NCDD Confab CallThurs, February 23rd from 1:00 to 2:30 EST

Featuring Tina Nabatchi and Cynthia Farrar NCDD Confabs are opportunities for members of the NCDD community to hear about exciting projects and research in our field, to explore our field’s most pressing challenges, and to connect with each other. We run the Confabs via conference call, and use collaborative Google docs to allow Confab participants to introduce themselves, jot down notes, ask questions, share resources, and more.

Call-in details for the Confab: 1-213-342-3000 (long distance call to Los Angeles, CA)

Access Code: 444839#

Press *6 on your keypad to unmute yourself (press *6 again after you’re done speaking)

Google doc location: http://tinyurl.com/6n7wuqo or this full link

We do plan to make the audio of this call and this document available at ncdd.org...

Featured NCDDers:On this call, we’ll be talking with Tina Nabatchi and Cynthia Farrar about their report “Bridging the Gap between Public Officials and the Public.” This 2011 report by Tina Nabatchi and Cynthia Farrar for the Deliberative Democracy Consortium explores what elected officials know and think about public deliberation, as well as what they need to know to assess the potential value of public deliberation as a governance tool. Data from interviews with twenty-four state legislators and senior staff for federal legislators yielded some provocative results with practical implications for the field of public deliberation. Download the full report here. Look over the summary in the NCDD Resource Center here.

Who’s on the call? Feel free to introduce yourself here (include link or email):● Larry Schooler, President-elect, U.S. Affiliate, International Association for Public

Participation (http://iap2usa.org); Community Engagement Consultant, City of Austin; @LarrySchooler, http://www.facebook.com/larry.schooler http://www.linkedin.com/in/larryschooler

● Kim and Frank Spillers, co-owners, Global Horizons, LLC, consultants for primarily rural areas for business development and community growth. kim@ghorizons.com, frank@ghorizons.com, www.bewuca.com, @BeWUCA, @GlobalHorizons

● Sandy Heierbacher, NCDD Director, sandy@ncdd.org or www.ncdd.org/contact● Stephen Buckley, collaboration engineer, @transpartisan & @OpenGovMetrics● Bruce Waltuck, government improvement and dialogue consultant.

VP Institute for Government Improvement. @complexifed on Twitter instituteforgovimprovement@gmail.com

● John Spady, Social Entrepreneur, CommunityForumsNetwork.org, @jspady, jspady@mac.com

● Glenis Joyce, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon Canada @gjcanada● Brian Sullivan, CivicEvolution, http://civicevolution.org● Kyle Bozentko, The Jefferson Center, www.jefferson-center.org● Leanne Nurse, IAP2-USA, board member (Hi, Leanne! -Larry Schooler)(ditto)● Brad Stauffer, APR, Colorado Association of School Boards● Tina Nabatchi, Maxwell School, Syracuse University● Greg Keidan, Associate AmericaSpeaks and CK Group (seeking work),

gregkeidan@gmail.com ● Bill Logue, The Logue Group, Sr Affiliate MA Office of Public Collaboration● Janet Thomson, IAP2 NorCal Co-Chair, Kearns & West, www.kearnswest.com,

jthomson@kearnswest.com ● Jennifer Hurley, city planner and public involvement facilitator, www.hfadesign.com,

JLHurley@hfadesign.com, @JenHurPlanner● Courtney Breese, NCDD Board Member, MA Office of Public Collaboration,

courtney.breese@umb.edu ● Marla Crockett, independent consultant, NCDD Board member, DC area● Barbara Simonetti, Meetings That Matter, NCDD Board member● Kimberly Bain, Vice-Chair International Association of Facilitators● David Wayne Johnson, Associate Planner, Jefferson County, Washignton● Bill Corbett, Center for Voter Deliberation of Northern Virginia● Lance Cooper, Maxwell School, Syracuse University● Nancy Thomas, the Democracy Imperative, www.unh.edu/democracy/ ● Lorelei Kelly SmartCongress http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bb7zSsfNXo ● @loreleikelly● Tyrone Reitman, Healthy Democracy Fund - healthydemocracy.org● Julie Stuart, Making Ideas Visible, Visual & Creative facilitation @juliestuart

www.makingideasvisible.com Julie@makingideasvisible.com ● Patrick Scully, Clearview Consulting LLC; and www.Participedia.net ;

pscully@clearviewconsultingllc.com ● Jonathan Denn, www.aGREATER.US @jmdenn @ElectoralSummit● Leah Sweetman, Center for Service & Community Engagement, Saint Louis University● Mattice Haynes, Facilitator at The Art of Community & Senior Associate at

AmericaSpeaks, @matticeh, matticehaynes.com● Mary Lou Addor, Natural Resources Leadership Institute/Cooperative Extension, NC

State University.www.ncsu.edu/NRLI● Iwanka Kultschyckyj, Occupy Philadelphia, Facilitator● Susanna Haas Lyons http://engaging.ly @zannalyons :) (hi Susanna! Mattice)

● Alex Moll, U.S. eRulemaking Program, Regulations.gov, Comm. Lead @artafex / moll.alexander@epa.gov

● Robert Corman, President, Applied Concepts, rcorman@gmail.com, ● Philip Moses, Assistant Director, CADRE, the National Center on Dispute Resolution in

Special Education● Kim Crowley, independent consultant, Training & Development Support, Hartford, CT.

Learnwrite@sbcglobal.net● Kate Sheaffer, consultant, Public Policy Communications.● Nancy Leonard, Public Policy Officer, William Caspar Graustein Memorial Fund, CT

nleonard@wcgmf.org● Cameron Kelly-Johnson, Consultant Economic, Political, Deliberative & Otherwise

Florence, AL CKJ@ckj411.com @CKJ411● Leanne Nurse, IAP2-USA

A total of 70 people joined us during the call and over 50 participants accessed this document...

What questions do you have for the speaker or other participants on the call? 1. Larry Schooler: How did you define deliberation and what specific kinds of activities (besides a deliberative poll) did you include as examples of deliberative exercises? (And hi, Cynthia, from a fellow Yalie!) 2. Jennifer Hurley: My experience facilitating effective public involvement processes is that they usually take more time and money resources than clients (government agencies) are willing to expend. Any thoughts on how to show the value of effective engagement?

Larry Schooler: GREAT question--seems like we should think about money saved if lawsuits, recall elections, long delays are to be avoided. Greg Keidan: What Larry said- and also share quotes from elected and appointed officials who have experienced the value of deliberative input, e.g.:Following her city’s budget conversations, the city manager of Daly City explained, “…it will be a little easier for council to make hard decisions about reducing services since we heard through our public engagement process that people were willing to accept certain trade-offs to make sure that their highest priority services and programs would not be affected by the budget reduction.”

3. David Wayne Johnson: Have you heard of Dynamic Facilitation and the Wisdom Council? 4. Stephen Buckley: I’m very surprised of your description of the interviewees’ concept of what happens at a “town hall meeting”. Usually, when a politician conducts (i.e., moderates) a “town hall meeting”, it only requires a speech followed by Q & A.

Julie Stuart: Yes, and my Rep now only holds “telephone town halls” Sandy Heierbacher: We should “reclaim” the meaning of “Town Meeting” or “Town Hall”! I know others are doing work on this, but NCDD could help. Yes!!-Julie Let's do it!!!! Mattice I would not call it a Town Hall...I would reframe it entirely...I just did a staff audit on social media and engagement...people are looking for institutional modernization techniques...that use new media...that’s a more promising way forward. This was with abou 42 Hill staff, house and senate. tea party really ruined Town Halls for Members over health care bill in 2009 Lorelei Kelly: there’s no need to even use the lexicon that is debatable...”town hall” every Member of Congress has some sort of convening mechanism in their district...just call it that...and improve it...it already has huge buy in. Some do office hours, others have their own invention.

Gabby Giffords getting shot was a gamechanger, btw...about the practice of democracy in the open

5. Jennifer Hurley: I like to distinguish between one-way speech (lectures, posters, static websites), two-way speech (Q&A, interviews, websites with comment features), and multi-way speech (small group dialogue, social media)

Tina Nabatchi: AGREED! I do this also. 6. Brad Stauffer: What training do you recommend for professionals to become these neutral facilitators and expertly facilitate deliberative processes?

Steve Buckley: The type of training should match the type of meeting. I would start out with the most basic “public meeting” (i.e., a speech/proposal followed by Q&A), then figure out what basic training (“Moderation 101”) would be needed for that basic type of meeting. Advanced training would be for meetings with higher degree of dialogue & deliberation. Jennifer Hurley: I also like discussion methods that don’t require trained facilitators at each small group, like world cafe or open space technology. I find that if groups are 6 or fewer people, and people have the opportunity to move around and mix the groups up, table facilitators aren’t necessary.

Lorelei Kelly: excellent idea...the potential for open space technology and Congress is immense. Brad Stauffer: I’m interested in the higher-level dialogue/deliberation and what sources are available for that training or even certification. Brad Janet Thomson: Hi Brad - IAP2 does public participation training -- check out the IAP2 USA page for more info: http://iap2usa.org/training. ps - feel free to follow up with me w/any questions on it, jthomson@kearnswest.com Brad Stauffer: Thanks, Janet. Brad Sandy Heierbacher: Oh, and be sure to check out our discounted trainings page at www.ncdd.org/discounts -- that list includes many of the top trainings offered in our field (plus dues-paying NCDD members get some good discounts on them.) Brad Stauffer: Thanks, Sandy. Brad

7. Nancy Leonard: I am reminded of an example from Australia (that I heard about at a NCDD conference) where an offer was made to a government official to use a deliberative process to decide a thorny issue about where to locate an on/off ramp to a major highway. The result was that the local residents wrestled with the issue (a no-win issue) and came up with a compromise solution. Could we think about how to identify issues where deliberation could be most helpful and offer direct support?

Cynthia Farrar: I agree with your observation that participants need to share in the power in order to sustain interest/credibility. In this Australia example, the government agreed to live with the decision of the process participants...it took a strong relationship between a few people to make that happen right out of the box. With sucess, came even more far-reaching opportunities. I do wonder too what the structure would look like over time. Do we have any good case studies on the infrastructure? In New Haven?

8. I worked on Capitol Hill for a decade and found that this community has terrific social capital (trust, valued reputation and relationships) but does not use it in a way that is either helpful or meaningful in a political environment. Staff don’t need information as much as they need context and expert judgment...

Pat Scully: I agree (this is) in the mid 1990s I worked on a project called “Congressional Exchange” in which we worked directly with Members of Congress and their staff to support efforts for them to co-convene deliberative dialogue with their constituents. We had some small successes, but the chief learning I took away from this is that we need to work with and build the trust of staffers. (In fact, Members often seemed more willing to try something new than were their staff.) We came *this*close to setting up a series of dialogues among the chiefs of staff of about a dozen Members. This sort of approach

might also work in state legislatures. Julie Stuart: Oooh, interesting. That would be really useful--convo’s between staffers. Lorelei Kelly: Thanks Pat. Loved that program. Congressional Exchange...I knew about it on the Hill and even have your old brochure!

9. Nancy Thomas: Can universities/colleges play the role of neutral, trusted conveners?

I think so! -Larry I think so, too, Larry. What I really wonder is how legislators view universities as neutral conveners.) What is your take on how “trusted” they are as venues? I’ve been talking to a number of academics about this possibility..it really depends...on whose got cover...and where the funding comes from, plus the internal incentive system of the university inquestion. Nearly always takes one person who loves the idea and is untouchable... Jennifer Hurley: It also depends on the topic/issue. Universities are not neutral when in comes to issues about adjacent neighborhoods - in that case they’re seen as the 800-pound gorilla.(so true --NT) Hi Nancy - Kim Spillers here. Yes, universities and colleges can play this neutral role. In our 2007 work putting together 110 conversations in four states, we heavily relied on colleges, community colleges, and Extension colleagues around the country. The public did perceive neutrality through these resources. We had more than 1100 people participate in these conversations and enjoyed very high levels of trust from them. It was extremely rewarding to engage so many and continue proving deliberation works. Kim, thanks! Do you have data on perceptions of participants? -- Nancy T. No, Nancy, we don’t have data. The conversations were a purchased product and are owned by AARP and are not available to the public. This was a learning moment for us. Check out what USAID is doing with land grant schools. Keep in mind that academic knowledge is under attack in this country and does not represent itself effectively in Congress, that’s for sure...look at what happened to Climate science...i.e. for a significant faction of Americans, institutionalized knowledge is suspect...is a tragedy... Julie Stuart: yes, and not only that but for people who have not been to college, that might be an intimidating/non-friendly environment. (Lisa Heft is in my head all the time)

Julie Stuart: I’m fascinated by the Occupy movement too. It will be interesting to see if they can build capacity and gain political muscle. They definitely changed the messaging around income inequality in 3 short months. We all know what 99% means. Sandy Heierbacher: Maybe we should have a Confab call just about that. (though it’s tricky; we don’t want to appear partisan) Julie Stuart: It’s a fascinating movement to study though--lots of interesting experiments and models coming out of it. Lorelei Kelly: They don’t want to appear partisan either...and we’re really explicit about it re: the memo I wrote to the Member office, where we meet, etc...there is a division of labor of leadership of sorts shaking out of Occupy...and they insist on no hierarchy, but I think the key is giving them ways to share leadership that is in synch with their value of no hierarchy...don’t know exactly what that looks like... Lorelei Kelly: RE: Occupy. I just set up a meeting with Occupy and a Member of Congress..I think it is a matter of finding the right people. These young people are amazing and so impressive....they need an Occupy caucus or something...the challenge is creating institutionally empathetic steps forward and a lot of Occupy is just about telling individual stories...and getting arrested but there are some real superstars in the movement...need to help them... Julie Stuart: yes, the challenge is how to institutionalize without decapitating the passion

10. Julie Stuart: I worked in politics for years at the state level...one of the things I’m thinking about is the difference in pace between deliberation and the day-to-day action when the legislature’s in session. The kind of deliberation we’re talking about takes time and space, which isn’t in supply during session. Wondering what “abbreviated deliberation” would look like? Ideally the deliberation happens before session when there’s time....or if it happens alongside, hopefully it could be influential, woven into the political process. It just feels like two different kinds of rhythms that seem somewhat incompatible.

Kim Spillers: We found this, too, Julie - just no time in session, so we held conversations about health care in May. Julie Stuart: Then the question is how do you make those earlier conversations responsive to what happens 6 months later when bills are being made? Lorelei Kelly: Real time technology experiments are happening during the oversight process....what you’re pointing out is vital Julie Stuart: I’d love to know more about this Lorelei, thanks.

Julie Stuart: Plus there’s the different kinds of “weight” between your average citizens and lobbyists, how to balance those out?

Kim Spillers: During the above-mentioned health care dialogues, we had one specific lobbyist who said she absolutely couldn’t “take off her lobbying hat,” yet she ended up doing so and spoke as a parent on a medical issue that engaged her personally and professionally. I believe she came away very impressed with the process. It was another example of how deliberation levels the playing field for everyone when we tackle issues of importance to the well-being of all. Barbara Simonetti: Thinking that we should use analogies to things we already understand and trust that are deliberative i.e. grand juries and interfaith dialogues. Marla Crockett: I’d also like to broaden this conversation about a public education campaign. It’s something I’ve been interested in for years. How it relates to the infrastructure question should also be explored, but I’m not sure an infrastructure has to precede it.Marla - what have you had in mind? Kim Spillers, kim@ghorizons.com Bruce Waltuck: Thank you for a great call. Wonderful work by Tina and Cynthia, and a pleasure to hear them share what they learned. With regard to building and sustaining a network of citizen D&D forums, I’d point to the lessons we can learn from Social Network Analysts such as Valdis Krebs. There seem to be optimal levels of both structure and flow in and across the boundaries of various deliberative hubs. Energy, in the form of communicated information, can serve to amplify or dampen certain ideas and behaviors. “Differences that make a difference” will help people to sustain their intention and commitment to the process and outcomes. With regard to the low level of awareness or knowledge on the part of legislators & staff, I would suggest that there is no substitute for the experience of truly collaborative and generative dialogue/deliberation. Politicians, perhaps more than many others, are used to communicating in conversational ways - the exchange of what are essentially positions, aimed overwhelmingly at influencing outcomes. But in dialogue, we are communicating in a very different way. We are “thinking together” and constructing meaning not just within ourselves, but socially, in the shared space with others. To me, this is the key lesson of D&D. Will policy-makers accept what is in essence a sharing of power and authority? If their attraction to “the greater good” is more than their attraction to power and money. A cynic’s viewpoint perhaps, but I am also hopeful about the potential for positive change. PS to Tina- hoping for another great chat on my next return to Maxwell.

Other stuff you want to share related to call content... Purple States: http://www.purplestates.tv/ Tele-Town Hall: http://www.teletownhall.com/

John Spady: Recent “American Immigration Forum” was conducted by Mayor Conrad Lee of Bellevue, Washington and arranged by myself for the new Bellevue Community Forums:http://artofhosting.ning.com/events/american-immigration-forum-an-asian-perspective (I am available to speak to the Nobel Peace Prize people anytime, Tina :-) John Spady: If people/politicians are not aware of public engagement methodologies, then I suggest we do more visible public models in the real world. John Spady: a “locally trusted intermediary” could be NCDD by itself or in collaboration with others. A “National Dialogue Network” made up of collaborating organizations for strengthening public engagement. I think we can design a system that allows all voices to participate.

Leanne Nurse: Folks from NCDD and IAP2-USA will be meeting soon to consider strategic alliances across our field and for specific public issues. John: Thanks Leanne! I am a member of both organizations -- how can I be involved in these conversations?

Frank & Kim Spillers: The National Conference of State Legislatures has reported on deliberation, through a 3-year connection with the Kettering Foundation. We also know that state Senator Les Ihara uses deliberation often in Hawaii. Our contact with NCSL is Bruce Feustel. He participated in our Iowa work to engage state legislators. Find him at bruce.feustel@ncsl.org. Google NCSL Deliberation to find links to their work. Les is at senihara@Capitol.hawaii.gov

Cynthia Farrar: we are working with Bruce and his colleagues. And Les Ihara was one of the people I interviewed! (He was the exception on knowledge of public deliberation.) Both terrific men we appreciate professionally and enjoy personally!

Greg Keidan: More case studies from California local governments at http://www.ca-ilg.org/engagement and a tool to assess your public engagement effort: http://www.ca-ilg.org/rapidreview. Stephen Buckley: Join a moderated discussion group for developing standard metrics for evaluation of public engagement at http://www.OpenGovMetrics.com or join by sending a blank email here. Alternatively, you can follow the occasional tweets at http://twitter.com/opengovmetrics. Nancy Thomas: The conference I mentioned -- Frontiers of Democracy -- will be July 19-12 at Tufts University in Boston. You can get more information on either the TDI or the DDC web sites. The example Jacqueline gave -- that’s the kind of program we’d like to discuss during the pre-conference workshop, as well as any interesting partnerships people from civic organizations have had. That workshop will be during the day on Thursday. Frontiers officially begins at 5 pm on Thursday. Thanks. www.unh.edu/democracy or nancy.thomas@unh.edu

Leanne Nurse: Save the Date - Thursday, September 20, 2012, Washington, DC Symposium for Federal Practitioners. Speakers, workshops, assess the state of Open Government.

Steve Buckley: Leanne, is there a link or can you give more details? Thanks. Can I call dibs on the session on “OpenGovMetrics”? ;) (You would, Steve! - Sandy) :)

Kim Spillers: Iowa Partners in Learning, our deliberative group, is hosting its 3rd Teaching Deliberatively Workshop July 9 - 13 at the Iowa State Education Association offices in Des Moines, Iowa. The goal is to engage high school teachers and community members who will commit to learning about deliberation and intend to use it in their classrooms and communities for a year. In exchange for this commitment, the participants will receive three credit hours for teacher licensing or grad credit. Here’s the link with initial info http://teachingdeliberatively.blogspot.com/ Through this, we have brought in about another 40 people during the first two workshops who know of and are practicing deliberation with students, which is exciting! Contact Kim or Frank Spillers at above info. Kimberly Bain: This has been a great call, thanks everyone! I have to take a sick kid to the Dr so have to leave early but I wanted to remind everyone about the International Association of Facilitators North American Conference on May 9 - 12 in Halifax, NS. We have a number of workshops, dialogues and discussion groups on the issue of engagement, participation and facilitated processes in public policy development. We also have a full scale Executive Program for two days before the conference and a TEDx focused on participation and engagement on the evening of the 9th. I would love to see us continue this conversation in Halifax! The IAP2Canada folks will be at the conference as will people from the public policy forum. Alex Moll: You can take part in next week's Regulations.gov Public Webinar and Twitter Chat. Register at http://regsrelaunch.eventbrite.com. A summary of Regulations.gov relaunch can be found at http://www.govloop.com/profiles/blogs/the-regulations-gov-relaunch and details of the new Regulations.gov features can be found at http://exchange.regulations.gov/exchange/topic/exchange/discussion/relaunch.

Feedback on the Confab:How did this confab work for you? How can we improve the calls and the use of google docs for future calls? Nancy Thomas: This is great. Thanks for doing this, Sandy, Cynthia, and Tina! Cameron Kelly-Johnson: The call has been really great. The open nature of the call felt much more participative than the average call I get “stuck” on. For once I actually wanted to be there. Great work on everyone’s part. I would encourage using the chat on the doc more extensively. Jennifer Hurley: Having the Google doc definitely helped me stay engaged, when I often wander off during a conference call.

Leanne Nurse: Thanks to the presenters and all participants for a very informative call with lots practical possibilities. Take care! Glenis Joyce: Energizing and mind-spinning, thank you everyone. Kyle Bozentko: Thanks to all who organized this event and participated. The format made it much easier to stay involved and pay attention over a long call. Thanks to Tina and Cynthia as well for sharing their research. Glad to hear talk about infrastructure development and outreach/education efforts!

Sandy Heierbacher: Which part of the format are you talking about that worked for you? The google doc, or how we ran the call? Want to know!

Kyle Bozentko: The format of the call worked with the simple mute/unmute option, but the google doc helped stay on top of what others were thinking and it was helpful being able to see what comments and questions were on others’ minds; helped to alleviate overlap with less of a rush to get a word in if others had the same topic in mind.

Sandy Heierbacher: Thanks so much for the feedback, Kyle! We’ve been learning so much by doing these Confabs, and I feel like we’re getting into a good rhythm now. Plus, I think the use of freeconference.com plus google docs is a great model for doing these kinds of calls on a budget.

Julie Stuart: Love the google doc and being able to see who is on the call with links to email/twitter/website--great way to foster connections.

Kim Spillers: I agree, Julie! Love the live interaction! Kim Spillers: Thank you to Cynthia and Tina for your interviews and report. We continue to press on with the positive impacts we know can be achieved with deliberation. I am intrigued by how we can use a medium like this confab to engage citizens and we’ll discuss with our state and federal legislators. To Sandy, thanks for the ability to “talk” through Google Docs - I’ve used to work on docs, but this is my first experience with it “live,” and it’s fun and engaging! Melvin Cañas: I missed the conference call. I was so looking forward to it. Sorry. Will it be made available online at some point? (Melvin Cañas from the Dept. of Neighborhood Empowerment, City of Los Angeles)

Andy Fluke: Yes. Final document styled for readability on February 25, 2012 by Andy Fluke, NCDD. Any changes made after this will not be included in the distributed document. Want your voice heard by the NCDD

community? Contact us with news and information about your work!