LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for NCDD-DISCUSSION Archives


NCDD-DISCUSSION Archives

NCDD-DISCUSSION Archives


NCDD-DISCUSSION@LISTS.NCDD.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

NCDD-DISCUSSION Home

NCDD-DISCUSSION Home

NCDD-DISCUSSION  November 2013, Week 1

NCDD-DISCUSSION November 2013, Week 1

Subject:

Re: Support for Public Engagement is Absent/Weak

From:

"Mills, Joel" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Mills, Joel

Date:

Thu, 7 Nov 2013 00:06:35 +0000

Content-Type:

multipart/related

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (315 lines) , image001.png (315 lines)

Amen to the "Half-Full" perspective, Bill. Ron, I can't thank you enough for being the catalyst for such a stimulating thread.



I'm probably more optimistic than most on this topic. I believe we are witnessing the simultaneous crumbling of some of our critical national democratic institutions (namely, our political parties, which are cannibalizing the democratic process along the way) and the emerging pre-eminence of civil society. It's a global phenomenon for sure, but I think we've been experiencing a democratic wave at the local level. Look at the spread of the non-partisan (council-manager) government at the local level, the expansion of neighborhood council systems, neighborhood college programs, neighborhood, citywide, and regional planning processes. The National League of Cities surveyed its membership and found that the vast majority report using use public engagement processes "often" (60 percent) or "sometimes" (21 percent). While it is certainly true that we have a democratic vernacular at the local level with wide variance in traditions and practice, attitudes and behaviors have changed. The majority of Americans now cite a democratic expectation when it comes to their own involvement in planning processes. There are wide disparities in terms of local capacities and the quality of public processes, but the practice is spreading and improving. Civil society is so strong that the planners and intellectuals have had to create jargon to describe communities taking matters into their own hands - crowdsourcing, crowdfunding, tactical urbanism, etc.:) We've got philanthropic institutions funding formally public sector roles, citizens crowdfunding skyscrapers in Columbia and major infrastructure in London, and all kinds of related and exciting developments.



We held the Remaking Cities Congress in Pittsburgh last month, where urban policy experts like Bruce Katz were making statements about how the game has fully changed for cities now and the federal government is no longer a viable partner, but they are all celebrating mayors as our country's great innovators and implementers right now (I have no fear that they will eventually realize "it's the community, stupid", and that while good public officials can make a critical difference, the absence of good local leadership doesn't necessarily have to prevent a community from achieving success). During the same event, I listened to British architects describing how they adapted the AIA's design assistance process and implemented it in over 300 communities across the UK, Europe, and other countries. They are now working in Scotland to codify charrettes as a government-mandated approach to working with communities (which I don't agree with, but it's more evidence of a desire for and application of practices spreading around the world). In my own work with the design assistance program, we've helped catalyze over a billion dollars in new investment over the last 5 years in communities, and we are beginning to train abroad in 2014 to spread adaptation further. I don't think democracy is dying - I just think its changing, and the local level is where all the action is!:)



Regarding the APA, while I am no longer a member either, I have to say that I've been happy to see some things from them in the last couple of years. For one, they conducted a survey, Planning in America: Perceptions and Priorities, whose findings included (among other things) the fact that a majority of Americans want to be involved in community planning efforts: http://www.planning.org/policy/economicrecovery/. Secondly, they launched a Community Planning Assistance Team program (my understanding is that the program uses P2 and multidisciplinary teams to produce community-driven strategies, though I've not seen it first hand): http://www.planning.org/communityassistance/teams/. Mitch Silver, their president (now, past-president I believe) has been someone who was passionately interested in these kinds of programs.





Joel Mills
Director, Communities By Design
American Institute of Architects
(202) 626-7405
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
________________________________
From: NCDD Discussion List [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Bill Potapchuk [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 5:11 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [NCDD-DISCUSSION] Support for Public Engagement is Absent/Weak

Hi Ron:

Is the public engagement glass half full or half empty?

When I look around the DC metro area, I see:


•         Arlington County which has a strong and enduring tradition of engagement and skilled staff that facilitate every day

•         Alexandria, which has recognized the shortcomings of its approaches, launched a very thoughtful and inclusive effort to develop new models and norms around participation.  Check out their draft guide.  https://www.alexandriava.gov/WhatsNext

•         In DC, while there was a noticeable and significant stepping back from public engagement during the Fenty administration, Mayor Gray has supported public engagement and a number of other collaborative processes.  Planning staff tend to have good facilitation skills.  There are also many collaborative efforts in the human services field including a recent 400 person town hall (AmericaSpeaks style) on mental health.

•         I know less about Prince George’s County but do know there have a number of collaborative processes on planning and education issues.

Organizations like the  Institute for Local Government have seeded public engagement strategies on a wide range of issues in California.  Practitioners like Don Edwards have worked up and down the east coast.  And the list goes on and on.

I would observe several trends:


•         More and more of the public engagement is being done without consultants.  It is mainstream and institutionalized.

•         There are many more smaller processes and fewer big one’s.  Smaller processes are less visible.  I also think there is participation fatigue.  When everything is participatory, it can get old.  Also, some efforts string on forever.  Arlington County has launched and managed over 10 years of participatory planning processes linked to streetcar planning and the redevelopment of Columbia Pike . . . and now, what was seen by many as a completed process with broad consensus, is now becoming controversial . . .  That’s a lot of meetings.  And more to come.

•         Our siloed governments and agencies and even more fragmented funding streams typically command their own public engagement process meaning participants rarely have opportunities to work on broad sets of interrelated issues.  More fatigue.  More cynicism about the value of participatory processes.  More reasons to have larger processes.

So, I still tend to see the public engagement glass as half full . . . while recognizing that field is not organized to work on the policy challenges inherent in these observations.  I also worry about faux public engagement and how we support more inclusive and more effective processes.

On the APA side of the equation, I could not agree more.  In 1996, Marci Dupraw and I put together a four hour training program (with CEU credits) that was available in the APA bookstore for years.  I also fostered a connection between a major foundation and APA in that same time period that was focused, in part, on more collaborative approaches to neighborhood planning.  My reflection is that national APA has grown increasingly tone deaf on participatory processes . . and they do not get it.  They also pay the price,  I know that I and other collaborative planning types have all let our membership lapse.

On the other hand, ICMA and the National League of Cities continue to disseminate excellent materials on participatory approaches and offer training to their members.  And recently, another set of organizations just released Making Participation Legal which provides model ordinances and helpful advice on participation.  www.tinyurl.com/p2law<http://www.tinyurl.com/p2law>.

Half full or half empty?  Half full.   I’d much rather have ICMA and NLC and other national organizations like that advocate for more engagement.  APA’s loss is APAs loss.

My two cents . . . bill

Bill Potapchuk
Community Building Institute
127 S. Highland St.
Arlington, VA  22204
703-425-6296 office
703-431-9943 cell
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
[logo_linkedin_tm_email_95x21_v1[1]]<http://www.linkedin.com/pub/william-potapchuk/6/478/399>

From: NCDD Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of JILL ZIMON
Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2013 3:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [NCDD-DISCUSSION] Support for Public Engagement is Absent/Weak

Dear Ron,

Some serious, significant morsels to chew on in here. Thank you. I think, as naive as it may sound, I just wish all my public servant colleagues - and I’m thinking in terms of local electeds in places like city halls - engaged even just on an individual level in a more enlightened way, let alone work on changing the systems within which we often function.

Maybe the best thing I can say is that I’m 51 and I’ve yet to be disabused of my notions about public service being exactly that. AND…I’ve learned about and discovered NCDD and the hundreds of practitioners involved with it. That has been a watershed for me.

Thanks,
Jill


On Nov 5, 2013, at 9:30 AM, Ron Thomas <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:


Folks - Not disagreeing with Jill and surly applaud those elected officials who champion and facilitate authentic engagement. I can only share my 30+ years of roller coaster experience.

The issue is that an elected body representative is just that – representative of a community/geography and is in jeopardy when one either ventures into another's constituencies or "steps out of turn" in speaking to the community at large – stepping on big toes (i.e. Da Mayor). We must also distinguish then the values of an individual representative and what that representative's elected body does or does not do as a majority of the whole. Most often I have found the elected body will "wait and see," choosing to mostly not attend very public engagement actives unless they, like Jill, are true champions AND the activity is happening in their district. Again, this is why the line agency's work becomes such an important venue for authentic, collaborative engagement. Its where the work is done. The elected body does authorize it in the budget cycle (and why these discussions here about public budging are important) but does not usually have input until it comes back as a Yes/No decision and its completion. Moreover, elected risk having too much "interference" with the various public agencies and their "experts" and is considered inappropriate micro-management.

My own experience has been that my truly successful experiences have come from at least a three-way partnership: the chief elected official (mayor) as a champion for an engaged public, a capable line agency team where plans, programs and actions are created and developed, and then, of course, a facilitative grassroots leadership bringing the community together as partners. Then these three sectors must be willing and capable to mutual respect and collaboration.. I can also testify this triad happens all too too infrequently. Roger and I have ragged on our respective "expert communities" and here we are discussing the challenges for elected officials. I will also add that there is often a share to the blame that falls to the not infallible grassroots, too, as we are seeing all too frequently these days. Most often I see well intentioned efforts fail or fall short with the absence of one or more of these sectors in values, intentions or skills.

Roger has provided a sound assessment as well frame strategy but, again, our shared democratic vision here depends on the profound values and belief of the individuals representing these sectors over methods and techniques. My one caution for Roger's narrative is perhaps the use of a too general term "Public Official." There is such a great values and motivational differences between elected officials (chief and representative), appointed officials (i.e. planning commissioners); top elected management  (commission form of government); appointed top management staff (i.e. public works and planning director); line staff; consultants (with differences by who hired them) and also selected ad hoc representative groups (i.e. committees, task forces, stakeholder groups). I do think that our institutions of higher education, especially those technical and professional schools turning out planners, architects, engineers, and public administrators as well as those educating professional facilitators, mediators, organizational development experts need to take on these values-based areas as well as their respective technical skill areas.

A hundred years ago John Dewey jumped into the deep end of the pool about religion with his "Varieties of Religious Experience." Community/governance/government is no less a values-based endeavor and we are struggling and at risk today finding a shared, common core to thrive as a democracy and understand its varieties in the increasing complex and diverse world.

Also agree – great discussion.

Ron

From: JILL ZIMON <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Reply-To: JILL ZIMON <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Date: Monday, November 4, 2013 6:46 PM
To: <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Re: [NCDD-DISCUSSION] Support for Public Engagement is Absent/Weak

All -

I’m a local elected (city council level, 6K residents - now running for the Ohio House of Reps in 2014) and I don’t know whether this is a Debbie Downer comment or not but IMO and my experience, the mindset of the public servant is the crux of the issue. Everything else is a bit like the old tennis racquet ads that have McEnroe or whomever (Agassi? Can’t remember anymore) blaming everything on the equipment when it’s the player and his or her mental state.

One person I know in public service who really personifies the digging in effort required to normalize and embed true public engagement (that is two-way, closes feedback loops and results in satisfactory decision-making - which isn’t that everyone gets what they want - part of democracy is learning that you actually will not always get what you want and accepting that so long as you can trust that people aren’t actually purposely out to harm you or others and so on) is Craig Fifer. There are others I’m sure you all may know - Pete Peterson is seeking to be one in his CA SOS bid.  Here’s more on Craig who is in Alexandria, VA:

http://www.fifer.net/

http://www.c-span.org/Events/The-Communicators-Craig-Fifer-E-Government-Manager-for-the-City-of-Alexandria-Va/6508/

He was on a panel I moderated earlier this year called: Engagement: It’s not just for breakfast anymore. We focused on how the best public servants are people who engage all the time and as part of their service, not only when they’re in need of votes.

I’ve worked extremely hard in my region to change cultures and it’s exceedingly challenging though very rewarding, but there are many systems working against even the best intentioned public servants.

I just wanted to offer this perspective and would be happy to engage more deeply with others about this. But I would respectfully request a bit of empathy at least for how the system simply fails to reward elected public servants when they engage - we are often demonized anyway. Again, referring back to Pete, in his presentation last year in Seattle, he made a point of mentioning how this happens and how it’s not just that it stings, it keeps electeds from wanting to come back for more. We are human too - what should our limit be? (I have a “fan” who sends me emails titled, “Dumb and Dumber” - which he sends to me and another council member. How much of that kind of thing should an elected official tolerate? Is it really okay to just say, “you asked for it” because I want to serve the public?)

And so on…

Thanks for this discussion.

Jill
On Nov 4, 2013, at 5:23 PM, Terry Steichen <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:


Roger,

[At your suggestion, I've changed the topic (from "How would Participedia be useful for you?") to the above, to be more in line with the substance of your message.]

In my view, the ideas you express in your "lesson" below are spot on, and show you've really done some serious thinking about the challenge of public participation and public policy making.  You've nailed a lot of issues that most people haven't: the reluctance of public officials to entertain, encourage and use such input, and the fact that policy-makers have no obligation to seek/use such input (plus the additional point that they probably don't have the authority to do so, in any direct way).

I am, alas, less enthralled with the "possible approaches" you identify.

The reality that significant, routine public participation is costly, yet (as alluded to above) of questionable benefit to politicians (as seen from their perspective).  Officials, directly or indirectly, must still respond to the whole body of voters at election time.  If they base their decisions on a small, arguably unrepresentative set of "advisers," that may not set well with voters.

IMHO, the only real solution is to help the public as a whole to focus on the relevant issues, and then urge them to use that knowledge to guide their voting.  I've been working on this problem for many years and believe it is possible, but not without some new effort.  You briefly mention voting, but then don't appear to pay attention to it.  I think what we have to do is get the public to start taking voting more seriously and more focused on issues of importance to them.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Terry Steichen
TopicCentral.com<http://topiccentral.com/>



On 11/02/2013 05:56 PM, Dogondoutchi wrote:
Ron Thomas' candid assessment of the state of public engagement in the planning community resonated strongly with me. I am in the process of writing up lessons learned from conducting some 10+ public engagement activities for public health agencies. I am sharing below a draft text of the first lesson as my way of responding to Ron and eliciting comments from others. Do you agree? Do you have other approaches to suggest?

Roger Bernier


Support for public engagement among many agency officials is absent or weak.
Contrary to what is often assumed in a democracy such as the US, support for public engagement is not a given. Even when present, it is often limited or weak. This reality had repercussions on the numerous activities that needed to be carried out in our projects. For example, there was sometimes half-hearted support for the work needed to recruit adequate numbers of participants or representative samples, for providing the desired clarity about the goals and purposes of the events, for allotting adequate time for dialogue and deliberation at the meetings, or for giving serious consideration to the results obtained. As organizers of these events, we often felt we were swimming against the tide, even though the sponsors had requested the public engagement.
Why is there a lack of strong or full support for public engagement?
First, government officials are accustomed to obtaining public input through polls, surveys, focus groups, written comments, consumer representatives, and during public comment periods at the end of expert advisory committee meetings. These routine forms of obtaining public input often require minimal effort from public officials and provide for only limited interaction and mutual learning on the part of both citizens and public officials. These forms of public input are often a means of consulting the public while doing so only in a superficial way, and this has become the norm and expectation.
Second, many public servants have had largely negative experiences in dealing with an angry public in meetings, in processing hostile freedom of information requests, and other adversarial exchanges. Understandably, many agency officials have come to view the public as something that should be kept at arms-length rather than as a potential resource helping to produce better decisions.
Third, consulting the public in a truly open-minded manner is not considered a smart thing to do for several reasons. Public engagement is messy because of conflicting views on the part of citizens and can be difficult to manage. Also, leaders can potentially end up with public judgments which are at variance with government preferences, at least initially. This outcome may be feared most at science agencies such as CDC where expertise is seen as the key or only ingredient in sound policy decisions. In these situations, agency officials underestimate or ignore the role of competing public values which underlie their policy options and the qualifications of citizens as the repositories of these public values to participate in making tradeoffs and difficult public policy choices.
Fourth, the US has a representative form of government with elected or appointed officials who have not only the authority but also the responsibility to make decisions on behalf of the people. Often these officials have special training and expertise required for the positions they hold, and they can feel obliged to make decisions. They are under no obligation to consult constituents or citizens before making public policy decisions. This is reflected in the fact that there are no established institutions of government currently in place to routinely obtain meaningful input from citizens in public policy decision making. Occasionally, during moments of crisis such as those surrounding gun violence in schools in the US, some public officials will recognize “the need to have a national conversation”. However, with the exception of voting, no active role for citizens has been carved out of the everyday process of governing.
Also, undertaking public engagement is a form of sharing power and this is often perceived as giving up control. Persons with power and control are not usually inclined to cede this power to others and government officials and vested interests are no exception. This is exemplified by the issue of gun control in the US. While polls have indicated widespread and even overwhelming public support for additional measures to curb access to guns, the public values on this issue are undervalued and ignored by elected representatives. According to Barry Bozeman, when neither the market not public sector provides goods and services required to achieve public values, then we have “public values failure”.
These features about the structure and operation of our government act to hinder the development of a fuller understanding of the potential value of active citizen engagement and adversely affect the willingness of officials to engage meaningfully with citizens, and of citizens to engage confidently with government.
Possible Approaches
As the saying goes, “nothing breeds success like success.” While not all of our projects succeeded, the public’s advice in several of our decision-oriented public engagement projects, including the early ones, influenced the content of the final agency level recommendations or policies that were issued. This is the final test of public engagement---that it can produce technically sound decisions which are better in the minds of public officials as a result of the public input. The early success was publicized and we obtained additional requests for public engagement projects as a result. Thus, the “proof of concept” that can be provided by carrying out successful projects has the potential to encourage use within agencies and increase the support for public engagement.
            Public agencies should carry out high-quality, high-visibility public engagement demonstration projects and evaluations as part of a continuous quality improvement process to learn how to best engage citizens in the public policy process and help reduce doubt and skepticism over time about the value of citizen participation. To accomplish this, public officials at national, state, and local levels can make greater use of existing, highly interactive public engagement mechanisms, improve these mechanisms over time through more frequent and judicious use, and design new mechanisms where existing ones fall short. When these demonstration projects are carried out, there needs to be widespread communication about them and their results to help improve public understanding of the potential benefits as well as the potential pitfalls of well-designed and well-executed projects.
Convincing public officials at the outset that public engagement is a smart thing to do or finding committed public officials willing to conduct these demonstration projects will be challenging for reasons cited above. To help trigger demand for public engagement, specialists in the field could compile and publicize a list of the most solvable public policy problems such as gun violence, global warming, and health care reform, whose solution depends not on achieving some unpredictable and difficult scientific breakthrough but rather on enhanced use of very achievable dialogue and deliberation between citizens and public officials and between officials themselves.
Other obstacles which public engagement specialists could address would be to clarify the true nature of policy decisions, including the limitations of expertise, the intrinsic role of values considerations, and the useful “societal perspective” of disinterested citizens who are the repositories of our core public values. Ideally, public engagement champions both inside and outside of government could be recruited to help public officials carve out a larger, more active role for lay citizens while retaining the authority and responsibility of public officials to make final determinations about public policy.
The longer term effects of successful model demonstration projects should be to help change the culture from one in which there are deep and widespread doubts about the role of citizens to one where there are new convictions that our citizenry and our participatory mechanisms are useful and essential tools for more wise problem-solving at the society level.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Thomas <[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
To: NCDD-DISCUSSION <[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Fri, Nov 1, 2013 4:59 pm
Subject: Re: [NCDD-DISCUSSION] How would Participedia be useful for you?
Folks - I want to echo Kenoli's comments especially those in her #4.

Those that know me have been patient listeners to my laments (especially in the last decade) about the regression of direct participatory democracy in the urban planning field. I began - oh so long ago - working with some the pioneers in our then mutual fields of participatory planning and what would become the NCDD community. While the NCDD community has dramatically advanced the facilitative practices in many areas, the use of those practices and practitioners in the planning field continues to regress and wither into defensive bunkers either with passive walk-in/walk-out "Open Houses" and/or hip-shooting on-line commenting and arms-length surveys.

The gatekeeper for the planning establishment is the American Planning Association. As the parent certifying organization of practicing planners, they must be a willing and enthusiastic partner with NCDD, IAP2 and others. While engagement and participation is a constant refrain from my colleagues, there are several institution indicators of this removed distance form the practice.

First, the association is organized with about 2 dozen Divisions around practicing interests (I serve on the board of the Regional and Intergovernmental Division). There is not and never has been a Division for Engagement and Participation. There have been (recent) attempts to organize "discussion groups" that have gone nowhere. Next measure is the series of some 350 some topical monographs entitled Planning Advisory Service Reports that have been published since 1949. As APA states on their web site: "Since 1949, planners have turned to APA's Planning Advisory Service (PAS) for the information they need." I cannot find one dealing with engagement, participation or facilitation in these 60 some years. Finally, while attending recent national and regional planning conferences I'm finding little included on NCDD related practices with most of what passes for public participation sessions have focused on the afore-going mentioned appointed stakeholder structures, surveying and social networking.

Should NCDD care? I do think so. Planning, at its best, is one of our best laboratories for true democracy. Plans determine where and how our commutes are build, where the facilities are located for most of the service areas this community works with and where public investments are made from highways to parks. Most our our state and local taxes go to capital expenditures that are identified in the planning process, and at is best we together envision the future of the world our future generations will inhabit.

With the current work being done by the likes of NCDD, IAP2, Kettering, Brookings and associates, APA needs to be a major recruitment goal. We might initiate this at the APA Board level rather than staff. One message we need to get out there is that the bunker mentality to defend from the strategic aggression by Tea Party type attacks is only exacerbated by closing down. From my networks, I hear that these libertarian type interests have, in fact, participated constructively when there has been a community tradition and practice of authentic dialogue and deliberation.

What to do? Some steps come to mind:

  1.  Recruit (probably best thru local channels) certified (AICP) planners to this community and IAP2 for instance
  2.  Get on local, regional and national conference programs (like other professions, we need these dual membership practitioners to deliver the message-not a certified planner? Then probably not heard.)
  3.  Seek friendly conveners (Kettering, Brookings?) to organize some leadership dialogues with APA board level leadership
  4.  Establish communications and hotlinks with alternative planning channels (Planetizan, The Planners Network) and feed them info to post
  5.  Convene working  roundtable(s) between this community of academics and planning counterparts (this too is a rarefied network since participation is not a required or normative part of the planning curriculum – but some important friendly potential partners are – names provided on request if not cced here;-)
Thanks for listening and look forward to sharing ideas and comments.

Ron Thomas, FAICP
Athens, GA

From: Kenoli Oleari <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Reply-To: Kenoli Oleari <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Date: Friday, November 1, 2013 2:22 PM
To: <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Re: [NCDD-DISCUSSION] How would Participedia be useful for you?

Sandy -- Thanks for the heads up.  Some comments:

1.  I stumbled across some events in my area it would have been interesting to attend that I never heard about.  Maybe a component on this site of upcoming events would be useful.

2.  There are many more organizations on the site than events.  I wonder what that says.

3. The site relies on people uploading stuff.  I have to admit that I do a lot more thinking about the value of sharing the work we do with others than finding the time to do it.  I wonder if some of the academics who seem who seem to have access to research money could track down groups and individuals doing this work and document it on a site like this.  This might be a good division of labor between those doing the work and those with documentation skills (which are not always the same).

4.  I am seeing that direct democracy is different than participatory process.  Much of what I see posted is about more voices in government as opposed to how to bring more voices, especially direct voices as opposed to representative voices, more effectively into the process.   e.g. once you have a "citizens board" how does it actually function within government structure.  In fact, many direct democracy projects listed seem to still be representative bodies as opposed to what I would call direct democracy, i.e. ways for all citizens to exercise their right and responsibility to be part of governance.  The site doesn't seem to address this distinction.

Regarding your explicit question of how it would be useful to me:

1.  I would probably use it mostly to network with others doing similar work as I or in areas where I am working or want to work.
2.  Could be a good source for new ideas and to learn from others experience.

--Kenoli


On Nov 1, 2013, at 10:33 AM, Sandy Heierbacher <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:


Hi, everyone!  I'm in Cambridge today and tomorrow meeting with members of the executive committee of Participedia.net<http://participedia.net/>.  Participedia has been focused primarily on meeting the needs of researchers up to this point, but today we're discussing how Participedia could meet the needs of practitioners.

I thought I'd send a quick message out to the Discussion list to see if some of you (especially those of you who have already checked out Participedia) would be willing to shoot me your thoughts on this question.  Email me directly at [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> if you have ideas or input you'd like to share.

And for those who don't know, Participedia.net<http://participedia.net/> is a repository for case studies and related materials on democratic innovations across the globe.

Sandy Heierbacher
Director, National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> • www.ncdd.org<http://www.ncdd.org/> • @ncdd & @heierbacher




________________________________

<http://ncdd.org/>[NCDD Logo]<http://ncdd.org/><http://ncdd.org/>
NCDD's discussion and announcement lists are generously donated by L-Soft (www.lsoft.com<http://www.lsoft.com/>) and are powered by L-Soft's LISTSERV mailing list management software (www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html<http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html>). Learn more about all of NCDD's email lists at www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434> -- and please read over the NCDD Discussion list's ground rules<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/2624> before you post.
Email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> to change the email address you're subscribed with or to switch to a daily digest. To unsubscribe from the NCDD-DISCUSSION list, click the following link:
http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=NCDD-DISCUSSION&A=1


________________________________

<http://ncdd.org/>[NCDD Logo]<http://ncdd.org/><http://ncdd.org/>
NCDD's discussion and announcement lists are generously donated by L-Soft (www.lsoft.com<http://www.lsoft.com/>) and are powered by L-Soft's LISTSERV mailing list management software (www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html<http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html>). Learn more about all of NCDD's email lists at www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434> -- and please read over the NCDD Discussion list's ground rules<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/2624> before you post.
Email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> to change the email address you're subscribed with or to switch to a daily digest. To unsubscribe from the NCDD-DISCUSSION list, click the following link:
http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=NCDD-DISCUSSION&A=1

________________________________

<http://ncdd.org/>[NCDD Logo]<http://ncdd.org/><http://ncdd.org/>
NCDD's discussion and announcement lists are generously donated by L-Soft (www.lsoft.com<http://www.lsoft.com/>) and are powered by L-Soft's LISTSERV mailing list management software (www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html<http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html>). Learn more about all of NCDD's email lists at www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434> -- and please read over the NCDD Discussion list's ground rules<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/2624> before you post.
Email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> to change the email address you're subscribed with or to switch to a daily digest. To unsubscribe from the NCDD-DISCUSSION list, click the following link:
http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=NCDD-DISCUSSION&A=1

________________________________

<http://ncdd.org/>[NCDD Logo]<http://ncdd.org/><http://ncdd.org/>
NCDD's discussion and announcement lists are generously donated by L-Soft (www.lsoft.com<http://www.lsoft.com/>) and are powered by L-Soft's LISTSERV mailing list management software (www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html<http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html>). Learn more about all of NCDD's email lists at www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434> -- and please read over the NCDD Discussion list's ground rules<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/2624> before you post.
Email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> to change the email address you're subscribed with or to switch to a daily digest. To unsubscribe from the NCDD-DISCUSSION list, click the following link:
http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=NCDD-DISCUSSION&A=1


________________________________

<http://ncdd.org/>[NCDD Logo]<http://ncdd.org/><http://ncdd.org/>
NCDD's discussion and announcement lists are generously donated by L-Soft (www.lsoft.com<http://www.lsoft.com/>) and are powered by L-Soft's LISTSERV mailing list management software (www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html<http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html>). Learn more about all of NCDD's email lists at www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434> -- and please read over the NCDD Discussion list's ground rules<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/2624> before you post.
Email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> to change the email address you're subscribed with or to switch to a daily digest. To unsubscribe from the NCDD-DISCUSSION list, click the following link:
http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=NCDD-DISCUSSION&A=1


________________________________

<http://ncdd.org/>[NCDD Logo]<http://ncdd.org/><http://ncdd.org/>
NCDD's discussion and announcement lists are generously donated by L-Soft (www.lsoft.com<http://www.lsoft.com>) and are powered by L-Soft's LISTSERV mailing list management software (www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html<http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html>). Learn more about all of NCDD's email lists at www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434> -- and please read over the NCDD Discussion list's ground rules<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/2624> before you post.
Email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> to change the email address you're subscribed with or to switch to a daily digest. To unsubscribe from the NCDD-DISCUSSION list, click the following link:
http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=NCDD-DISCUSSION&A=1


________________________________

<http://ncdd.org/>[NCDD Logo]<http://ncdd.org/><http://ncdd.org/>

NCDD's discussion and announcement lists are generously donated by L-Soft (www.lsoft.com<http://www.lsoft.com>) and are powered by L-Soft's LISTSERV mailing list management software (www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html<http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html>). Learn more about all of NCDD's email lists at www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434> -- and please read over the NCDD Discussion list's ground rules<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/2624> before you post.

Email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> to change the email address you're subscribed with or to switch to a daily digest. To unsubscribe from the NCDD-DISCUSSION list, click the following link:
http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=NCDD-DISCUSSION&A=1

________________________________

[NCDD Logo]<http://ncdd.org/>

NCDD's discussion and announcement lists are generously donated by L-Soft (www.lsoft.com) and are powered by L-Soft's LISTSERV mailing list management software (www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html). Learn more about all of NCDD's email lists at www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434> -- and please read over the NCDD Discussion list's ground rules<http://www.ncdd.org/rc/item/2624> before you post.

Email [log in to unmask] to change the email address you're subscribed with or to switch to a daily digest. To unsubscribe from the NCDD-DISCUSSION list, click the following link:
http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=NCDD-DISCUSSION&A=1

---

NCDD's discussion and announcement lists are generously donated by L-Soft ( www.lsoft.com ) and are powered by L-Soft's LISTSERV mailing list management software ( www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html ).  Learn more about all of NCDD's email lists at www.ncdd.org/rc/item/4434 -- and please read over the NCDD Discussion list's ground rules at www.ncdd.org/rc/item/2624 before you post.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

April 2017, Week 5
April 2017, Week 4
April 2017, Week 3
April 2017, Week 2
April 2017, Week 1
March 2017, Week 5
March 2017, Week 4
March 2017, Week 3
March 2017, Week 2
March 2017, Week 1
February 2017, Week 4
February 2017, Week 3
February 2017, Week 2
February 2017, Week 1
January 2017, Week 5
January 2017, Week 4
January 2017, Week 3
January 2017, Week 2
January 2017, Week 1
December 2016, Week 5
December 2016, Week 4
December 2016, Week 3
December 2016, Week 2
December 2016, Week 1
November 2016, Week 5
November 2016, Week 4
November 2016, Week 3
November 2016, Week 2
November 2016, Week 1
October 2016, Week 5
October 2016, Week 4
October 2016, Week 3
October 2016, Week 2
October 2016, Week 1
September 2016, Week 5
September 2016, Week 4
September 2016, Week 3
September 2016, Week 2
September 2016, Week 1
August 2016, Week 5
August 2016, Week 4
August 2016, Week 3
August 2016, Week 2
August 2016, Week 1
July 2016, Week 5
July 2016, Week 4
July 2016, Week 3
July 2016, Week 2
July 2016, Week 1
June 2016, Week 5
June 2016, Week 4
June 2016, Week 3
June 2016, Week 2
June 2016, Week 1
May 2016, Week 5
May 2016, Week 4
May 2016, Week 3
May 2016, Week 2
May 2016, Week 1
April 2016, Week 5
April 2016, Week 4
April 2016, Week 3
April 2016, Week 2
April 2016, Week 1
March 2016, Week 5
March 2016, Week 4
March 2016, Week 3
March 2016, Week 2
March 2016, Week 1
February 2016, Week 5
February 2016, Week 4
February 2016, Week 3
February 2016, Week 2
February 2016, Week 1
January 2016, Week 5
January 2016, Week 4
January 2016, Week 3
January 2016, Week 2
January 2016, Week 1
December 2015, Week 5
December 2015, Week 4
December 2015, Week 3
December 2015, Week 2
December 2015, Week 1
November 2015, Week 5
November 2015, Week 4
November 2015, Week 3
November 2015, Week 2
November 2015, Week 1
October 2015, Week 5
October 2015, Week 4
October 2015, Week 3
October 2015, Week 2
October 2015, Week 1
September 2015, Week 5
September 2015, Week 4
September 2015, Week 3
September 2015, Week 2
September 2015, Week 1
August 2015, Week 4
August 2015, Week 3
August 2015, Week 2
August 2015, Week 1
July 2015, Week 5
July 2015, Week 4
July 2015, Week 3
July 2015, Week 2
June 2015, Week 5
June 2015, Week 4
June 2015, Week 3
June 2015, Week 2
June 2015, Week 1
May 2015, Week 5
May 2015, Week 4
May 2015, Week 3
May 2015, Week 2
May 2015, Week 1
April 2015, Week 5
April 2015, Week 4
April 2015, Week 3
April 2015, Week 2
April 2015, Week 1
March 2015, Week 5
March 2015, Week 4
March 2015, Week 3
March 2015, Week 2
March 2015, Week 1
February 2015, Week 4
February 2015, Week 3
February 2015, Week 2
February 2015, Week 1
January 2015, Week 5
January 2015, Week 4
January 2015, Week 3
January 2015, Week 2
January 2015, Week 1
December 2014, Week 5
December 2014, Week 4
December 2014, Week 3
December 2014, Week 2
December 2014, Week 1
November 2014, Week 5
November 2014, Week 4
November 2014, Week 3
November 2014, Week 2
November 2014, Week 1
October 2014, Week 5
October 2014, Week 4
October 2014, Week 3
October 2014, Week 2
October 2014, Week 1
September 2014, Week 5
September 2014, Week 4
September 2014, Week 3
September 2014, Week 2
September 2014, Week 1
August 2014, Week 5
August 2014, Week 4
August 2014, Week 3
August 2014, Week 2
August 2014, Week 1
July 2014, Week 5
July 2014, Week 4
July 2014, Week 3
July 2014, Week 2
July 2014, Week 1
June 2014, Week 5
June 2014, Week 4
June 2014, Week 3
June 2014, Week 2
June 2014, Week 1
May 2014, Week 5
May 2014, Week 4
May 2014, Week 3
May 2014, Week 2
May 2014, Week 1
April 2014, Week 5
April 2014, Week 4
April 2014, Week 3
April 2014, Week 2
April 2014, Week 1
March 2014, Week 5
March 2014, Week 4
March 2014, Week 3
March 2014, Week 2
March 2014, Week 1
February 2014, Week 4
February 2014, Week 3
February 2014, Week 2
February 2014, Week 1
January 2014, Week 5
January 2014, Week 4
January 2014, Week 3
January 2014, Week 2
January 2014, Week 1
December 2013, Week 5
December 2013, Week 4
December 2013, Week 3
December 2013, Week 2
December 2013, Week 1
November 2013, Week 4
November 2013, Week 3
November 2013, Week 2
November 2013, Week 1
October 2013, Week 5
October 2013, Week 4
October 2013, Week 3
October 2013, Week 2
October 2013, Week 1
September 2013, Week 5
September 2013, Week 4
September 2013, Week 3
September 2013, Week 2
September 2013, Week 1
August 2013, Week 5
August 2013, Week 4
August 2013, Week 3
August 2013, Week 2
August 2013, Week 1
July 2013, Week 5
July 2013, Week 4
July 2013, Week 3
July 2013, Week 2
July 2013, Week 1
June 2013, Week 4
June 2013, Week 3
June 2013, Week 2
June 2013, Week 1
May 2013, Week 5
May 2013, Week 4
May 2013, Week 3
May 2013, Week 2
May 2013, Week 1
April 2013, Week 5
April 2013, Week 4
April 2013, Week 3
April 2013, Week 2
April 2013, Week 1
March 2013, Week 5
March 2013, Week 4
March 2013, Week 3
March 2013, Week 2
March 2013, Week 1
February 2013, Week 4
February 2013, Week 3
February 2013, Week 2
February 2013, Week 1
January 2013, Week 5
January 2013, Week 4
January 2013, Week 3
January 2013, Week 2
January 2013, Week 1
December 2012, Week 4
December 2012, Week 3
December 2012, Week 2
December 2012, Week 1
November 2012, Week 4
November 2012, Week 3
November 2012, Week 2
November 2012, Week 1
October 2012, Week 5
October 2012, Week 4
October 2012, Week 3
October 2012, Week 2
October 2012, Week 1
September 2012, Week 5
September 2012, Week 4
September 2012, Week 3
September 2012, Week 2
September 2012, Week 1
August 2012, Week 5
August 2012, Week 4
August 2012, Week 3
August 2012, Week 2
August 2012, Week 1
July 2012, Week 5
July 2012, Week 4
July 2012, Week 3
July 2012, Week 2
July 2012, Week 1
June 2012, Week 5
June 2012, Week 4
June 2012, Week 3
June 2012, Week 2
June 2012, Week 1
May 2012, Week 5
May 2012, Week 4
May 2012, Week 3
May 2012, Week 2
May 2012, Week 1
April 2012, Week 5
April 2012, Week 4
April 2012, Week 3
April 2012, Week 2
April 2012, Week 1
March 2012, Week 5
March 2012, Week 4
March 2012, Week 3
March 2012, Week 2
March 2012, Week 1
February 2012, Week 4
February 2012, Week 3
February 2012, Week 2
February 2012, Week 1
January 2012, Week 5
January 2012, Week 4
January 2012, Week 3
January 2012, Week 2
January 2012, Week 1
December 2011, Week 5
December 2011, Week 4
December 2011, Week 3
December 2011, Week 2
December 2011, Week 1
November 2011, Week 5
November 2011, Week 4
November 2011, Week 3
November 2011, Week 2
November 2011, Week 1
October 2011, Week 5
October 2011, Week 4
October 2011, Week 3
October 2011, Week 2
October 2011, Week 1
September 2011, Week 5
September 2011, Week 4
September 2011, Week 3
September 2011, Week 2
September 2011, Week 1
August 2011, Week 5
August 2011, Week 4
August 2011, Week 3
August 2011, Week 2
August 2011, Week 1
July 2011, Week 5
July 2011, Week 4
July 2011, Week 3
July 2011, Week 2
July 2011, Week 1
June 2011, Week 5
June 2011, Week 4
June 2011, Week 3
June 2011, Week 2
June 2011, Week 1
May 2011, Week 5
May 2011, Week 4
May 2011, Week 3
May 2011, Week 2
May 2011, Week 1
April 2011, Week 5
April 2011, Week 4
April 2011, Week 3
April 2011, Week 2
April 2011, Week 1
March 2011, Week 5
March 2011, Week 4
March 2011, Week 3
March 2011, Week 2
March 2011, Week 1
February 2011, Week 4
February 2011, Week 3
February 2011, Week 2
February 2011, Week 1
January 2011, Week 4
January 2011, Week 3
January 2011, Week 2
January 2011, Week 1
December 2010, Week 5
December 2010, Week 3
December 2010, Week 2
December 2010, Week 1
November 2010, Week 5
November 2010, Week 4
November 2010, Week 3
November 2010, Week 2
November 2010, Week 1
October 2010, Week 5
October 2010, Week 4
October 2010, Week 3
October 2010, Week 2
October 2010, Week 1
September 2010, Week 5
September 2010, Week 4
September 2010, Week 3
September 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 1
August 2010, Week 5
August 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 3
August 2010, Week 2
August 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 5
July 2010, Week 4
July 2010, Week 3
July 2010, Week 2
July 2010, Week 1
June 2010, Week 5
June 2010, Week 4
June 2010, Week 3
June 2010, Week 2
June 2010, Week 1
May 2010, Week 5
May 2010, Week 4
May 2010, Week 3
May 2010, Week 2
May 2010, Week 1
April 2010, Week 5
April 2010, Week 4
April 2010, Week 3
April 2010, Week 2
April 2010, Week 1
March 2010, Week 5
March 2010, Week 4
March 2010, Week 3
March 2010, Week 2
March 2010, Week 1
February 2010, Week 4
February 2010, Week 3
February 2010, Week 2
February 2010, Week 1
January 2010, Week 5
January 2010, Week 4
January 2010, Week 3
January 2010, Week 2
January 2010, Week 1
December 2009, Week 4
December 2009, Week 3
December 2009, Week 2
December 2009, Week 1
November 2009, Week 5
November 2009, Week 4
November 2009, Week 3
November 2009, Week 2
November 2009, Week 1
October 2009, Week 5
October 2009, Week 4
October 2009, Week 3
October 2009, Week 2
October 2009, Week 1
September 2009, Week 5
September 2009, Week 4
September 2009, Week 3
September 2009, Week 2
September 2009, Week 1
August 2009, Week 5
August 2009, Week 4
August 2009, Week 3
August 2009, Week 2
August 2009, Week 1
July 2009, Week 5
July 2009, Week 4
July 2009, Week 3
July 2009, Week 2
July 2009, Week 1
June 2009, Week 5
June 2009, Week 4
June 2009, Week 3
June 2009, Week 2
June 2009, Week 1
May 2009, Week 5
May 2009, Week 4
May 2009, Week 3
May 2009, Week 2
May 2009, Week 1
April 2009, Week 5
April 2009, Week 4
April 2009, Week 3
April 2009, Week 2
April 2009, Week 1
March 2009, Week 4
March 2009, Week 3
March 2009, Week 2
March 2009, Week 1
February 2009, Week 4
February 2009, Week 3
February 2009, Week 2
February 2009, Week 1
January 2009, Week 5
January 2009, Week 4
January 2009, Week 3
January 2009, Week 2
January 2009, Week 1
December 2008, Week 5
December 2008, Week 3
December 2008, Week 2
December 2008, Week 1
November 2008, Week 5
November 2008, Week 4
November 2008, Week 3
November 2008, Week 2
November 2008, Week 1
October 2008, Week 5
October 2008, Week 4
October 2008, Week 3
October 2008, Week 2
October 2008, Week 1
September 2008, Week 5
September 2008, Week 4
September 2008, Week 3
September 2008, Week 2
September 2008, Week 1
August 2008, Week 4
August 2008, Week 3
August 2008, Week 2
August 2008, Week 1
July 2008, Week 5
July 2008, Week 4
July 2008, Week 3
July 2008, Week 2
June 2008, Week 5
June 2008, Week 4
June 2008, Week 3
June 2008, Week 2
June 2008, Week 1
May 2008, Week 4
May 2008, Week 3
May 2008, Week 2
May 2008, Week 1
April 2008, Week 5
April 2008, Week 4
April 2008, Week 3
April 2008, Week 2
April 2008, Week 1
March 2008, Week 5
March 2008, Week 4
March 2008, Week 3
March 2008, Week 2
March 2008, Week 1
February 2008, Week 5
February 2008, Week 4
February 2008, Week 3
February 2008, Week 2
February 2008, Week 1
January 2008, Week 5
January 2008, Week 4
January 2008, Week 3
January 2008, Week 2
January 2008, Week 1
December 2007, Week 4
December 2007, Week 3
December 2007, Week 2
December 2007, Week 1
November 2007, Week 4
November 2007, Week 3
November 2007, Week 2
November 2007, Week 1
October 2007, Week 5
October 2007, Week 4
October 2007, Week 3
October 2007, Week 2
October 2007, Week 1
September 2007, Week 4
September 2007, Week 3
September 2007, Week 2
September 2007, Week 1
August 2007, Week 5
August 2007, Week 4
August 2007, Week 3
August 2007, Week 2
July 2007, Week 4
July 2007, Week 3
July 2007, Week 2
July 2007, Week 1
June 2007, Week 5
June 2007, Week 4
June 2007, Week 3
June 2007, Week 2
June 2007, Week 1
May 2007, Week 4
May 2007, Week 3
May 2007, Week 2
May 2007, Week 1
April 2007, Week 5
April 2007, Week 4
April 2007, Week 3
April 2007, Week 2
April 2007, Week 1
March 2007, Week 4
March 2007, Week 3
March 2007, Week 1
February 2007, Week 4
February 2007, Week 3
February 2007, Week 2
February 2007, Week 1
January 2007, Week 5
January 2007, Week 4
January 2007, Week 3
January 2007, Week 2
January 2007, Week 1
December 2006, Week 4
December 2006, Week 3
December 2006, Week 2
November 2006, Week 1
October 2006, Week 4
October 2006, Week 2
October 2006, Week 1
September 2006, Week 4
September 2006, Week 3
September 2006, Week 2
September 2006, Week 1
July 2006, Week 5
July 2006, Week 4
July 2006, Week 3
June 2006, Week 4
June 2006, Week 3
June 2006, Week 2
June 2006, Week 1
May 2006, Week 5
May 2006, Week 4
May 2006, Week 2
May 2006, Week 1
April 2006, Week 3
April 2006, Week 2
April 2006, Week 1
March 2006, Week 4
March 2006, Week 3

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.NCDD.ORG

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager