Beyond civility: From public engagement to problem solving

4 02 2011

The National League of Cities (NLC) recently released a 10-page “Civility Guide” as an “action guide for city leaders.” Thanks to the blog at civsourceonline.com for highlighting this new publication. It provides practical and thoughtful tips along with quotes from representative local government leaders and examples of the seven principles they put forward.

NLC Executive Director Donald J. Borut wrote, The  following action guide draws on NLC’s continuing work on this topic to present cities and city leaders with ideas and a framework for action to promote democratic governance. As NLC defines it, democratic governance is “the art of governing a community in participatory, deliberative, inclusive and collaborative ways.” This isn’t easy work, but it is essential to the effective functioning of our cities and our society.

The publication is succinct and easy to follow. For P2 practitioners, there is nothing stunningly new in its content, but it is refreshing to hear proponents for meaningful public participation coming from within local government.

One of the most striking statements in the document was acknowledgement that city officials, staff and citizens need training and/or some kind of better understanding of effective public engagement. In a 2010 NLC survey, about half of all city officials and top staff surveyed said that neither they nor their constituents have the skills and experience needed to carry out effective public engagement. To me, this is a call to action for P2 folks to rise to the challenge of equipping our clients and communities! I am convinced that once someone has experienced “effective public engagement” – meaning, that citizens feel heard or decision-makers feel they have a better outcome because of public input – people become believers in and advocates for meaningful public processes.

I encourage you to check out this guide and share your thoughts on what is most compelling to you.





The quest for civil discourse

13 01 2011

Last week Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker and Lt. Gov. Greg Bell announced an initiative to foster civil discourse in Utah. The timing of this announcement right before the unexpected tragic event on Sat., Jan. 8, in Tucson, Ariz., makes it all the more relevant. What I have found most interesting in the aftermath of the assassination attempt on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is the discussion about the downward spiral of incivility in political discourse.

The trend is highlighted in a piece on international news coverage of the event for PRI’s The World (the second clip in the story from the UK was particularly interesting to me). Bloggers from all walks of life and backgrounds are taking up the issue of civility in the wake of Saturday’s shootings. Here are links to posts from a social media strategist, an educator and a sports commentator. And President Obama addressed the theme of civility in his remarks at the Jan. 12 memorial service.

My primary question regarding civil discourse is where do we see it modeled? The Internet and social media allow us to spout off opinions that are often reactionary. Political pundits who have gained notoriety on radio and cable television only fuel the fire of “us” against “them.” I have been amazed in the past couple elections what passes as “political discourse” … it sounds more like trash-talk from the sports locker room!  If our political leaders cannot model appropriate civil discourse, no wonder citizens struggle as well.

Civil discourse is not flashy, dramatic or violent. It can be confrontational. It should be well-researched. And civil discourse requires listening, not just talking. It includes an attempt to understand other points of view. But we prefer to listen only to like-minded people who share the same values and beliefs. It takes work to get out of our comfort zone and truly seek to understand other perspectives.

As P2 practitioners, we should be proponents of civil discourse and design processes that help people engage in thoughtful consideration of a range of issues and respectful dialogue.