In an effort to follow new and interesting practices in engaement, I’ve spent some time looking into the work of Everyday Democracy – a non-profit organization that works closely with communities across the U.S. to address complex, local level issues through public involvement (PI). Its work seems to reflect a much larger trend around PI, which is the rise of community-based initiatives, particularly in the U.S.
To help demonstrate the type of impact that PI can have on the local level, let’s look at Portsmouth Listens, a collaborative effort between the city of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and its citizens to impact important local issues through increased PI. According to Matt Leighninger, “Portsmouth Listens shows that public engagement processes do not have to be ‘owned’ by government – that they in fact may be more effective and sustainable when they are jointly owned… it harks back to a time in New England when public life was as much a function of community as politics.”
It all started in 1999 with the issue of bullying in the city’s middle school. In an attempt to address the situation, the school invited students, teachers, parents and neighbours (e.g. homeowners, shop owners and individuals from a nearby senior’s housing complex) to participate in a dialogue.
Some of the most notable ideas came from students themselves, which included moving the school’s bike rack to another area that has more traffic and is less isolated, and increase lighting in certain areas around the school grounds. A year later, the town council used this process as the foundation for gathering public input on school redistricting, which can be a ‘hot’ issue in any community. With a significant enrollment imbalance between Portsmouth’s three elementary schools, rotating dialogues were held in each one. This process helped increase comfort levels, as parents were given the opportunity to get a feel for all the schools, thereby decreasing the antagonism around “moving my kid from their school.”
These types of participative initiatives continue to be used in Portsmouth today. For example, residents can review the city’s Master Plan, which outlines the framework for the community’s planning and land use decisions. In one review, citizens came up with a unique idea that wasn’t in the Plan – to convert an old soap factory to an art colony, which could also attract tourists to the city. For more information, please visit this link for Everyday Democracy’s two-part orientation video (scroll down).
All of this leads me to ask three questions:
- Are these types of community-level initiatives emerging to the same extent here in Canada? (I would argue that they aren’t, or are not as well publicized)
- How is the potential for community-level change affected by the fact that our municipalities are “creatures of the provinces,” which provide less funding sources and regulatory levers in relations to their American counterparts?
- What actions we can take as citizens, so as not to limit the possibilities for citizen-led, community-level change here in Canada?
-Tristan Eclarin-
Paul Born, community conversations and the secret to real dialogue
Friday, January 13th, 2012
Dialogue. We hear this word all the time in the world of community engagement. Nowadays, dialogue can prevail both in person and online. But at the core, the intent is the same: to have dialogue is to take people from all walks of life and bring them together to consider and deliberate on a topic until an understanding can be reached. Dialogue has the potential to bring connection, cohesion, and in turn, community.
Ideally, this is what dialogue is to us. Realistically, though, can it exist? Can true, honest dialogue really ensue between human beings? The reality is every person has their own set of judgments, assumptions and defenses. This was a much discussed point at a panel discussion on Civic Engagement in the Canadian and German Federations held by the Forum of Federations here in Ottawa. The ongoing question lingers: Is it possible for conflicting personalities to put aside their differences, dispel all judgments, and truly see eye to eye?
What fascinates me so much about this idea is that it empowers a person’s ability to let themself be vulnerable. I think so many of us have this fear of inadequacy, that when faced with something we don’t know, we become assertive, defensive and aggressive with what we do know. Our opinions become searing daggers, attacking everything in their path. Dialogue becomes a battle; we are afraid of the unknown, so we defend ourselves against it.
But just like Paul Born, this is what public engagement agencies like us aim to change. At our dialogue sessions, we often post “dialogue vs. debate” posters which highlight the difference between the two . Before entering a discussion, we remind participants that “when I debate, I listen to find flaws,” but “when I dialogue, I listen to understand.”
What’s the lesson here? Well, I think we should remember it takes immense courage for an individual to truly listen, put aside their assumptions and embrace the need to learn. It comes down to this: Don’t take yourself too seriously and if you don’t understand something, be open to learning. Let it all shine through; show your weaknesses, be open to changing your views because every experience gives you knowledge, and knowledge is strength.
-Holly Clark-
Tags: Civic Engagement, Community Conversations, Deliberation, Dialogue, Tamarack
Posted in Commentary and Opinion | 3 Comments »