green space implementation on rooftops, the benefit of activating an exit through further discussion with the Traffic Board, and lastly tree planting concerns. Based on these conditions, the Planning Commission finally moved forward with motion for approval.
Overall, the elements of success of these public hearings have been largely driven by the level of interest from all parties concerned and affected. The Planning Commission had not taken the decision making process lightly but could be viewed as bureaucratic in their governance. The truth is, in the grand scheme of planning, public hearings fulfill their purpose, yet they are not as crucial as we think in making sure each progress is contingent from each other every step of the way.
P.S. Sorry for the long post. My internship journal from 7 years ago certainly helps to keep my memory fresh!
As a non-US citizen, I’ve not had many opportunities to participate in public hearings. But I hope my experience merits relevance to the discussion since I work for an international organization. In January 2017, we embarked on a change management process as recommended by a Functional Review completed last year. Though funding remains generous, the increasing demand for global humanitarian aid has exceeded its available resources which has led to necessary budget cuts across the organization. The reform aims to realign priorities, allocate resources, and strengthen operations to more efficiently deliver its core mandate – basically, do more with less. Because it’s a process, there will be numerous consultations, meetings, and surveys. I managed to attend the first town hall (roughly 200 attendees) and one of the smaller group meetings (about 50 attendees) thus far. I find that town halls, because of the large crowd, is not intended for deliberative discussions. Nonetheless, the first town hall was a great way for the Change Management Unit (formed specifically for this task led by an expert in the field) to introduce us to the process, expectations, outcomes, and how important our participation is to the collaborative effort. There were also opportunities to ask questions after the briefing.
The smaller group meetings were designed to ensure inclusion of all staff levels as views, thoughts and opinions differ in various levels. I found it was most effective in generating discussions. The meeting is “phase one – consultative process” aimed to gather thoughts and opinions to identify the “what” in the organization’s priority activities as per our mandate. I felt that the informal setting contributed to making the discussions flow more fluidly. In addition, those who may be reluctant to share their views in larger public meetings feel more comfortable expressing them where similar views are more likely to resonate among the group increasing active participation. Suggestions on a new Vision Statement were also gathered. Discussions from each smaller group meetings were used for an internal survey allowing other staff members, who may have missed the meeting, an opportunity to participate online and vote. In terms of participation, there’s room for improvement. I think middle managers need to be more assertive in informing and engaging their staff members to actively participate. Nonetheless, I find that it’s heading the right direction in meeting its objectives and their efforts toward inclusion and deliberation. In the last email update with first survey results, one feedback received represented the thoughts of most on the change process: “We want to be part of the change, we want to own it, so get us involved. More surveys, more consultations. We want to see a change process that is driven by the interest of the organization.” The list of suggestions for Vision Statement will be shared with the USG and ASG for shortlisting, which will then be shared again to all staff for further feedback on preferred options.
The James Fishkin’s Deliberative Polling process employs social science to determine what people would think about an issue if they became more engaged and informed. While an ordinary poll is designed to show what the public actually thinks about a set of issues, a Deliberative Poll is designed to show what the public would think about those issues if had time for earnest reflection and access to more complete information. Because the focus is on constructing a sample of a hypothetical public attitude, however, the actual Deliberative Polling event has to be highly structured and well organized.
According to Fishkin, the Deliberative Poll directly appropriated two distinct features of the Athenian model of democracy: first, citizens were selected to participate in Athenian institutions through a lottery, which Deliberative Polling replicates by relying on the method of random selection; and, second, Athenian citizens were typically remunerated for participating, which is a principle that Deliberative Polls also utilize in order to ensure that a more representative microcosm of the public is constructed by encouraging participant heterogeneity.
The Deliberative Poll is a practice created to enhance the quality of public deliberation. This process gives the opportunity for citizens to have a voice in the democratic process, to have a discussion where no-one domites it instead everyone has equal opportunity to share their ideas and beliefs. Also having a random sample allows the discussion to be more reliable and valuable. Since its combining different backgrounds in one discussion.
On the other hand the deliberative poll, in my view, does not provide enough time for face-to-face deliberation. Citizens need time to work through the implication of issues and adequately hear each other’s views. Also it makes a decision or recommendation based only in the impact of a brief period of education, discussion, and reflection. I also think that the judgements arrived at by participants in Deliberative Polls are likely to be influenced by the ‘Hawthorne effect’. I think this process suffers from bias with subjects responding to the spotlight rather than increased knowledge about the subject.
But overall this deliberative poll process in my opinion is better then public hearings. In public hearings the citizen have little opportunity for discussion since their speeches are limited by time-frame where questions and answer do not take place since there is not enough time. Also the public in those hearing are not representative of the broader public.
“While an ordinary poll is designed to show what the public actually thinks about a set of issues, a Deliberative Poll is designed to show what the public would think about those issues if had time for earnest reflection and access to more complete information”.
I completely agree with this statement in particular because it highlights what I think is a major weakness of the Deliberative Poll – that by being hypothetical and not actually capturing what the average person thinks, it is not representative of the true population. As such, can we truly define it as a poll? Or is it simply an experiment that shows the positive outcomes of meaningful deliberation? I’m inclined to think the latter.
Good summary of pro’s and con’s of the deliberative polling process and comparison with public hearings. Public hearings have the advantage, though, of being connected to a policy-process, while it is unclear whether anything came out of the deliberative polling initiatives.
One problem I see with Deliberative Polling (DP) is its bias towards people who already have propensity to respond to the given topic. If someone doesn’t have a strong opinion one way or the other regarding the topic I don’t know what motivation they would have to respond to the initial questionnaire. So before the polling begins it is already peopled by those who may already have strong opinions on the topic, and perhaps lacking in undecided or indifferent or busy respondents.
When the “balanced information” is presented, who decides what constitutes “balanced” information? If a respondent was very conservative or very liberal, would they expect their views to be presented as well? Or would the balanced responses tend towards what’s considered reasonable?
Depending on how balanced the information presented truly is, this could be considered one of DP’s strengths. I and I’m sure many others have formed opinions about public policy just based on headlines and soundbites. Being forced to listen to several sides of an issue is a worthwhile exercise.
I understand your concern, that those will to participate in this process may be a self selecting group and already have strong opinions. Generally though, at public meetings, only those with strong opinions tend to show up. I wonder if there is a way to incentivize people without strong opinions to come to Deliberative Polling meetings is to frame it as a positive civil service opportunity. In some ways they might be willing to do it because they can serve their community and not feel the same amount of pressure that they would if they were truly invested in the issue. Perhaps this impartial perspective could be an asset in these sessions.
That’s a really good point I hadn’t considered about the self-selecting nature of the process. That, blended together with a concern I had about discriminating against participants who can’t afford to devote time or energy to such a prolonged process, makes DP seem more problematic than I had initially assumed. I think there are still worthwhile aspects of the process, particularly allowing people to engage and learn, but it may not be ideal in its current form.
I have been to several public forums similar to the Lower East Side rezoning meetings in the lecture. One in particular was a public forum for small businesses on city regulations. The city wanted to clarify certain regulations and use this forum as a “make nice” with the community. Typically, the problem with such meetings is that they are often designed to fail. Many times, organizers wait until a topic has reached its boiling point to then host a forum to discuss an issue. What happens at this point is that members of the public come to the meeting with emotions running high. In this particular case, restaurants were very angry at what they perceived to be inconsistencies with how health inspectors conducted themselves during inspections. They alleged that certain regulations were enforced over others and that the language barrier in certain communities made such inspections highly stressful and confrontational. The meeting itself just became a venting session for local businesses. No real solutions were proposed and no follow-up tasks were assigned to address grievances.
In terms of deliberative polling, it is a very promising concept. The process attempts to capture people’s views before and after having a chance to discuss and become more educated on a topic. I think that if people are given the chance to learn more about a topic, they are more likely to make better-informed decisions. However, deliberative polling assumes many things. First, it claims to use a random, representative sample of people. How do we know it is representative? It is very difficult to guarantee a representative sample. Second, who are the experts and policymakers? Is a balance of opinions provided to the public sample? Third, once the public sample has deliberated and consulted with experts, it is no longer a representative sample. The average person does not always get the chance to consult an expert or deliberate an issue before making a decision. So while it is highly likely that the public sample is making a more informed decision, it may not be a decision that is actually popular. The general public may have concerns about policy makers relying on a small, unelected group of citizens.
Woops, I answered both…oh well.
I appreciate that the deliberative polling process uses strong research practices to recruit participants by using a random survey to bring in all different segments of the population. Often what happens in focus groups is that participants are not chosen as randomly, and the sample group tends not to reflect the true population. Without this representation, it can feel like the whole process is a farce to groups who feel that they are not being adequately represented.
As a weakness of this process, there might be frustration in the groups in which more of their members wanted to participate in the deliberation, than are selected. However, this may be beneficial in the long run. If there is equal representation between groups in the deliberation process, having a smaller cohort could foster negotiation and compromise that might not exist otherwise in a larger cohort.
Transparency is also a strength of the deliberative polling process. The methodology of how the participants are selected and grouped is explained in informative pictures on the website. Going into the process, participants are given background information, which allows the time to process. And by being in small groups, participants are able connect personally to others that hold to different view point from their own.
I found your point on equal representation interesting. I did not think about how while some cohorts may have larger numbers than others, including an equal amount of voices from each cohort in the deliberation may result in compromises. This made me think of the U.S.’s Electoral system and how it keeps small states competitive even when they have smaller populations compared to other states. I believe equal representation is important especially in the deliberative process so that all opinion may be heard, however I don’t know I can say the same for the electoral process though.
It’s great to have choices. James Fishkin’s Deliberative Polling process posed some possible assets and liabilities to its goal. A representative sample reflects the members of the entire population not just those who may stand to gain from the issue being polled. The process uses research methodology that is both quantitative (using mathematical measures such as the sample size) and qualitative (opinions, polls and interviews) to attempt at solving social problems. In the Deliberative Polling Process the method is all inclusive; everybody has an opinion so that anyone can participate. Public hearings and meetings usually limit participants by geographical area such as community district, political party or those with a vested interest in the outcome (developers, financial institutions).
On the other hand the process appears complex, layered and time consuming like a bureaucracy. The participants need to be engaged in the steps of the process from beginning to end. A non-commitment to invest a period of time to obtain knowledge contributes to the uninformed citizen and public. Next only parts of the event are released thru the media which is not totally transparent, although the documents are made available to the public but how is the information disbursed to those it affects the most? How and what indicators measured the effectiveness of the process from the initial poll results to the conclusion which represents a form of a solution? Similar to other processes that were open to change Deliberative Polling may need some fine tuning.
What is often overlooked in discussions about deliberation is that, unlike deliberation in juries, experiments and deliberative polls (e.g., Fishkin 1997; Luskin et al 2002), public deliberation in actual policy-making bodies is usually preceded by extensive negotiation and private meetings. Participants can exploit this period to unite into like-minded factions, parties, or enclaves for the purpose of coordinating their communication strategies and actions during the actual deliberation. I was privilege to attend a public meeting on environmental impact assessment in Ghana last year on the establishment of a gas plant in the centre of a sprawling city suburb with over three thousand people. the meeting was attended by the EPA, the company proposing the plant set up, the area member of parliament, a local council member, and some opinion leaders including myself to deliberate on whether its safe to allow them to set a gas plant in the area. the question of safety plan in case of emergency and whether it will affect the peoples way of life. what was clear though is the fact that it gives us the opportunity to engage with the law makers, the experts and we the local people. a lot of questions were asked and answers were also provided even though it couldn’t be varied right then.For instance if there was a gas leak who was to be informed and how was it going to be done. The company also proposed a regular engagement with the community to address post set up concerns. through the deliberation the EPA assures rest of us assembled that it would not cause any harm. even though we had our say at the end of the day the company had their way.
It seems like in many situations the process of having a public meeting is for politicians and financial stakeholders to give the appearance that they are listening to the community, when in reality they have already decided what they want to do and have made their deals behind closed doors. There is no point to the deliberation, like juries where a consensus is necessary. It really is unfortunate that this happens all over the world, whomever has the largest bank account has the bigger influence.
In my work as a Park and Recreation Manager, I attend the community board meetings of my park districts. I make it a point to attend the Parks Committee meetings, but when I was assigned to other park districts I also attended full board meetings as well. I attend these meetings to represent the Parks Department and to report any major community issue, or anger, to my borough commissioner. The meetings are well organized and casually follow a version of Robert’s Rules of Order along with the community board’s bylaws. Most meetings are very tame and “procedural,” and may only require a comment or clarification from me.
These community board committee meetings are an effective forum for community issues because supervision from city agencies (like NYPD, FDNY, Sanitation and Parks) also attend monthly District Services Cabinet meetings where the agencies’ business of serving the community is discussed. Information from the community board committee meetings makes its way to the agencies of the District Services Cabinet via the Community Board District Manager.
One community board has been getting quite a few capital projects this budget cycle. Most often this means significant, but unemotional, repairs, like new sidewalks, athletic turf or roofing on park house buildings. This time, I attended an emotional Parks Committee meeting about the design of a new park being built with a financial contribution from the neighborhood. The community did not respond well to several elements of the architect’s design at his presentation, and their commentary was tense but civil. To his credit, the architect’s design responded to all necessary operational concerns, an important detail, because my staff and I must keep the park safe, clean and enjoyable for the public. The community complained about wasted space, for example, but they do not realize that inadequate access for specialized vehicles delays the repairs that they complain about. Nevertheless, the community’s comments were heard by the designer who pledged to consider and incorporate their recommendations into a revised design, if practical. This is NYC Parks standard procedure, and it works.
Hi Paul, I am glad ur meetings are effective deliberations. I agree that stakeholders need to be present to make their opinions be heard, otherwise, the designer would have continued with the original design. The key to public deliberation is to not take the seat at the table for granted.
This is a true example of great deliberation and execution. Not only are the topics discussed in these board meetings they are complaints heard from the public and addressed by officials in these forums. I have attended a meeting of similar settings in my community and it was not at all organized and what was discussed in this meeting was not at all followed through by the reps
This is an example of great deliberation and execution. Not only are the topics discussed in these board meetings they are complaints heard from the public and addressed by officials in these forums. I have attended a meeting of similar settings in my community and it was not at all organized and what was discussed in this meeting was not at all followed through by the reps
My neighborhood meetings are held a few times a year to discuss public issues affecting the community with managment. I was only able to attend to one meeting because the schedule conflicted. In the meeting, i felt that i had to catch up previous meeting discussion. There was no time to recap. The discussion centered around the loudest members of the group. There was lack of order and respect. It was not productive and felt the 2 hr meeting was a waste of time. Management didnt not include all stakeholders when it came to decision making. Members are left out and they felt managment does not listen to the problems.
Deliberative polling seems like a good solution to my neighborhood meetingz. The first process introduces the issues to the representative sample in a poll. The members are then invited to discuss in smaller groups with experts and politicians. The assumption is that there is lack of informed knowledge. One of the problems in the DP is a misrepresentation of the universe related to propensity to respond by those participants with biases. There is very little incentive for other members to learn issues and participate if it doesnt strike their interests. There is also time constraints in the DP. Just like my neighborhood meetings, each participants need to invest time to attend and be part of the process. A member who cannot attend due to time will be excluded from the sample. There is no equal opportunity to be part of the deliberation. Briefings also seem like a great idea to get members more informed. But what is methodology on dispersing the information. Are the information dispersed consistently by moderators? How does one ensure that a certain amount of time is spent on briefing and deliberation. There is no perfect public deliberation but it is critical that all stakeholders are included in the decision and they have adequate information and time to make a decision. It also helps if members are highly engaged in the decision making.
On the surface it would seem as though the Deliberative Polling process offers solutions to some challenges facing the public forum process, including information equity and process transparency. If it is a given that the collection of selected participants truly represent the demographics of the affected community, then DP could offer real benefits.
As mentioned, the process described in the video could work to curtail information inequity among voters, which can effect decision making by large bodies. Assuming that the information is non-biased and that poll participants are open to reaching conclusions that may differ from preconceived notions, disseminating equal information to everyone should help remove some bias. Speaking as a group about the subject after the initial vote should have a positive affect on a minority that may be stuck on an illogical conclusion. Essentially, if everyone has equal information and the same hard facts, it is harder to justify individual internal biases.
Additionally, the transparency of the process could add more enthusiasm and participation by everyone in the groupings because the polling participants are made to feel on equal ground. For example, the 2008 LES Rezoning meeting was fraught with accusations of collusion and the placing of deliberate communication barriers. The ability to discuss topics with experts on each side of the argument before coming to a conclusion could work to quail some of those concerns.
I attended a public meeting for business and property owners conducted by the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management, Congresswoman Maloney, and City Councilman Ben Kallos. The first half of meeting was focused on various resiliency measures that one could employ to protect their business or property. Speakers from city, state, and federal agencies presented some common preventative measures, then took questions on the implementation.
The second half of the meeting focused on emergency policy for storms like Sandy. The agency representatives and lawmakers fielded questions and took comments and criticisms from the attendees. Most of the comments were about the lack of response from city agencies during and after the storms, which damaged many of the attendees’ business. The conversation began to dissolve into small arguments and did not result in a productive conversation. The lack of a clear leader for the meeting was a factor that contributed to its ineffectiveness. There were numerous agency leaders in attendance, but none took it upon themselves to represent more than their agency. It seemed that this was taken by the attendees as these agencies not wanting to take accountability for the troubles the business owners faced during Sandy.
I have not gone to many meetings and expected my meeting to be similar what took place in yours. It goes to show; regardless of the personnel present, attendees can control the atmosphere of a meeting. Of course you never want to see disorder but it helps appreciate effective conversation and deliberative measures when used. It is expected of those in leadership positions to step up but it seemed to be a matter of a cost-benefit tradeoff. Maybe if the city agencies took ownership in the beginning of the meeting there could have been a more positive response to the crowd.
There was a district meeting in my neighborhood to discuss the possibility of bike lanes added to a main road. Much of the affected communities were present as well as respective committee members. The meeting’s purpose was stated along with the policies that support it. The community board would open the floor for questions.
It was very important for the committee board to address the concerns of the people. Much of the attendees was older and did not see the purpose of the new bike lanes. Most of the questions were answered and majority of the attendees understood the depth of the situation. The attendee’s patience and willingness help set the atmosphere of the meeting. By the community board breaking down the changes, it helps reduce confusion of the matter. In addition answering the public’s questions with accuracy makes policies less intimidating.
James Fishkin’s deliberative polling process could potentially share some of the same drawbacks as public meetings, for example, the sample of the population that are willing to attend deliberative polling meetings are probably the same as those who would attend local town hall style meetings. The deliberative process may get more people than would have ordinarily attended public hearings but the people that opt out are always going to represent an unheard opinion. Deliberative polling seems to be very time intensive and expensive; there must be a lot of logistical planning prior to the meeting. The process itself is time consuming and not many people have the opportunity to devote an entire day to participate in a deliberative polling session. The debriefing and distribution of all the findings after the meeting probably also takes a considerable amount of time depending on the issue and the number of people that may be affected.
Deliberative polling reminds me of an improvement on a direct democracy, where constituents decide on policies with direct votes as is the case in some states that include policy proposals on election ballots. Fishkin’s model of deliberative polling could enhance a direct democracy system because there is an informational briefing component, rather than just having citizens vote on proposed policies without sufficient knowledge. Deliberative polling is also beneficial in gauging the change in public opinion that is based on news headlines and sound bites versus hearing from fellow citizens who are on various sides of an issue.
James Fishkin deliberative polling is a process in which a random sample that represents the public makes informed decisions on public issues such as health care and immigration. This type of polling gives people the time to learn and understand more about a public issue that will allow them to make better judgement, unlike public hearings/meetings where the public make decisions without getting the time to know more about an issue and the outcomes if one should vote one way or the other.
The upside of this is that is that people are better able to vote intelligently on issues that concern them. This is a brilliant way for voters to educate themselves on issues before actually voting on these said issues.
The downside is there could be some bias in the way people are selected for the deliberative polling and may not represent the public on a whole.
There is also cost. It can be costly to find a place for the event to take place and to set up.
Time consuming, it will take time to select participants; deliberation process; and to report the outcome of the deliberative poll
Deliberative Polling is its bias towards people who already have propensity or is of able mindset to respond to the given topic. Individuals are entitled to their own opinion one way or the other regarding the topic. As the so called balanced information is presented, who decides what constitutes what should be balanced information in order to make an informed decision.
Would everyone views be put across? Would the liberals and conservatives have a say in this or would they even get to see their view points out across.
This process can also be very costly and time consuming