- Ruth Boettcher, Wildlife Biologist, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fish
To finish up on the last few points in this month’s Brownbag session, we left off in your handouts at IV. Fundamentals for Preventing / Correcting CP Error #5, item C on page 14, this was the last of three (A-C) points.
Here are the rest of the finer points we wanted to relay to you . . .
These two points are probably a good short-hand rule for getting THIS part of CP Error #5 right.
It’s best if you can get clear in YOUR mind and in your publics’ minds that:
But . . .
Don’t EVER contribute to such sentiments!
You may NOT have a Hidden Agenda at all . . . But, if some of your stakeholders THINK that you’re NOT interested in doing the 16 Technical Steps rigorously, honestly, and transparently . . . Then, they will conclude you must have a Hidden Agenda!!!
Creating THAT kind of impression with your public is far worse than shooting yourself in the foot at the start of a marathon race. It’s more like shooting yourself in the knee-cap!
Giving the impression that you DO have a Hidden Agenda is a phenomenally stupid thing to do!
We are continually amazed how many public-sector professionals, who are otherwise sensible, manage to continually do this . . . And, therefore, to keep suffering the consequences of:
All of it feeding already rampant ANTI-government attitudes . . .
It is also demoralizing for you and your team . . . You can’t afford to do that!
i.e. Failing to explain, justify, represent those Rules, Regulations, Standards, Guidelines, and Laws that you are implementing, but instead to just remark “Don’t blame me for these stupid guidelines, I just work here.”
Realize that if you have an important public-sector Mission . . .
“Talking Back” about Technical Steps - especially Judgment Steps—simply amounts to Internal Consent-Building . . . i.e. Getting your boss’ consent to make a mid-course correction in your Planning Process.
For those of you who ARE responsible for the Citizen Participation side of the two parallel processes we often bring up (doing Consent-Building simultaneously as you do your Technical work—those 16 steps):
1. Play the Devil’s Advocate . . .
2. Get so comfortable and confident with those 16 Technical Steps where YOU will go public—aggressively—with the WEAKEST points in them BEFORE your opponents can go public with them!
All of this is about Consent-Building . . .
Recognize that you ARE part of government. Talking in a “blaming” way about other governmental entities breeds disrespect. Moreover, it’s unfair to your colleagues and their work, and it reflects poorly not only on them, but on ALL government—including you!
Don’t give in to the hypocritical temptation to bad-mouth “politics.” Using the term “politics” as if it were a four-lettered word.
When some of your colleagues talk of “politics” as if it were a curse word, point out to them that it’s utterly hypocritical to whine about “politics” while insisting on living in—and in your case WORKING in—a democratic system of government.
“Politics” is how democracies make decisions! Is it complicated? Is it crazy? Of course! But, the alternative is to NOT live and work in such a system.
November 8, 2011
Citizen Participation Error #6: Losing Sight of the Big Picture
December 13, 2011
When the Fear of Change Paralyzes Your Stakeholders
January 10, 2012
Why Do Stakeholders Only Care about Their Issues?!?
February 14, 2012
What to Do When Feedback is Lop-Sided and Not Representative
•
(0) Comments
Following this month’s Brownbag Session, we had a couple of questions that need answering… Feel free to add your own questions or thoughts at any time.
Hans recommended moving to virtual advisory committees via a blog; our group liked the idea but some participants suggested that social media such as Facebook have overtaken blogs and would be a better choice. Can Hans discuss this question on the IPMP blog? Thanks! -Karen
You are right that there are many other means of communicating with a group of PAIs (Potentially Affected Interests), that in some ways might be more effective than a blog. We have analyzed what does and doesn’t work through the research I’ve (Jennifer Bleiker) conducted in order to write my Master’s thesis on the various pros and cons of using different forms of Social Media as tools to communicate with various publics.
From what we can tell, a blog tends to be more comprehensive in that you are not limited to 140 characters as you would be with Twitter, or 450 with Facebook (although there are plug-ins which allow users to create longer documents within Facebook outside of status updates).
The major drawback to a blog is that people have to take the initiative to go to YOUR site to read it, rather than opening up a platform (such as Facebook or Twitter) that they are already using, and simply getting an update on your project without any additional effort on their behalf. That being said, in the case of an Advisory Committee that meets in person (and as mentioned by one participant in the Brownbag session as many as 50+ hrs a year), going to a website is a lot less inconvenient than aligning several schedules to meet in person.
While a blog is one of the less convenient Social Media tools you might consider using to communicate with PAIs because it requires them to go to your blog’s page, it is worth noting that it can be somewhat difficult to ensure that PAIs read or are exposed to a status update from a project or agency’s Facebook page or Twitter feed. The reason being is that the timing of the update may not coincide with when they are using or checking that particular medium. In other words, the message sent out might get lost among other status updates unless the user goes to that agency or project’s specific Facebook page or Twitter feed.
As with many of the Citizen Participation tools we discuss in the CPO course, we have found that it appears most useful to use BOTH a blog and other forms of social media. This way, each is supplemented so that the weaknesses are not quite as likely to hinder effective communication, and the strengths can be more fully utilized.
So, in the case of an agency or project that has a blog, we would recommend using that as the place to develop a more thorough discussion on a particular topic. The blog (and associated website) would enable an agency to also post links to relevant video, plans, other websites, contact information, upcoming and past information, etc. that would more fully inform PAIs. Then, we would encourage the use of platforms like Facebook and Twitter to alert people to these blog updates, to give them a sense of what is discussed, and to pique their interest so that they are more likely to follow what is going on with the project.
Micro-blogging tools (such as Facebook, Twitter, Google +, etc.) are just that—great for micro- or mini-blogging. They allow an agency to bring up things that might be too insignificant for a blog, but can be said in a snippet.
As you learned in the SDIC course, it is often imperative that you get bold, or even provocative in your communication with your PAIs so that they are more likely to pay attention and tune-in to what and why things are happening in relation to the project. Using these micro-blogging platforms are a great way to bring up sensitive information, and can be another facet of the tactic of “Public-Hangwringing” (a previous Brownbag topic).
So, in the case of creating a “Virtual Advisory Committee,” we think that using a couple of different and complimentary social mediums is the best way to go. That is, unless the discussions need to be closed to the public. In that instance, creating a Facebook “Group” or a Google + “Circle” might be easier than a blog that cannot be accessed by the general public.
Otherwise, using micro-blogging tools such as Facebook will allow you to reach the folks who will never have or take the time to go to your particular blog or website, and yet you can still alert that via Facebook that an even more thorough and dynamic conversation is taking place on the project’s blog.
Again, we highly recommend that any blog or Facebook page be well monitored. It’s best if folks are allowed to post messages and comments to a blog, but that those comments are either vetted before they go public, or are watched extremely closely. Comments on a Facebook page will be instantaneous, so it’s important to figure out who and how someone will react if something inappropriate or off-topic is posted. Ideally, such guidelines are posted to your website and/or Facebook page well in advance, so that your PAIs are forewarned that not just anything can be posted.
I found yesterday’s brownbag topic to be very relevant and interesting. I was also quite intrigued by the use of virtual meeting and committees. I had a question about the usefulness of an advisory committee when they are actually the decision makers – they are given a set of options or guide lines and as long as the decision is w/in the guide lines it’s approved. If there is any blow back from the public they are given the contact info for the committee members to call and complain because they are responsible for their decisions. Thanks, Brenda
In this Brownbag session, Hans was talking as if there was only one kind of advisory committee, when in our SDIC course we cover 10 different kinds. Most of those we discuss are Content-Type advisory committees, but there are situations when Popularity advisory committees are useful.
To determine if a Popularity-Type advisory committee is warranted, you’d have to be able to determine that it is a situation where all of the different approaches to the project (i.e. all of the solutions) would work technically as well as any other.
For example, a planner who outlined several kinds of playground equipment that would be technically acceptable to meet the requirements for a new children’s’ park, might decide to use a Popularity-Type advisory committee composed of parents to select from the list of equipment because the differences were technically immaterial, but perhaps important to parents.
Another example of when it would be appropriate to use a Popularity-Type of advisory committee would be for wildlife biologists who manage a reservoir used for sport-fishing. While it may be technically insignificant whether the team of biologist stock the reservoir with a small quantity of large fish, or with a large number of small fish (only that it is one or the other, but not both); they may decide to use a Popularity-Type advisory committee to allow the stakeholders (in this case the sports fishermen) to select between the two alternatives.
Hans didn’t touch on this kind of advisory committee, so we are glad you brought it up. The first decision you must make is if an advisory committee is the appropriate Citizen Participation tool to use at all. If so, you must then determine the nature of the advice that you are seeking on your project.
As long as professionally and technically the differences between the alternatives from which a Popularity-Type advisory committee has to choose from is insignificant, then it is fine to use such a technique (instead of a Consent-Type of advisory committee). The result is that Popularity-Type advisory committees make the ultimate decision between the various (technically identical) options, which is very different from the role of Content-Type advisory committees.
Our only warning is that you be certain this is the kind of advice you are seeking, otherwise you’ll end up making the serious, but common, Error #3: of “Confusing Advice-Giving and Decision-Making.”
•
(0) Comments
A call from some clients highlights that using the tactic of calling for a “Time-Out” is just plain common sense! . . . Provided you HAVE common sense.
A couple of friends – one working for a federal agency, the other serving on a politically appointed local planning board – had been doing what they could to encourage a group of volunteers (members of a Rotary club) to tackle a problem that the town government had been neglecting for too long.
You’d think that trying to figure out how to stop the erosion, protect other important riparian qualities, and exploring how to make the most of the potential the riverfront offers to enhance the town . . . and its residents’ quality of life . . . would be such a feel-good planning effort that it wouldn’t create much controversy. (Yes, we know, we DO teach that “every solution to a problem will HURT some interests.” But, get real, who is going to oppose THIS kind of planning effort?)
Well – you guessed it – a handful of people became fairly unglued, . . . felt threatened, . . . got quite polarized, . . . dug in their heels, and set off a raucous of protests!
Our friends, (one of whom happens to be a former student of Hans’ Graduate Community and Regional Planning program at the University of Wyoming), felt that the thing to do was to:
Step back,
An important caution (from the Bleikers): Don’t rush into solutions . . . Don’t do ANYTHING else. Until the community has come to terms with these questions.
In short, what our friends proposed is EXACTLY what we would have proposed: A “Time-Out.” Even though the protests didn’t seem entirely rational considering the work (i.e. improvements) being proposed,,to ignore them would be a serious mistake.
Although they didn’t call it a “Time-Out,” that’s what stepping back and focusing on the questions “IS there a problem?” . . . And, “IF there IS a problem, WHOSE responsibility is it to do something about it?” amounts to.
When some potentially affected interests go ballistic for no obvious reason . . . When their hard-to-understand behavior derails – or threatens to derail – the planning process, you’ve got to get people back to basics:
Strong, clear answers to these questions form the basis of legitimate planning and give a great example for why calling a “Time Out” is nothing but common sense!
Bleiker Life Preserver
Brownbag Topics
May 2011
•
(0) Comments
Following the March 2011 Brownbag, we received a comment from a listener who was frustrated that we didn’t give, what she felt, was the means to moving a person from the Over-My-Dead-Body position to being at least willing to give his or her Informed Consent.
As a result, we felt it might be necessary to post a reminder that moving such fierce opponents from a staunch position to willingly giving their Informed Consent is the purpose and point of ALL of these Brownbag sessions, as well as our Consent-Building training.
(It is also worth noting that those folks who have been through our SDIC (Systematic Development of Informed Consent) course will get far more out of these Brownbag sessions than those who have yet to go through that most basic training.)
There is no quick-fix to getting members of your public (your PAIs) to make this transition. . .
What we teach is first a means to understanding WHY your PAIs are opposed to even your best work, and then WHAT you can do about it. . . Again, to move them up from being Over-My-Dead-Body opponents, to PAIs who give their grudging Informed Consent.
However, none of what you will learn from us is a gimmick. Most gimmicks are slick, spin-based, and illegitimate. You don’t need gimmicks if you are serious about being a public-sector problem-solver, who realizes that the project you and your colleagues are working on is just one of many to come; your credibility and mission cannot afford that! Don’t fall into the temptation to use gimmicks.
So, we apologize that you won’t get a quick-fix from us. We have a lot of tools that you can apply immediately; many of which will have instant healing effects on your relationship with Over-My-Dead-Body opponents.
But, if you are going to become an Implementation Genius, it’s YOU that needs to change. How your approach your PAIs, your projects, and your overall mission. And as most of us already know, changing old habits generally takes a lot of time and effort, but it IS doable.
If you are ready to undergo a paradigm shift and really communicate with your PAIs and constantly work at developing Informed Consent from your work’s opponents, you will likely notice positive changes overnight.
That in itself is pretty darn amazing, and the closest we can offer to a quick-fix, but with a lot more depth!
Brownbag Topics
March 2011
Implementation Geniuses
Informed Consent
Mistrust
NIMBY
Us vs. Them
•
(0) Comments